For 97% of Human History equality was the norm, what happened?(aeon.co)
aeon.co
For 97% of Human History equality was the norm, what happened?
https://aeon.co/essays/for-97-of-human-history-equality-was-the-norm-what-happened
10 comments
What I miss in accounts like this, is how very intimate groups of equals are fostering uniform beliefs and thinking, very often in oppressive manner. I suspect that there were enough people with creative urges that did not fit there. They, even without desire to have power over others, still supported the emerging political powers in exchange for freedom to think, create, tinker. Not having the notion of property - when anyone can take anything from you at any time - makes tinkering difficult, too. So they might have shifted the balance toward inequality.
I think your points are true if we consider the last 2000 years but the article basically points out on why the transformation happened before that time(12000 years ago). If we consider hunters and foragers at that time, the oppression on creativity might not work and in my opinion is more free and real(no monetary benefit). At that time only thing they might have cared is, whether there is enough food for themselves and their families. Sure, there might be differences in physical strengths a little bit, but I don't think that would be such a big offset.
(I have misunderstood your comment, rewritten it).
I wrote about tipping the scales, not about primary cause. Yes hunter-gatherer societies might be freer for the creativity too, if there are the natural resources. But it also means very low population density and thus fewer people to exchange ideas with.
I wrote about tipping the scales, not about primary cause. Yes hunter-gatherer societies might be freer for the creativity too, if there are the natural resources. But it also means very low population density and thus fewer people to exchange ideas with.
Oh okay, got it. Yea that's true, there should have been plenty of resources and low population. In that case exchanging ideas is indeed difficult.
Yea, but the article is more towards who has the power to implement these decisions and why is it concentrated towards a small population.
And LCA is a flywheel that makes that situation intractable.
People don’t realize that Microsoft is good (responsive to consumers even if two out of two hundred products are somewhat monopolistic; pays taxes; files accurate annual reports) and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is bad (no taxes; no accountability; only serves Bill and Melinda Gates.)
People don’t realize that Microsoft is good (responsive to consumers even if two out of two hundred products are somewhat monopolistic; pays taxes; files accurate annual reports) and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is bad (no taxes; no accountability; only serves Bill and Melinda Gates.)
Yea, people love to correlate and make conclusions without digging deeper. That is definitely a problem
Civilization was a mistake.
Haha, now we live in a society where there is a pretence that we can become powerful although a negligible percentage make it through.