4 ms·

I think that this analysis only focuses on one half of the forces that direct survival. Humans may work more efficiently as small groups, but we have also forme

by astine 19y ago

I think that this analysis only focuses on one half of the forces that direct survival. Humans may work more efficiently as small groups, but we have also formed into large hierarchical structures for as long as we have had history. Egypt and Summaria were both hierarchically governed. Organizations survive by becoming more efficient, but they also survive by have more labor available. Napoleon would not have won a single battle if his soldiers had fought in groups of 8 to 10. I think that it depends more on the specifics of the situation and what you are trying to accomplish. Large organizations have advantages that no small organization can match. You gain your freedom at the price of security.

hollerith 19y ago
Ah, but startup founders living in the US can still rely on the US Army to protect them from invasions.
- zinder 19y ago
  You're already offtopic -- though I think not as offtopic as you might seem to be. You are correct, which is one reason why the US has had such a prolific history. On the other hand, as the US government (and army) grow, we are now going in the opposite direction of lacking security from said army.
neilk 19y ago
So what? Egypt and Sumeria were organized like North Korea today, worship of the head of state. And Napoleon was a tyrant trying to impose his will on an entire continent. If freedom is incompatible with Napoleonic dreams, that is not a bug. Freedom fighters have often chosen the guerilla way. A better example for your point would be the Americans in WWII. But even then, soldiers are not robots and the best commanders give their underlings the freedom to get the job done.
- astine 19y ago
  You're thoroughly missing my point. PG's argument is that man was designed, via evolution, to live relatively autonomously. My point is that even a casual glance at history disproves that. The German and Swiss states, for all their autonomy, couldn't stand up to Napoleon's hierarchical tyranny. In fact, it took a far more tyrannical society, Russia, to put Napoleon in his place. Hierarchy is sometimes necessary for survival, and is thus favored by evolution. When we seek freedom, it is not because it is the evolutionarily superior state. It is because their is a conflict between individual advantage and collective advantage. When evaluating life decisions, you have to account for both.
  - scottgnet 19y ago
    Because German and Swiss states couldn't stand up to a larger force organized hierarchically is not proof that humans have _not_ evolved to work in small groups, it is only very poor empirical evidence that a larger force with better weapons can defeat a smaller, disorganized force. As for why people seek freedom, I doubt most consciously think about it in those terms. You seem to think that individuals ponder about the pros and cons of going it alone or being part of a collective, but it just doesn't happen that way. When you're brought up in a culture that is already one way or the other, and that is all you know, you rarely choose because it's not even a question that enters your mind. I'd suggest reading Beyond Civilization by Daniel Quinn.
    - astine 19y ago
      The essential flaw in your logic is this: "evolved to" Evolution has neither purpose nor end. That which is more 'fit' (a very vague term to be sure) is what evolution favors. If a larger force with better weapons can defeat a smaller, disorganized force, then evolution clearly favors the former. Napoleon is a case example. There are many, many more I could call upon, but I think a lesson in world history is beyond the scope of this debate.
  - neilk 19y ago
    Hierarchy is probably necessary for any society. Tree structures are efficient. But tyranny is inefficient. It's all about ruining the bonds of trust that hold society and the economy together, just to benefit a small number of people. All your examples are tyrannies. There is a word for people who invoke naive Darwinism to justify tyranny, but it escapes me at the moment.

by astine 19y ago

hollerith 19y ago

Ah, but startup founders living in the US can still rely on the US Army to protect them from invasions.

zinder 19y ago
You're already offtopic -- though I think not as offtopic as you might seem to be. You are correct, which is one reason why the US has had such a prolific history. On the other hand, as the US government (and army) grow, we are now going in the opposite direction of lacking security from said army.

neilk 19y ago

So what? Egypt and Sumeria were organized like North Korea today, worship of the head of state. And Napoleon was a tyrant trying to impose his will on an entire continent. If freedom is incompatible with Napoleonic dreams, that is not a bug. Freedom fighters have often chosen the guerilla way. A better example for your point would be the Americans in WWII. But even then, soldiers are not robots and the best commanders give their underlings the freedom to get the job done.

astine 19y ago
You're thoroughly missing my point. PG's argument is that man was designed, via evolution, to live relatively autonomously. My point is that even a casual glance at history disproves that. The German and Swiss states, for all their autonomy, couldn't stand up to Napoleon's hierarchical tyranny. In fact, it took a far more tyrannical society, Russia, to put Napoleon in his place. Hierarchy is sometimes necessary for survival, and is thus favored by evolution. When we seek freedom, it is not because it is the evolutionarily superior state. It is because their is a conflict between individual advantage and collective advantage. When evaluating life decisions, you have to account for both.
- scottgnet 19y ago
  Because German and Swiss states couldn't stand up to a larger force organized hierarchically is not proof that humans have _not_ evolved to work in small groups, it is only very poor empirical evidence that a larger force with better weapons can defeat a smaller, disorganized force. As for why people seek freedom, I doubt most consciously think about it in those terms. You seem to think that individuals ponder about the pros and cons of going it alone or being part of a collective, but it just doesn't happen that way. When you're brought up in a culture that is already one way or the other, and that is all you know, you rarely choose because it's not even a question that enters your mind. I'd suggest reading Beyond Civilization by Daniel Quinn.
  - astine 19y ago
    The essential flaw in your logic is this: "evolved to" Evolution has neither purpose nor end. That which is more 'fit' (a very vague term to be sure) is what evolution favors. If a larger force with better weapons can defeat a smaller, disorganized force, then evolution clearly favors the former. Napoleon is a case example. There are many, many more I could call upon, but I think a lesson in world history is beyond the scope of this debate.
- neilk 19y ago
  Hierarchy is probably necessary for any society. Tree structures are efficient. But tyranny is inefficient. It's all about ruining the bonds of trust that hold society and the economy together, just to benefit a small number of people. All your examples are tyrannies. There is a word for people who invoke naive Darwinism to justify tyranny, but it escapes me at the moment.