- 20Mya. Once upon a time we were social animals. Primates have very strong lines of authority. There is a boss, and subordinates, and the only constraints on boss power are the worry of maintaining a large enough band to defend against other bands. The probability of the strongest primate winning a fight against the next strongest is very likely near within 10% of 90%.
- 8Mya. Then we were social primates. Coalitions beat individual strength. But still, the pattern was: Do as I say, or me and my team beat you senseless. probability of top coalition winning?
- 1Mya. Then we were weapon-using proto-humans (axe, spear, bow). Probability of top-dog losing a fight went from 10% to ~40%. Probability that top coalition has some of it's members killed in a fair fight is near 1. Also, small bands with fluid flow between bands. Band with bad enough conditions ends up with no members. Egalitarianism triumphs...because everyone universally hates being a subordinate MORE than they like the chance to be the boss.
- 10Kya. Then we started storing food. Storing food moved us to the malthusian limits. It allowed productive food-storers to buy guards, which allowed them to unilaterally take authority, and build a 2-tier society (boss, non-boss)
- 400ya. First re-stirrings of a rich enough society that the food storage/army thugs were re-constrained from below. Furthermore, small states in Europe allowed the moderately elite to require concessions from the states under threat of exit. Everyone hates folks telling them what they must do. But not everyone can afford it when they're poor enough.
- now. We are on the verge of a rich enough society (esp. NOT in the USA) that actual exit is becoming an option for LOTS of people. Shopping for states is on the verge of re-viability. And competition is the death knell for power.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
History of Authority
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Storing food moved us to the malthusian limits.
One point here. Hunter gatherers are ALSO living on the Malthusian limits (withing a century or two of moving into unoccupied territory anyway.)
However the Malthusian limits do not work on a daily basis. They work on a generational basis.
Let's say that a human working under primitive conditions needs 3000 calories/day to survive. (I don't know the actual value and it varies depending on conditions.)
Now the Malthusian limit isn't when everyone in the region is living on 3000 kcalories/day. The limit is when the food available SOMETIMES gets as low as 3000 kcalories/day for long enough to kill people off.
Now we are looking at a (bounded) probability distribution. And we see that different lifestyles can have different means and variances.
The storage capabilities and much greater predictability of farming means that a farming society can operate at say an average of 4000 kC/day with such variability that it drops below 3000 once a generation. So the population gets knocked down every 20 to 30 years and the rest of the time people have a small surplus, though it might get close to the bone every 3rd winter or so. A few people die then, and keep everyone on their toes.
Now a hunter-gatherer group will have a much larger variation month to month, and year to year. Instead of 4000 +/- 1100, the food supply might be 6000 +/- 3100.
This means that almost all the time, the hunter-gatherers will be better fed than the farmers. Their children will be stronger, they will grow to be bigger and healthier. And they can relax and stop working so hard because most of the time they'll get enough food for a good life without putting in a full day.
But every so often the hunting dries up, the roots and berries disappear, and all those healthy children starve to death, they have a nasty war with the next tribe over access to the last remaining wilderbeast herd, and the population is knocked back to where the survivors can get enough to eat again.
So it's still malthusian, but the greater variability means than 99% of the time it doesn't look like it.
Here's something relevant, BTW: Origins of Religion and the Human Revolution
I've only skimmed it, but it cites Boehm as well as Engels: I read a related article a few weeks ago and wrote some commentary that included drpat's point above about gatherers enjoying plenty between periodic crises.
DP,
Very well said.
Post a Comment