Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By that I mean look at Ancient Rome for example, who would've been the first to start what would become the highest classes of Roman society? When the Roman Republic, for example was first established how did those that were at the top get to the top to begin with? Or all the houses in Medieval Europe, they all had to start somewhere so who would've been the first to establish what would become a royal house in the very beginning before it existed, and how exactly would they manage to do that in the first place?
In order to establish who were the first individuals in societies that inherited land, wealth, and power, one would have to look back to the stone age to do archaeological research. FWIW.
It's not a racial phenomenon and occurred in every area where humans settled and lived. The most capable* were the ones who held the power and it was passed down generationally or granted to others.
I wouldn't call it "privilege" unless it was bestowed by all of society, such as to spiritual leaders or, at present, politicians. Not privilege, but survival of the fittest.
* "Capable" can mean most intelligent, manipulative, brutal - whatever it required to survive and thrive.
It's not a racial phenomenon and occurred in every area where humans settled and lived. The most capable* were the ones who held the power and it was passed down generationally or granted to others.
I wouldn't call it "privilege" unless it was bestowed by all of society, such as to spiritual leaders or, at present, politicians. Not privilege, but survival of the fittest.
* "Capable" can mean most intelligent, manipulative, brutal - whatever it required to survive and thrive.
It actually preceeds humans. A herd of horses is led by a stallion. He wins by being smarter, and with better leadership than other stallions. The prize he wins is being able to fertilize all the females. The duty is to protect the herd from predators.
It may have been much the same with early humans, where the chief male also had mating rights. But he won his position by being smarter and more able which would have contributed to the evolution of the human genome.
It actually preceeds humans. A herd of horses is led by a stallion. He wins by being smarter, and with better leadership than other stallions. The prize he wins is being able to fertilize all the females. The duty is to protect the herd from predators.
It may have been much the same with early humans, where the chief male also had mating rights. But he won his position by being smarter and more able which would have contributed to the evolution of the human genome.
I was thinking the same as I wrote. Why do humans try so hard to legislate against natural forces? What a silly bunch we are! Or maybe hopeful?
We could redistribute all the wealth and power as equally or as oppositely as possible all over the world and my guess is that it wouldn't take long for it all to reverse itself like water seeking its own level. I doubt anything less than brute force would maintain the change.
Can't say I always like that but nature is nature.
I was thinking the same as I wrote. Why do humans try so hard to legislate against natural forces? What a silly bunch we are! Or maybe hopeful?
Because we are not irrational animals, and we have no reason to act as such.
And even in nature, there are many collaborative and altruistic species.
Inequality is very old, is natural, and will never cease to exist. But the fact that inequality is natural and will always exist doesn't mean humans can't be altruistic and can't build a world based on solidarity.
Even because it was acting together, in a coordinated way, that humans were able to control nature to the extent it was able to control, and controlling nature we have built a much better world for us all.
I don't know any "fit individual" who is able to build a water dam or a railroad alone.
There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of a large personal wealth, and that's important to boost technological development, with new ideas and new patents.
Of course people must have the right to try to become millionaires. But that right exists for the betterment of our species as a whole, since everyone benefits from technological development due to new ideas and new patents.
Because we are not irrational animals, and we have no reason to act as such.
And even in nature, there are many collaborative and altruistic species.
Inequality is very old, is natural, and will never cease to exist. But the fact that inequality is natural and will always exist doesn't mean humans can't be altruistic and can't build a world based on solidarity.
Even because it was acting together, in a coordinated way, that humans were able to control nature to the extent it was able to control, and controlling nature we have built a much better world for us all.
I don't know any "fit individual" who is able to build a water dam or a railroad alone.
The equal altruism argument has always amused me. I understand the point of view, but it just isn't realistic. The sentence I bolded is a case in point. No, one man couldn't build a dam or a railroad alone. However, in every instance where a dam or a railroad is built, it was one man - or sometimes a small group of men - who had the original vision, and typically one man who had the knowledge, training, and ability to lead who got the project done. There is an example of this in every segment of the manufacturing industry, from automotive (Henry Ford) to electricity (Edison/Tesla) to railroads (Vanderbilt, Gould, Morgan). There is a reason that we know all their names, and that reason is that they are the ones who brought the dream to fruition. You can be as rational as you want, but human nature is human nature. There will always be leaders, just as there will always be followers.
Because we are not irrational animals, and we have no reason to act as such.
And even in nature, there are many collaborative and altruistic species.
Inequality is very old, is natural, and will never cease to exist. But the fact that inequality is natural and will always exist doesn't mean humans can't be altruistic and can't build a world based on solidarity.
Even because it was acting together, in a coordinated way, that humans were able to control nature to the extent it was able to control, and controlling nature we have built a much better world for us all.
I don't know any "fit individual" who is able to build a water dam or a railroad alone.
There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of a large personal wealth, and that's important to boost technological development, with new ideas and new patents.
Of course people must have the right to try to become millionaires. But that right exists for the betterment of our species as a whole, since everyone benefits from technological development due to new ideas and new patents.
That's why we need a "melting pot" rather than diversity, I guess.
The equal altruism argument has always amused me. I understand the point of view, but it just isn't realistic. The sentence I bolded is a case in point. No, one man couldn't build a dam or a railroad alone. However, in every instance where a dam or a railroad is built, it was one man - or sometimes a small group of men - who had the original vision, and typically one man who had the knowledge, training, and ability to lead who got the project done. There is an example of this in every segment of the manufacturing industry, from automotive (Henry Ford) to electricity (Edison/Tesla) to railroads (Vanderbilt, Gould, Morgan). There is a reason that we know all their names, and that reason is that they are the ones who brought the dream to fruition. You can be as rational as you want, but human nature is human nature. There will always be leaders, just as there will always be followers.
I totally agree with your last sentence. I'm not an anarchist.
But still, having the original vision, and the knowledge, training, and ability to lead, is not enough to make the project to materialize.
One man can't do anything alone.
A lonely man in an island full of natural resources can't do much more than a wooden cabin.
We need each other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
