[Mobleysoft]

Is there any evidence that a society can function without inequality? Equality would have to be enforced, and unless that enforcement was done by self-maintaining automatons, I don't see how it persists. Perhaps a cycle of catastrophe and rebuilding is necessary to maintain a functioning society, in which case, the question of what constitutes a minimal viable catastrophe that accomplishes that goal becomes interesting.

[bigie35]

I believe primitive agrarian societies had very little inequality but I could be wrong.

[Mobleysoft]

Even in the smallest unit of a society, a family, the most physically dominant, fearsome family member must enforce order, fairness, etc. Either a patriarch or a matriarch. As multiple families join to become a tribe, the respective family leaders arrive at a consensus as to whom the ultimate leader will be. Said leader's mandate is likely not absolute, but rather is driven by continued competence. It seems to me that as soon as that leader settles a dispute for other members of their tribe, inequality begins increasing until catastrophe returns that society to its most primitive form.

[croon]

Arguably a society can't function with inequality either seeing as they've all imploded.

Most societies have however been more prosperous post-collapse when inequality is lower, although arguable cause/effect.

[Mobleysoft]

Perhaps a society can't function forever in a state of extreme inequality, but isn't it true that it cannot exist for even a moment in a state of absolute equality? So long as humans differ in competence, inequality is inherent in their interactions. As for prosperity, I suppose it depends on how one measures it. One way to do it is the kardaschev scale (0), which would suggest that society has never been more prosperous than it is today, when inequality is arguably the highest it has ever been. How would you measure prosperity?

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale "The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy it is able to use. The measure was proposed by Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev in 1964"

[croon]

> Perhaps a society can't function forever in a state of extreme inequality, but isn't it true that it cannot exist for even a moment in a state of absolute equality?

I would consider that a false dichotomy. And I think "absolute" anything is rarely the answer.

The fastest way to use the most energy is probably to light it on fire. And no, I don't think that's a good measure of prosperity.

Percieved general happiness?

https://hbr.org/2016/01/income-inequality-makes-whole-countr...

https://countryeconomy.com/demography/world-happiness-index