[Manuel_D]

Social arrangements throughout history are indeed quite varied. Social arrangements in pre-history and especially pre-agricultural societies less so. Absence of agriculture puts a much lower limit on the size of social groups, usually around 50-150. Rates of violent death vary from ~12-25% (as in asking the question, "what percentage of people died naturally or at the hands of other human beings?"), across multiple continents. This is considerably higher than agricultural societies, and vastly larger than industrial societies.

[anigbrowl]

So what? Your utility function is one-dimensional, lifespan. Maximizing the productive lifespan of proles or serfs is optimal in a society where power is centralized, but you are discounting the value of autonomy to zero.

I reject the Hobbesian premise that other social forms should be dismissed as nasty, brutish, and short, and it's not for lack of familiarity with the anthropology of prehistorical conflict.

[jonathankoren]

> Social arrangements in pre-history and especially pre-agricultural societies less so.

[citation needed]

[Manuel_D]

Show me a hunter-gatherer society that has social groups spanning hundreds of people or more. There's fundamental limits of food production and social organization without tools like agriculture to support larger population density, or writing to organize larger groups of people. You're asking me to prove a negative here.

[jonathankoren]

You’re conflating carrying capacity with social arrangements, and directly say that lower carrying capacity reduces the variety of social arrangements.

You really think that contemporary Pygmies of the Congo, the uncontacted people of the Amazon, the 19th century Australian Aborigines, Cheyenne, Inuit, and Shawnee, along with the prehistoric of Central Europe and East Asia, are culturally indistinguishable beyond silly hats?

This is laughable.

[Manuel_D]

They're not culturally indistinguishable. But they absolutely share many similar characteristics distinct from both agrarian and industrial societies: all of them primarily interact and live in social groups much smaller than agrarian societies. All had rates of violence drastically higher than today.

Of course they have different languages, religious practices, etc. But that's not particularly important relative to the point I'm making: none of the societies you listed were examples of the idyllic noble-savage kind of society that popular culture tends to portray hunter gatherers to be.

[jonathankoren]

> But that's not particularly important relative to the point I'm making: none of the societies you listed were examples of the idyllic noble-savage kind of society that popular culture tends to portray hunter gatherers to be.

Literally no one is making that point. What people (or at least I am) saying is believing all hunter gatherer societies are dominated strong man violence is pure fantasy that is informed by they’re own biases and wishes rather than actual data.