So by definition, since no human is more powerful than 3 or more (average) humans combined, might makes right should translate to majority rule.
Now if we had a superman flying around that could honestly take on millions of people at a time, then yeah might makes right makes him king. Besides that, it always comes down to fooling the majority.
The argument doesn’t specify how one achieves might. That’s an exercise for the reader. One guy sitting in a bunker with his finger over the red button of a doomsday weapon is rather mighty. A million people all working together in a coordinated hive mind would also be mighty.
The main issue for a group of humans is coordination. In general, smaller groups are easier to coordinate than larger groups. I think this is one of the biggest reasons elites can form and take control over larger groups in society. Wealth has a big effect too but this coordination problem has always existed and so have elites, at least since the dawn of agriculture.
One guy sitting in a bunker with a red button is only possible because of society and our cumulative technology.
I think you missed my point, what I meant is that some having more power than others is a product of modern society, not an inherent value one is born with. So big power imbalances only exist because we let it be possible. We only let it be possible by convincing enough people that’s the only way we can have a functioning society.
I actually think that used to be true until the last few decades.
That’s simply not true. Read about the Egyptian pharaohs or ancient kings like Sargon of Akkad. Huge power imbalances have been with us for thousands of years. They don’t depend on modern technology, just agriculture and organization.
Yes, we invented power imbalances when we got domesticated by wheat. We haven’t solved that yet.
That’s the last 10,000 years, for a good 70,000 years before that we lived without civilization, so civilization is still far more brief in terms of evolutionary timescale.
I don’t find appeals to nature persuasive. Nature is full of terrifying, disgusting, and deadly things. Most of what people associate with nature (lush forests, beautiful meadows, butterflies, birds, gently flowing clean rivers, gorgeous mountains) is biased to our needs.
Nature also includes foul-smelling swamps teaming with disease-carrying insects, unclean water full of deadly pathogens, harsh deserts with no shade, no water, but plenty of deadly scorpions and snakes, hot savannahs full of powerful lions, leopards, cheetahs, and hyenas, coral reefs full of jagged rocks, deadly stonefish and box jellyfish….
You get the point. Moral judgement of humanity as a whole is silly. Your energies are much better spent trying to make things better in a smaller area around you. Oh, and a lot of human power is illusory: people refusing to act because they don’t think anything will change.
By definition, a living thing is meant to live in a certain environment. Evolution is all about adapting to your environment. So imo the best way to judge a living thing is to take its natural habitat into account to figure out what it is designed to do.
So the issue with humans and all our modern problems is that we are not used to this environment, we have been evolved for more hunter gatherer lifestyles. Even if we got used to the Industrial Revolution, the computer age changed all that.
Imo that’s one of the basis of socialism, it’s the recognition that capitalism makes a terrible environment. And that we must ask, how do we design our economic system to provide a better environment for humans (one that works better with what the body and mind expect).
So this is why I brought up my original point. Humans are not designed for huge power imbalances, it’s why the extremely powerful lack empathy. It’s our invention that is doing more harm than good.
So by definition, since no human is more powerful than 3 or more (average) humans combined, might makes right should translate to majority rule.
Now if we had a superman flying around that could honestly take on millions of people at a time, then yeah might makes right makes him king. Besides that, it always comes down to fooling the majority.
The argument doesn’t specify how one achieves might. That’s an exercise for the reader. One guy sitting in a bunker with his finger over the red button of a doomsday weapon is rather mighty. A million people all working together in a coordinated hive mind would also be mighty.
The main issue for a group of humans is coordination. In general, smaller groups are easier to coordinate than larger groups. I think this is one of the biggest reasons elites can form and take control over larger groups in society. Wealth has a big effect too but this coordination problem has always existed and so have elites, at least since the dawn of agriculture.
One guy sitting in a bunker with a red button is only possible because of society and our cumulative technology.
I think you missed my point, what I meant is that some having more power than others is a product of modern society, not an inherent value one is born with. So big power imbalances only exist because we let it be possible. We only let it be possible by convincing enough people that’s the only way we can have a functioning society.
I actually think that used to be true until the last few decades.
That’s simply not true. Read about the Egyptian pharaohs or ancient kings like Sargon of Akkad. Huge power imbalances have been with us for thousands of years. They don’t depend on modern technology, just agriculture and organization.
Yes, we invented power imbalances when we got domesticated by wheat. We haven’t solved that yet.
That’s the last 10,000 years, for a good 70,000 years before that we lived without civilization, so civilization is still far more brief in terms of evolutionary timescale.
Yes, I just wouldn’t characterize ancient Sumeria as “modern society.” Modern society, to me, began with the Industrial Revolution.
Your right, should have used the word civilization and pointed out how the Industrial Revolution super charged it.
But my point still stands, big power imbalances within a species is not natural and 100% a human invention.
I don’t find appeals to nature persuasive. Nature is full of terrifying, disgusting, and deadly things. Most of what people associate with nature (lush forests, beautiful meadows, butterflies, birds, gently flowing clean rivers, gorgeous mountains) is biased to our needs.
Nature also includes foul-smelling swamps teaming with disease-carrying insects, unclean water full of deadly pathogens, harsh deserts with no shade, no water, but plenty of deadly scorpions and snakes, hot savannahs full of powerful lions, leopards, cheetahs, and hyenas, coral reefs full of jagged rocks, deadly stonefish and box jellyfish….
You get the point. Moral judgement of humanity as a whole is silly. Your energies are much better spent trying to make things better in a smaller area around you. Oh, and a lot of human power is illusory: people refusing to act because they don’t think anything will change.
Not sure what you mean by that.
By definition, a living thing is meant to live in a certain environment. Evolution is all about adapting to your environment. So imo the best way to judge a living thing is to take its natural habitat into account to figure out what it is designed to do.
So the issue with humans and all our modern problems is that we are not used to this environment, we have been evolved for more hunter gatherer lifestyles. Even if we got used to the Industrial Revolution, the computer age changed all that.
Imo that’s one of the basis of socialism, it’s the recognition that capitalism makes a terrible environment. And that we must ask, how do we design our economic system to provide a better environment for humans (one that works better with what the body and mind expect).
So this is why I brought up my original point. Humans are not designed for huge power imbalances, it’s why the extremely powerful lack empathy. It’s our invention that is doing more harm than good.