Social Hierarchy Essential For Survival?

[jpahmad]

I've been having a thought that I have not been able to shake lately.  Someone please help me!Could our pre-human ancestors have survived without the social hierarchical structure that is so commonly found in chimps and apes?  An alpha male who rules by force.  A social "pecking-order" where some members get to pick what they want and others just get told what to do?This social structure must have evolved for reasons of survival.  Does this have any implication on human societies?   

 

It's really bothering me and I just can't shake the idea that "statism" might be somehow genetically programmed into us through evolution. 

 

It goes like this:  Peacefull volunteerism is the submissive "beta" trait.  Violent dominance and the pursuit of power is the "alpha" trait.  That these two character types will always be entangled in some kind of sick symbiotic relationship where individuals get abused, extorted, and massacred.  And that evolution had selected this as the best chance for survival of the species. 

 

Hasn't this been the history of the word so far?  Not just for humans, but for all mammals high up on the food chain?

[Alan C.]

Without market exchange and division of labor, society reverts to that of chimps and apes.

 

A society in which "some members get to pick what they want and others just get told what to do" is a centrally planned society.

 

Sure, our pre-human ancestors could've survived, but in far fewer numbers and under grinding subsistence. That is, in fact, how they lived. Homo-sapien has enjoyed prosperity and abundance for only a fraction of 1% of the total time that homo-sapien has existed.

[Pepin]

Could our pre-human ancestors have survived without the social hierarchical structure that is so commonly found in chimps and apes?  An alpha male who rules by force. A social "pecking-order" where some members get to pick what they want and others just get told what to do?This social structure must have evolved for reasons of survival. Does this have any implication on human societies?  

 

I am having a difficult time understanding this because is goes from "could" to "must of". "Social hierarchical" really needs to be defined. 

 

 

It's really bothering me and I just can't shake the idea that "statism" might be somehow genetically programmed into us through evolution. 

 

I don't know what this means for so many reasons. Statism is a specific concept. States tend to not be static and have not "progressed" at on an evolutionary time frame. Any genetic theory would apply universally across the whole, and statism requires contradictory properties for the same species.

 

It goes like this: peacefull volunteerism is the submissive "beta" trait. Violent dominance and the pursuit of power is the "alpha" trait.  That these two character types will always be entangled in some kind of sick symbiotic relationship where individuals get abused, extorted, and massacred.  And that evolution had selected this as the best chance for survival of the species.  

 

 

This ignores that betas pursue power, particularly over those that are of lower rank. I have no clue what the second sentence means. The final statement is untrue in accordance with your hypothesis, as minor increases voluntarism has been far more beneficial to survival in terms of infant mortality, birthing mortality, starvation, illness and disease, and so on. If your theory is true, evolution did not at all pick the best means of survival.

 

I understand that there are likely some rebuttals and clarifications that you can give, but I would really like to urge you to spend more time developing your train of thought and putting it in a way that will be convincing to another. Your post really doesn't have any argumentative force, it rather feels like an idea where it is the reader's job to fill in all of the gaps.

[ribuck]

... these two character types will always be entangled in some kind of sick symbiotic relationship where individuals get abused, extorted, and massacred.  And that evolution had selected this as the best chance for survival of the species...

 

Evolution doesn't relate to the species as a whole. It's only the survival of each gene (and meme) that is significant in natural selection. So if something changes such that the abusers produce fewer offspring (or people raise their children to become less abusive), the balance of your "two character types" will shift.

 

It's not pre-destined in any way, if that's what you were implying. Humans are not stuck with a fixed proportion of character types.

[jpahmad]

Without market exchange and division of labor, society reverts to that of chimps and apes.

 

A society in which "some members get to pick what they want and others just get told what to do" is a centrally planned society.

 

Sure, our pre-human ancestors could've survived, but in far fewer numbers and under grinding subsistence. That is, in fact, how they lived. Homo-sapien has enjoyed prosperity and abundance for only a fraction of 1% of the total time that homo-sapien has existed.

 

Thanks Alan, this does put things in perspective.  I did not think of that.  Our ability to exchange value and organize labor is essentially what lifted humanity up out of the brink of disaster.  Not "alpha male" dominance.  So essentially the evolution of the free-market not only saved us from subsistence living, but it is the one thing that distinguishes us from animals. 

 

 

 

 

I understand that there are likely some rebuttals and clarifications that you can give, but I would really like to urge you to spend more time developing your train of thought and putting it in a way that will be convincing to another. Your post really doesn't have any argumentative force, it rather feels like an idea where it is the reader's job to fill in all of the gaps.

 

Pepin, I wasn't trying to make a solid argument.  I just wanted someone else's input on a particular thought that occurred to me that was a bit nagging.  Actually, I was hoping for someone else to "fill in the gaps" and show me where I was confused.  Your point about infant mortality, starvation, illness and disease, etc.. is well taken.  

 

 

Evolution doesn't relate to the species as a whole. It's only the survival of each gene (and meme) that is significant in natural selection. So if something changes such that the abusers produce fewer offspring (or people raise their children to become less abusive), the balance of your "two character types" will shift.

 

It's not pre-destined in any way, if that's what you were implying. Humans are not stuck with a fixed proportion of character types.

 

This is where I get little confused.  I know that the genetic programming of a species occurs at the individual level.  But doesn't the interaction of the individual members within a species evolve as well?  Like the eusocial insects.  Ants for example. The genetic code for the ant not only makes the actual organism, but also codes for the manner in which the ant is going to interact socially.  Is this correct?  So, it gives the appearance that evolution is favoring species survival over individual survival. 

[andros]

I was recently talking about this and came up with some statements with the flavour of "we developed from stone age tribes with alpha-males and dominance hierarchies" and was recommended a really good book on the topic.  It seems my understanding was far too simplistic and I really needed to read this book.

 

I would describe it as a scholarly work in that it has plenty of references not only to the author's own papers but to a couple of well respected people I'd heard of -that is E.O. Wilson and Diane Fossey, as well as many I hadn't heard of.  The author has obviously studied extensively as well as studying the works of others.

 

The book looks at our nearest relatives chimps, bonobos, gorillas etc as well as evidence from studies of tribes and hunter-gatherer societies.  Obviously hominid evidence is only fossil / archeological.  However given the evidence it is possible to come up with some interesting hypotheses and reasoning.

 

It seems that for many thousands of generations we may well have lived in egalitarian humter-gatherer societies in which despots and upstarts who tried to take over and become the alpha were made fun of, ostracised or even killed.  Although natural law or natural justice is not mentioned, for me reading this bought those issues to mind.  Our ancestors had to be politically astute and not just kill off anyone they didn't like or the family could well retaliate.  There also had to be a large majority who simply would not accept the right of any individual to bark orders.  The author gives some reasons as to why humans could get to this state from ancestors that were probably more like chimp hierarchies. I think you'll find these and much else in this work both interesting and relevant.

 

The book is 'Hierarchy in the Forest' by Christopher Boehm, 1999

 

250 odd pages and well worth a read.

 

(You and I probably have a different idea from Boehm as to what democracy is.)

[ribuck]

The genetic code for the ant not only makes the actual organism, but also codes for the manner in which the ant is going to interact socially ... so, it gives the appearance that evolution is favoring species survival over individual survival. 

 

Fair point. Even so, if circumstances change such that ant colonies require a smaller proportion of soldier ants, then evolution will favor individual ants that are less likely to develop into soldiers.

 

If it's the same with humans, there's still no reason to assume that the proportion of alphas and betas will remain fixed.

[FiddlertheLeper]

While I do believe that since we humans are social creatures, a form of social structure is in one way or another necessary to human interactions and happiness (or contentment or whatever word works best, basically I mean without sociability in the form of interacting with other humans in our environment we would all be miserable) where I disagree is the need for a kind of hierarchy that looks anything like what we have now.  I think that is more of a cultural adaptation that was best suited for survival in environments where it's roots began.  (if it even was) 

    With the advent of so much new technology, and the greater potential for meaningful education with instant information sharing and the many other tools that are available to us as a species that were not when these Vertical Hierarchies began to develop, I think that any form of centralized leadership at this point in human social development is detrimental.  It slows progress towards new social dynamics because the vested interest in any Vertical Hierarchy is to maintain the status-quo at least until the rulers can adapt to what ever the emerging social paradigm is, in order to maintain their position of authority.  This automatically runs against the interest of the rest of the species in my mind, and also as Stefan has pointed out many times gives a place for those seeking dominance over others to aim for or go to.

   I think that a (truly) Free Market will give humans the basis needed for us to self organize in a more productive manner.  I believe the potential of the Free Market is as limitless as the potential for human innovation, thus in a truly free market society I think the social paradigm would be in a more natural constant state of change (or evolution depending on how you look at it) and I believe this would be to the benefit of at least the majority of humankind.  I see any kind of Vertical hierarchy as a kind of choke point on human innovation and progression, with the needs/desires of those in power trumping everyone else. I don't see a benefit for humankind in the kind of system, at least not a net benefit. 

[2bits]

I just can't shake the idea that "statism" might be somehow genetically programmed into us through evolution.

What if it is? You seem disturbed by the possibility, but I would like to understand more about why that is. It might very well be the case that we have genetic traits that lend to statist society (I would argue we do, to varying degrees), but that doesn't threaten the objective determination that statism is immoral today by thinking humans who know better. It doesn't give any moral foundation to modern statists. Is this the fear?Natural selection considers only individual fitness, and by extension the fitness of communities that aid individuals, in a particular environment. Sometimes that means the strongest male kills all competing males for dominance. It has nothing to do with what 'ought' to be or what's fair or what's moral. As thinking people, with knowledge and insight and moral responsibility our ancestors never had, we can and 'ought' to overcome our basest drives to be more than animals.

[fridolutin]

Hello I'm a new participant

 

This debate over the domination of the alpha male over the submissive majority should be seen in the natural point of view where the dominant has his chores to accomplish and that his position is not more favorable than the other members of the group. 

It is in the artificial and unsustainable system that it seems to be a privileged position and that it is in fact a doomed one.  The cast of king and nobles of the past where usually sick and suffering from their abuses, they where degenerate humans.  Same for the rich of our modern era, they are perpetuating their false teachings to their descendants and like a curse is plaguing them for generations. 

 

Bringing this to the individual and his body, we understand that by granting and perpetuating a favor to one sense and neglect others will blunt it while exciting the others . The resulting disequilibrium sometimes results in chronic disease.  

[LovePrevails]

if this society was generetically programmed into us there would not need to be any propaganda to sustain it because people whould revert to it anyone

 

who needs 12-14 years of government schooling which is anti-empricial in that ignores all the evidence of how children best learn, as laid out by progressive pedagogues such as Alfie Kohn

 

some hierarchies will always exist but they can be largely meritocratic rather than based on force

[jpahmad]

 

 

The book is 'Hierarchy in the Forest' by Christopher Boehm, 1999

 

250 odd pages and well worth a read.

 

(You and I probably have a different idea from Boehm as to what democracy is.)

 

Thanks for the recommendation Andros.  I'll check it out. 

 

 

 

Fair point. Even so, if circumstances change such that ant colonies require a smaller proportion of soldier ants, then evolution will favor individual ants that are less likely to develop into soldiers.

 

If it's the same with humans, there's still no reason to assume that the proportion of alphas and betas will remain fixed.

 

Ribuck, you're right.  It seems that I put the cart before the horse.  Evolution is one of those concepts that while thinking about it, you can easily get turned around and see it backwards.  There is no "coding" for a human being that is set in stone, nor an ant for that matter.  That was pretty short-sighted of me to fear that we're "coded for statism."  In modern times, survival favors those who are capitalistic and industrious.  This would also mean that survival is based on one's ability to manipulate incentives and negotiate; a skill which would never be developed by our "alpha male gorilla" who depends on brute force to get his way.  In good time, natural selection will eradicate genes coded for violent and aggressive behavior, and human beings will then be "genetically coded" for living in a free society.

[jpahmad]

What if it is? You seem disturbed by the possibility, but I would like to understand more about why that is. It might very well be the case that we have genetic traits that lend to statist society (I would argue we do, to varying degrees), but that doesn't threaten the objective determination that statism is immoral today by thinking humans who know better. It doesn't give any moral foundation to modern statists. Is this the fear?Natural selection considers only individual fitness, and by extension the fitness of communities that aid individuals, in a particular environment. Sometimes that means the strongest male kills all competing males for dominance. It has nothing to do with what 'ought' to be or what's fair or what's moral. As thinking people, with knowledge and insight and moral responsibility our ancestors never had, we can and 'ought' to overcome our basest drives to be more than animals.

 

Well,  the truth is I was looking at evolution backwards. 

 

But to answer you question, which is a very heavy one, and one that could highjack the whole thread and throw it into the endless conundrum of determinism, I would have to simply say that it doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter what we actually are, or what we think we're genetically coded for.  It's irrelevant.  If I come to a fork in the road and to the left is statism and to the right is a free society, it doesn't matter what someone tells me about my own biology, I'm going to the right.  So, there's no reason for me to worry about anything.

[fridolutin]

some hierarchies will always exist but they can be largely meritocratic rather than based on force

 

 

This argument seems to me lacking perspective because force is probably not considered as a sign of intelligence but as an animal primitive sense. 

 

Meritocratic is the way value is considered today in our modern world.