[PaulDavisThe1st]

Maybe a thing to note here is that the behavior of many different kinds of social animals changes dependent on the living situation.

Given that, it is not unreasonable to wonder (hope?) that there might be human living conditions that reduce "brutally dominant social heirarchy".

The best part is: we even appear to have archeological evidence that this is true, for humans!

[mmooss]

We have tons of current evidence that its true. I've never experienced a 'brutally dominant social heirarchy' personally; it's pretty uncommon. I don't live like Lord of the Flies.

IME the theory is a reactionary (i.e., anti-liberal, anti-humanitarian, anti-human rights) myth to justify the rule and worship of power.

[justonenote]

It's not at all uncommon, either in history or modern day. The stats on wealth inequality in the west demonstrate this out pretty clearly.

It's probably more viscerally visible in poorer parts of the world, though trying to compare which is worse, is not very clear. You could argue in the western countries it's easier for someone to become entrenched and cement a position of "top dog" while if you are in a tribe in Africa the position is more fluid and volatile.

I think using the term 'brutally dominant' I invoked images of violence, and maybe something like 'cut-throat' is (ironically) more apt. While you yourself may be in a good and comfortable position, it doesn't negate the reality that people vie for positions of power all over the world every day and have for the entirety of history. We are not just Bonobos living in a forest.

[dylan604]

> reduce "brutally dominant social heirarchy".

if you mean literal brutality, but how the uber wealthy treating those of lower wealth could be considered brutal as well--in modern parlance of course.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I was quoting the comment I was replying to.