> It seems to me like if you're being a stickler about these terms but then handwaving the dissent we saw in China, the Pacific Islands, various European rebell

> It seems to me like if you're being a stickler about these terms but then handwaving the dissent we saw in China, the Pacific Islands, various European rebellions, Celtic tribes, and Norse communities? I specifically mentioned peasant revolts in general, and Wat Tyler's in particular, in the post you originally replied to. And though I guess armed rebels are technically "pursu[ing] their well-being in a bottom-up fashion via social interactions in their local area", I admit I didn't think that's what the author had in mind. > The author's central point that organized societies existed before technology to make them top-down legible to rulers existed–that seems uncontroversial. (1) Is that really the author's central point? I totally didn't get that. (2) Where did I say that organized societies didn't exist before such technology? > Are you really here to be rigid about terms and quibble, or are you here to discuss things like stigmergic organization, fractal aspects of behavior and how human algorithms and hierarchies mesh with that? I'm here to argue that ahistorical assertions are neither helpful nor convincing.