5 ms·

1. Power in human society is social and contextual. If there's a custom to limit your status and you violate that, you can be ejected from the group and then yo

1. Power in human society is social and contextual. If there's a custom to limit your status and you violate that, you can be ejected from the group and then your status goes down to nothing. This sort of thing happens all the time. If you play casual sports with friends and then one person trains up to pro level, they'll need to take a handicap or no one will play with them, because having one player dominate the game is no fun, and allowing the pro would twist the whole social vibe into a metagame of currying favor. 2. I don't agree with you about most societies. Most people prefer their own social circles to have similar ability, intelligence, income, even physical attractiveness. That's the revealed preference for a society. We're not ants or bees that choose hierarchies when we don't have to. So by existing societies I assume you mean, the one global society that manifests differently everywhere but is really all the same and can't be escaped. Since people hate hierarchy it will not surprise you when I point out that this particular society only exists due to extreme violence and disinformation. So instead of thinking about molding a consensus, let's think instead about removing the violence and disinformation and then we can see what people really want. As for the easiest way of doing that, I don't know, but at least we don't need to go around saying that the current system is necessary.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
1. That works fine, for a small group. But I live in a city of a million people, and I don't know most of them. If one of them acquires too much control over the food supply, say, what are we going to do? Not invite them to parties? Their parties will have food at them. 2. Again, what you say is true in the small. But my city shows no such preference, and we're all trying to live together here. So, no, I don't mean "one global society", but I mean something much larger than my ultimate frisbee group. > Since people hate hierarchy it will not surprise you when I point out that this particular society only exists due to extreme violence and disinformation. Don't put words in my mouth (or reactions in my emotions), especially ones I don't agree with. This society exists due to much less violence and much less disinformation than the historical norm; I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "only existing due to violence and disinformation". That may be your characterization; it certainly isn't mine. Nor do I think that "people hate hierarchy" is a fair characterization. In fact, I think you're mistaking your preferences for a universal. And I think you're taking what your ideology says about society as the truth, without honestly evaluating society.
- sky-kedge0749 4y ago
  > 1. That works fine, for a small group. But I live in a city of a million people, and I don't know most of them. If one of them acquires too much control over the food supply, say, what are we going to do? Not invite them to parties? Their parties will have food at them. Control is social. One person cannot literally control the food supply in the sense that they personally created all of it, guard it like a dragon, and distribute it. Many other people are involved at all steps. If the would-be dragon violates social norms on not being a hoarding jerk, they can be ejected. If your response is now something like "It's not literally one person but they will have guards and police, now what?", this starts getting into the discussion about violence. > 2. Again, what you say is true in the small. But my city shows no such preference, and we're all trying to live together here. So, no, I don't mean "one global society", but I mean something much larger than my ultimate frisbee group. To clarify, by global society I meant the one society dominated by European-style nation-states where money can buy anything, or at least a good substitute. With enough money you can monopolize the food supply or anything else. Where is there a strong, what we might call legally-enforceable rule against being rich? If such a place existed and mattered, it would be bought out or made illegal. The point I'm making is that all societies today above "the small" are manifestations of the global society I just mentioned, created in Europe hundreds of years ago and spread in multiple waves throughout the world. So if we're counting up societies that permit extreme wealth differences and those that don't, in the first group we have: today's global society and a handful of historical and invariably brutal kingdoms and empires; in the second group we have: all "small" societies today and the vast majority of human societies before encountering early modern European expansion. The societies permitting extreme wealth are weird aberrations in world history. We should not count every modern city as an independent data point about what kind of society people prefer. For (1) and (2): as far as the number of people, the way to do it would be decentralized. A neural network is an example. Or your brain: a cell in your brain's right hemisphere may never interact with a cell in the left hemisphere, yet your brain works. A more real-world political example would be a collection of neighborhood councils and guilds in a city, as just one option. > Don't put words in my mouth (or reactions in my emotions), especially ones I don't agree with. That was a rhetorical statement, a more cutesy way of saying "A, therefore B." I'm sorry if it bothered you. > This society exists due to much less violence and much less disinformation than the historical norm; I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "only existing due to violence and disinformation". That may be your characterization; it certainly isn't mine. Today's society is mostly due to fossil fuel and a little bit due to technical advancement. The vast inequalities are what are due to violence and disinformation. Imagine a job where all your output is given to your boss and all you get is a cot to sleep on and simple food. What would it take for you to stay at that job? How do you think a unionization effort would go? Could you use the word "violence" to describe any of this? Now consider that as of 2020, 2153 billionaires had more wealth than 4.6 billion people: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/worlds-billionaires-have-more-wealth-46-billion-people https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/worlds-billionaires-.... > Nor do I think that "people hate hierarchy" is a fair characterization. > > In fact, I think you're mistaking your preferences for a universal. And I think you're taking what your ideology says about society as the truth, without honestly evaluating society. It's important to distinguish consensual hierarchy from forced hierarchy. A group can agree to let someone lead in some area where they are skilled: we'll let you drive the car because you're a better driver. I don't think anyone likes forced hierarchy though: I will beat you if you don't let me drive. I don't think that's an ideological preference. But do you think that many people prefer associating with people with much different skill, intelligence, education or income? For example, would you like to be on a programming team where you could clearly rank skill from worst to best? If so, I'd be interested in having you walk me through why you think that.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

1. That works fine, for a small group. But I live in a city of a million people, and I don't know most of them. If one of them acquires too much control over the food supply, say, what are we going to do? Not invite them to parties? Their parties will have food at them. 2. Again, what you say is true in the small. But my city shows no such preference, and we're all trying to live together here. So, no, I don't mean "one global society", but I mean something much larger than my ultimate frisbee group. > Since people hate hierarchy it will not surprise you when I point out that this particular society only exists due to extreme violence and disinformation. Don't put words in my mouth (or reactions in my emotions), especially ones I don't agree with. This society exists due to much less violence and much less disinformation than the historical norm; I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "only existing due to violence and disinformation". That may be your characterization; it certainly isn't mine. Nor do I think that "people hate hierarchy" is a fair characterization. In fact, I think you're mistaking your preferences for a universal. And I think you're taking what your ideology says about society as the truth, without honestly evaluating society.

sky-kedge0749 4y ago
> 1. That works fine, for a small group. But I live in a city of a million people, and I don't know most of them. If one of them acquires too much control over the food supply, say, what are we going to do? Not invite them to parties? Their parties will have food at them. Control is social. One person cannot literally control the food supply in the sense that they personally created all of it, guard it like a dragon, and distribute it. Many other people are involved at all steps. If the would-be dragon violates social norms on not being a hoarding jerk, they can be ejected. If your response is now something like "It's not literally one person but they will have guards and police, now what?", this starts getting into the discussion about violence. > 2. Again, what you say is true in the small. But my city shows no such preference, and we're all trying to live together here. So, no, I don't mean "one global society", but I mean something much larger than my ultimate frisbee group. To clarify, by global society I meant the one society dominated by European-style nation-states where money can buy anything, or at least a good substitute. With enough money you can monopolize the food supply or anything else. Where is there a strong, what we might call legally-enforceable rule against being rich? If such a place existed and mattered, it would be bought out or made illegal. The point I'm making is that all societies today above "the small" are manifestations of the global society I just mentioned, created in Europe hundreds of years ago and spread in multiple waves throughout the world. So if we're counting up societies that permit extreme wealth differences and those that don't, in the first group we have: today's global society and a handful of historical and invariably brutal kingdoms and empires; in the second group we have: all "small" societies today and the vast majority of human societies before encountering early modern European expansion. The societies permitting extreme wealth are weird aberrations in world history. We should not count every modern city as an independent data point about what kind of society people prefer. For (1) and (2): as far as the number of people, the way to do it would be decentralized. A neural network is an example. Or your brain: a cell in your brain's right hemisphere may never interact with a cell in the left hemisphere, yet your brain works. A more real-world political example would be a collection of neighborhood councils and guilds in a city, as just one option. > Don't put words in my mouth (or reactions in my emotions), especially ones I don't agree with. That was a rhetorical statement, a more cutesy way of saying "A, therefore B." I'm sorry if it bothered you. > This society exists due to much less violence and much less disinformation than the historical norm; I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "only existing due to violence and disinformation". That may be your characterization; it certainly isn't mine. Today's society is mostly due to fossil fuel and a little bit due to technical advancement. The vast inequalities are what are due to violence and disinformation. Imagine a job where all your output is given to your boss and all you get is a cot to sleep on and simple food. What would it take for you to stay at that job? How do you think a unionization effort would go? Could you use the word "violence" to describe any of this? Now consider that as of 2020, 2153 billionaires had more wealth than 4.6 billion people: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/worlds-billionaires-have-more-wealth-46-billion-people https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/worlds-billionaires-.... > Nor do I think that "people hate hierarchy" is a fair characterization. > > In fact, I think you're mistaking your preferences for a universal. And I think you're taking what your ideology says about society as the truth, without honestly evaluating society. It's important to distinguish consensual hierarchy from forced hierarchy. A group can agree to let someone lead in some area where they are skilled: we'll let you drive the car because you're a better driver. I don't think anyone likes forced hierarchy though: I will beat you if you don't let me drive. I don't think that's an ideological preference. But do you think that many people prefer associating with people with much different skill, intelligence, education or income? For example, would you like to be on a programming team where you could clearly rank skill from worst to best? If so, I'd be interested in having you walk me through why you think that.