3 ms·

> I think heirarchy is a natural human inclination. It's observed in every part of the animal kingdom. I have two main objections to this line of thinking: 1.

> I think heirarchy is a natural human inclination. It's observed in every part of the animal kingdom. I have two main objections to this line of thinking: 1. Even if a tendency or behavior can occur in "nature", that doesn't necessarily make it correct. By that measure murder, infanticide, rape etc. should also be considered acceptable since they occur in nature (both with humans and animals). 2. If you take a look at smth like The World Until Yesterday or other similar work it will become apparent that the kind of large scale hierarchies of power present in the modern world are relatively recent constructions. To me they're more a hallmark of contingency and deliberate human choices, not of "nature". If we want to make a less hierarchical society we can, it's in our power to change the design of society (to a significant extent at least).

Thorentis 6y ago
1. Yes, agree, but this just depends on your opinion of what is "correct". Nature selects for survival, not correctness. I think rigid hierarchy is more advantageous for overall survival, but I am not advocating for that. I think there is something significant about the fact that humans almost always tend towards hierarchy (Lord of the Flies illustrates this). 2. I agree that large scale beauracracies are not in the best interests of humanity. I would argue for hierarchy, with less power the higher up the chain you go. E.g. Local governments should have more power than federal/national governments. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a national government.
- 0df8dkdf 6y ago
  > I think rigid hierarchy is more advantageous for overall survival I can see how one can see it that way, it is probably what those who rigging the game were thinking when they first started, and like the saying goes "those who play a rigged game gets stupid over a long period of time". That's probably why empires collapse, too much corruption and too many people playing the rigged game. A rigged game kinda corrupt workability of the whole system. The short term advantage may not be so good in the long run.

Thorentis 6y ago

1. Yes, agree, but this just depends on your opinion of what is "correct". Nature selects for survival, not correctness. I think rigid hierarchy is more advantageous for overall survival, but I am not advocating for that. I think there is something significant about the fact that humans almost always tend towards hierarchy (Lord of the Flies illustrates this). 2. I agree that large scale beauracracies are not in the best interests of humanity. I would argue for hierarchy, with less power the higher up the chain you go. E.g. Local governments should have more power than federal/national governments. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a national government.

0df8dkdf 6y ago
> I think rigid hierarchy is more advantageous for overall survival I can see how one can see it that way, it is probably what those who rigging the game were thinking when they first started, and like the saying goes "those who play a rigged game gets stupid over a long period of time". That's probably why empires collapse, too much corruption and too many people playing the rigged game. A rigged game kinda corrupt workability of the whole system. The short term advantage may not be so good in the long run.