3 ms·

> The huge majority of organizations are set up for selfish benefit, not collective benefit. What on earth are you talking about? For most of human history we

> The huge majority of organizations are set up for selfish benefit, not collective benefit. What on earth are you talking about? For most of human history we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers where selfishness could lead to ostracization. Even nowadays we organise in nation-states which try to (artificially) extend tribal loyalty to larger groups. Sometimes this leads people to commit the very self-interested act of dying for their country (note the sarcasm). And how about families? Have you heard of those?

WalterBright 6y ago
Even the Native American tribes did not operate as communes. > we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers where selfishness could lead to ostracization. Are you sure they were communes? Slavery goes as far back as we can tell. The head of the band didn't get the best food? Nobody owned their horse, weapons, etc.? They certainly traded. Why wouldn't they trade amongst themselves?
- leto_ii 6y ago
  I recommend Jared Diamond's 'The World Until Yesterday' ('Guns, Germs and Steel' also covers some related topics), or Frans de Waal's 'The Bonobo and the Atheist'. In general I think there's broad agreement that in bands and small tribes of up to a few hundred people there's basically no hierarchy. Even when a chief emerges, he/she doesn't have a lot of power over others - they're more like mediators, they alleviate conflict etc. I think you're making a mistake that I've seen often (Steven Pinker does smth similar), namely assuming that hunter-gatherers behaved like settled societies. They didn't. Most of the increase in violence comes after the agriculture revolution and the development of large settlements. For most of our history we roamed the land in small packs that rarely interacted with outsiders. This is not to say that hunter-gatherers lived in heavenly harmony, just that they mostly lived in collaborative equality. They were also strongly independent (note that independence/individualism and collaboration do not exclude each other. Individualism however is not the same as selfishness, collaboration is not the same as collectivism).
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Diamond is more of a political hack with an agenda than a serious historian. That aside, the most obvious evidence that the Native American communities were not collectives is they practiced slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans... which also states "property and hereditary leadership passed through the maternal line." Valuable property is not a sign of a commune. > basically no hierarchy That doesn't imply they shared everything equally. If I own more horses than you, it doesn't mean I control you. > Individualism however is not the same as selfishness, collaboration is not the same as collectivism). I say that over and over again in this thread, including in my opening post.

WalterBright 6y ago

Even the Native American tribes did not operate as communes. > we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers where selfishness could lead to ostracization. Are you sure they were communes? Slavery goes as far back as we can tell. The head of the band didn't get the best food? Nobody owned their horse, weapons, etc.? They certainly traded. Why wouldn't they trade amongst themselves?

leto_ii 6y ago
I recommend Jared Diamond's 'The World Until Yesterday' ('Guns, Germs and Steel' also covers some related topics), or Frans de Waal's 'The Bonobo and the Atheist'. In general I think there's broad agreement that in bands and small tribes of up to a few hundred people there's basically no hierarchy. Even when a chief emerges, he/she doesn't have a lot of power over others - they're more like mediators, they alleviate conflict etc. I think you're making a mistake that I've seen often (Steven Pinker does smth similar), namely assuming that hunter-gatherers behaved like settled societies. They didn't. Most of the increase in violence comes after the agriculture revolution and the development of large settlements. For most of our history we roamed the land in small packs that rarely interacted with outsiders. This is not to say that hunter-gatherers lived in heavenly harmony, just that they mostly lived in collaborative equality. They were also strongly independent (note that independence/individualism and collaboration do not exclude each other. Individualism however is not the same as selfishness, collaboration is not the same as collectivism).
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Diamond is more of a political hack with an agenda than a serious historian. That aside, the most obvious evidence that the Native American communities were not collectives is they practiced slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans... which also states "property and hereditary leadership passed through the maternal line." Valuable property is not a sign of a commune. > basically no hierarchy That doesn't imply they shared everything equally. If I own more horses than you, it doesn't mean I control you. > Individualism however is not the same as selfishness, collaboration is not the same as collectivism). I say that over and over again in this thread, including in my opening post.