At 01:57 PM 4/30/97 -0700, Howard wrote:

>        Right, Brian. In PEOPLE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT: An Anthropology of
>Anarchy , Dr. Harold Barclay supports the contention of most other
>anthropologists that hunter-gatherers and most other social organization
>of humans were stateless. Any authority was the type based on merit from
>the !Kung! to the Lapps (among the stateless societies).

A society can be both "stateless" and "hierarchical" (e.g., chimps).

>        In addition, the idea that submitting to authority has survival
>value is questionable at best. It is based on the fallacy of group
>selection. Authority commonly uses group selection arguements ("do it for
>the good of the race") to justify individuals giving up their individual
>fitness. It is well established that selection at the level of the
>individual is much stronger than group selection UNLESS they are tending
>in the same direction. Then they are additive. Thus, if a "leader" claims
>something is "good for society" it will also be good for individual
>fitness or we can know that the "leader" is deceiving others and probably
>himself or herself and that the prescribed behavior is to increase the
>fitness of the leader.

Whither or not "submitting to authority" had survival value in the
past, does not concern me here. The issue is whether or not it
does today.

It is self-evident that civil society can not continue under its
present organizing principle (which I call "maximum efficient
consumption"). Worldwide authority is needed to impose a new
organizing principle and to protect the worldwide commons.

Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/