| Yes you nailed it! Thanks for the thoughtful response. > I just don’t think it’s a realistic expectation to expect this at the global scale. This is exactly my point. We dont have the biology for it - mammals don’t have eusocial traits because we’re too complex and egocentric, to the extent that game theoretic defections are individually risky but can have individual benefits. A group of soldier ants can’t start their own colony because they physically cannot reproduce without a heirarchical queen because they are effectively sterile. Dunbar number limits the possible social interactions at the depth you describe to 150-250 people at the most. That’s your tribal limit and it’s seen in extant hunter gatherer groups as you describe While your ideas are valid about global labor cooperation, ultimately it’s stymied by the limitations of the cerebellum size, and you’re back to where you started. Note that we already tried the hunter gatherer thing for about 250ky and it got overrun by transacional colonialism. If you want to read my theory work on this here are some resources - note though it’s a lot of reading: https://kemendo.com/Myth-of-Scarcity.html https://kemendo.com/GTC.pdf |
I wonder, though, whether the issue with humans coming together on a global basis for common issues like labor, has less to do with cerebellum size (or individual weakness) and more to do with active interference from governments and corporations to prevent these alliances from forming.
If people are upset and angry about more fringe issues, it is possible to distract them from the impactful issues they may agree on like wage growth, education, healthcare. I believe until people start to realize this tactic and recognize it and counteract it, the average human will continue to lose ground.