3 ms·

Here's the paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024683 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... T

by zeteo 15y ago

Here's the paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024683 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... The crucial idea: > Our simulation results support the hypothesis that socioeconomic stratification may have spread due to its effects on the demography of small groups—i.e. by demic diffusion—rather than cultural adoption. [...] In variable environments, stratified groups migrate more and are less likely to go extinct than egalitarian groups. The main contribution of the paper seems to be the identification of a survival advantage for unequal societies in unstable environments. To make this more concrete, imagine two neighboring villages A and B, hit by a catastrophic crop failure that has reduced harvest by 50%. In village A, there is a strong ethos of equality; the dwindled resources are divided equally, and basically midway through winter everyone dies of starvation. In village B, the inhabitants strongly believe, on the contrary, that tradition (gods, spirits, ancestor cults etc.) orders the elevation of some above the others. The favored individuals get their normal full share of the reduced harvest, and the un-favored get none. This results into an immediate 50% mortality; but the favored survive through the full winter. After a series of adequate harvests, the B population increases enough to split off a migrating group that takes over the (now abandoned) site of village A. The ethos of inequality is taken with them, and thus spreads at the expense of egalitarianism.

paxcoder 15y ago
Here are a couple of alternative scenarios: - village A invades village B for food (the fact that out-of-touch aristocrats occasionally send an army of unwilling soldiers at the gates of A is another possible reason) - village B consumes more food than village A, simply because aristocrats like to eat, so it starves first - in village B, servants die of starvation, the ruling class is incompetent to feed itself - villagers of village B simply walk by foot into village A, leaving their oppressors to care for themselves - there's a revolution in village B, making it, effectively, a village A2 (possible catalyst: shortage of food) in other words, i don't think that's why. however, i haven't read the article, so maybe their arguments are more convincing than yours.
- zeteo 15y ago
  The idea that social inequality automatically involves an incompetent, idle class of aristocrats giving orders to wretched underlings, who do all the work, is a straw man. All that's required, for this model at least, is an order of precedence in the distribution of food at harvest time (an agricultural equivalent of preferred stock, if you will). This is irrespective of how the food was produced, of the relative size of portions, and of whether anyone takes commands from someone else. A very simple example of such social stratification would be e.g. a "pecking order".
  - paxcoder 15y ago
    my point is that unequal distribution of food in case of a natural disaster is not an absolute factor, it's only one of the possible scenarios that affect the preservation of a system.
    - zeteo 15y ago
      Yes of course there are lots of other factors, and history itself is a series of accidents. The point of this paper is that, all else being equal, a stratification in the distribution of food seems to improve the resilience of agricultural societies. The reason this may be important, in my view, is that it offers a model for what may have happened in the Ubaid period, when previously egalitarian agricultural societies became gradually more stratified, and finally transitioned into the beginnings of our civilization. The traditional, Marxist explanation is that agriculture generated a production surplus, which was illegitimately seized by upstart elites. This paper's alternative model indicates incipiently hierarchical societies might actually have had a survival advantage, under the conditions of the period.
      - paxcoder 15y ago
        Perhaps I should read the paper to see if they're generalizing or not, but I'm too lazy to; if it was a wikipedia page - perhaps I would. If we're talking hierarchy generally rather than (more) distinct classes - which are not prone to (positive) change - I'd concur that it is more successful in general. For the reason of being able to emphasize the collective needs I suppose, though a question of mapping talent to positions remains (and unmapping).
motherwell 15y ago
I lie that, but I think the article implies that unequal societies encourage migration: > unequal sharing of scarce resources created more incentive to migrate in search of additional resources. In other words, societies where some have less encourage the lesser havers to move in search of better opportunities. So you are right, with the added benefit that even in other times, the lesser are encouraged to migrate and spread.

by zeteo 15y ago

paxcoder 15y ago

Here are a couple of alternative scenarios: - village A invades village B for food (the fact that out-of-touch aristocrats occasionally send an army of unwilling soldiers at the gates of A is another possible reason) - village B consumes more food than village A, simply because aristocrats like to eat, so it starves first - in village B, servants die of starvation, the ruling class is incompetent to feed itself - villagers of village B simply walk by foot into village A, leaving their oppressors to care for themselves - there's a revolution in village B, making it, effectively, a village A2 (possible catalyst: shortage of food) in other words, i don't think that's why. however, i haven't read the article, so maybe their arguments are more convincing than yours.

zeteo 15y ago
The idea that social inequality automatically involves an incompetent, idle class of aristocrats giving orders to wretched underlings, who do all the work, is a straw man. All that's required, for this model at least, is an order of precedence in the distribution of food at harvest time (an agricultural equivalent of preferred stock, if you will). This is irrespective of how the food was produced, of the relative size of portions, and of whether anyone takes commands from someone else. A very simple example of such social stratification would be e.g. a "pecking order".
- paxcoder 15y ago
  my point is that unequal distribution of food in case of a natural disaster is not an absolute factor, it's only one of the possible scenarios that affect the preservation of a system.
  - zeteo 15y ago
    Yes of course there are lots of other factors, and history itself is a series of accidents. The point of this paper is that, all else being equal, a stratification in the distribution of food seems to improve the resilience of agricultural societies. The reason this may be important, in my view, is that it offers a model for what may have happened in the Ubaid period, when previously egalitarian agricultural societies became gradually more stratified, and finally transitioned into the beginnings of our civilization. The traditional, Marxist explanation is that agriculture generated a production surplus, which was illegitimately seized by upstart elites. This paper's alternative model indicates incipiently hierarchical societies might actually have had a survival advantage, under the conditions of the period.
    - paxcoder 15y ago
      Perhaps I should read the paper to see if they're generalizing or not, but I'm too lazy to; if it was a wikipedia page - perhaps I would. If we're talking hierarchy generally rather than (more) distinct classes - which are not prone to (positive) change - I'd concur that it is more successful in general. For the reason of being able to emphasize the collective needs I suppose, though a question of mapping talent to positions remains (and unmapping).

motherwell 15y ago

I lie that, but I think the article implies that unequal societies encourage migration: > unequal sharing of scarce resources created more incentive to migrate in search of additional resources. In other words, societies where some have less encourage the lesser havers to move in search of better opportunities. So you are right, with the added benefit that even in other times, the lesser are encouraged to migrate and spread.