5 ms·

The larger problem is the verticality, the hierarchy, the dominance of the economic system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation https://

by jokoon 6y ago

The larger problem is the verticality, the hierarchy, the dominance of the economic system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory Those are really primitive, irrational, traditional values and ideas that are difficult to get rid of, because so many humans just believe in the fatality of social darwinism. Evolutionism has no place in civilized society. Cynics who argue otherwise just want to benefit from their higher status.

js8 6y ago
I oppose authoritarianism and conservativism, and for a long time, I was puzzled by existence of social hierarchy (especially by the fact that it is widely accepted). I don't find the social darwinism theories of hierarchy very convincing, I subscribe to a theory that hierarchies occur in a civilization as a somewhat unintended consequence of authoritaritarian/conservative values, and these authoritarian values evolved in humans because they provide stability of social groups by keeping them from running too much social experiments (with potentially disastrous consequences). So eventually I came to conclusion that authoritarian/conservative value is far from primitive, but has actually a goal of avoiding social change, in the fear of breaking the society apart. It is probably related to parent-children relationships, we as children believe it is beneficial to trust parents, and learn from them, and we also extend this to people who are in institutional positions of authority, that they "know better" how to run stuff. That's why we submit to them, and that's also why older and more experienced people (who typically get to run institutions) also become more conservative - they want to keep the system that seemed to work (at least for them). It however can get misused by people who want power, and that's where the fundamental problem of this value comes from. Authoritarian/conservative values are also in opposition with liberal values (individual freedom) and socialist/progressive values (inclusion in the collective). So while I agree that social darwinism is fatalistic, I am not sure it is the only explanation (or correct one, for that matter) of why people accept social hierarchies.
- aloisdg 6y ago
  I think we accept social hierarchies mostly because we were born in it, molded by it. In a vertical, pyramidal, system, we are coerced to compete against each other to reach the top when most of us cant get there. The places are limited. We spend far too more energy against each other. I vastly prefer ideas of horizontal society based on cooperation. One of my favorite pragmatic book who critic social Darwinism in favor of this alternative is Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Russian naturalist and anarchist philosopher Peter Kropotkin. Here is a wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolut...
- bumbada 6y ago
  You are mixing two things that have nothing to do with each other. They are orthogonal or linearly independent. Authoritarian has nothing to do with conservatism, in fact communist countries are the more authoritarian in the world. Conservative dominated countries have the biggest individual freedom in the world by far. Are warlords in Afghanistan, Congo or the rest of Africa conservative? No, they are not, they will take whatever they can from you because they have weapons and are willing to kill and you are not, odds are he will be twenty something, as they die soon. I have interviewed hundreds of people that lost all what they had because of them, or were just raped or had family members killed. Politics have nothing to do with it, it is power. All social creatures in this world have hierarchy and power, and males fight each other for getting up in the status. From horses(I have seen one cut another's neck tendon) and sheep to lions and wolves. All apes including bonobos(considered pacific) fight for hierarchy. In socialist-progressive countries you have people that want power as much as in conservative countries and it will be socialistic people those who want to dominate others(and taking people's money using high taxes is a great way to do that). In liberal countries the liberal people want individual freedom but at the same time they will love to dominate others with privileges or monopolies. People idealize what they don't know.
  - js8 6y ago
    There is a difference between authoritarian government and belief that authority is a good thing. You might believe in the latter and yet very much oppose the former.
fighterpilot 6y ago
> Evolutionism has no place in civilized society. How can you square this with the necessity of Darwinian-like competition in a relatively free-market economy? I want to see the unsuccessful companies go extinct, and I want to see the unproductive workers let go, because such sorting is necessary for prosperity.
- anoncake 6y ago
  How does firing people unable to be productive increase their prosperity?
  - bluecalm 6y ago
    It increases overall prosperity. If you randomly assign people to jobs and keep them there you will get a total economic collapse.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      That is not at all the same thing. People aren't randomly assigned to jobs.
      - bluecalm 6y ago
        Of course. Still a lot of people suck at their job even if their on paper credentials check out. You need some mechanism to make sure competent productive people are in proper positions and are compensated for it. Otherwise you get what we tried too many times and it doesn't work.
- js8 6y ago
  > I want to see the unsuccessful companies go extinct, and I want to see the unproductive workers let go, because such sorting is necessary for prosperity. I don't, it's a waste of resources. I want them to relearn or restructure. (That's why I support social net and limited liability, by the way.) You are assuming that evolution itself is somehow "efficient"; I don't see that as self-evident.

by jokoon 6y ago

js8 6y ago

I oppose authoritarianism and conservativism, and for a long time, I was puzzled by existence of social hierarchy (especially by the fact that it is widely accepted). I don't find the social darwinism theories of hierarchy very convincing, I subscribe to a theory that hierarchies occur in a civilization as a somewhat unintended consequence of authoritaritarian/conservative values, and these authoritarian values evolved in humans because they provide stability of social groups by keeping them from running too much social experiments (with potentially disastrous consequences). So eventually I came to conclusion that authoritarian/conservative value is far from primitive, but has actually a goal of avoiding social change, in the fear of breaking the society apart. It is probably related to parent-children relationships, we as children believe it is beneficial to trust parents, and learn from them, and we also extend this to people who are in institutional positions of authority, that they "know better" how to run stuff. That's why we submit to them, and that's also why older and more experienced people (who typically get to run institutions) also become more conservative - they want to keep the system that seemed to work (at least for them). It however can get misused by people who want power, and that's where the fundamental problem of this value comes from. Authoritarian/conservative values are also in opposition with liberal values (individual freedom) and socialist/progressive values (inclusion in the collective). So while I agree that social darwinism is fatalistic, I am not sure it is the only explanation (or correct one, for that matter) of why people accept social hierarchies.

aloisdg 6y ago
I think we accept social hierarchies mostly because we were born in it, molded by it. In a vertical, pyramidal, system, we are coerced to compete against each other to reach the top when most of us cant get there. The places are limited. We spend far too more energy against each other. I vastly prefer ideas of horizontal society based on cooperation. One of my favorite pragmatic book who critic social Darwinism in favor of this alternative is Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Russian naturalist and anarchist philosopher Peter Kropotkin. Here is a wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolut...
bumbada 6y ago
You are mixing two things that have nothing to do with each other. They are orthogonal or linearly independent. Authoritarian has nothing to do with conservatism, in fact communist countries are the more authoritarian in the world. Conservative dominated countries have the biggest individual freedom in the world by far. Are warlords in Afghanistan, Congo or the rest of Africa conservative? No, they are not, they will take whatever they can from you because they have weapons and are willing to kill and you are not, odds are he will be twenty something, as they die soon. I have interviewed hundreds of people that lost all what they had because of them, or were just raped or had family members killed. Politics have nothing to do with it, it is power. All social creatures in this world have hierarchy and power, and males fight each other for getting up in the status. From horses(I have seen one cut another's neck tendon) and sheep to lions and wolves. All apes including bonobos(considered pacific) fight for hierarchy. In socialist-progressive countries you have people that want power as much as in conservative countries and it will be socialistic people those who want to dominate others(and taking people's money using high taxes is a great way to do that). In liberal countries the liberal people want individual freedom but at the same time they will love to dominate others with privileges or monopolies. People idealize what they don't know.
- js8 6y ago
  There is a difference between authoritarian government and belief that authority is a good thing. You might believe in the latter and yet very much oppose the former.

fighterpilot 6y ago

> Evolutionism has no place in civilized society. How can you square this with the necessity of Darwinian-like competition in a relatively free-market economy? I want to see the unsuccessful companies go extinct, and I want to see the unproductive workers let go, because such sorting is necessary for prosperity.

anoncake 6y ago
How does firing people unable to be productive increase their prosperity?
- bluecalm 6y ago
  It increases overall prosperity. If you randomly assign people to jobs and keep them there you will get a total economic collapse.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    That is not at all the same thing. People aren't randomly assigned to jobs.
    - bluecalm 6y ago
      Of course. Still a lot of people suck at their job even if their on paper credentials check out. You need some mechanism to make sure competent productive people are in proper positions and are compensated for it. Otherwise you get what we tried too many times and it doesn't work.
js8 6y ago
> I want to see the unsuccessful companies go extinct, and I want to see the unproductive workers let go, because such sorting is necessary for prosperity. I don't, it's a waste of resources. I want them to relearn or restructure. (That's why I support social net and limited liability, by the way.) You are assuming that evolution itself is somehow "efficient"; I don't see that as self-evident.