Login to account Create an account  


  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
From Tribes to Superpowers: The Evolution of Human Societies Toward Global Dominance
#1
I am cross posting this to ATS as well. Mods, please move if this is not the correct forum.

Just looking for feedback to an idea I've been working on lately.

Evolutionary and Sociobiological Roots
  • Survival in Numbers: Early human societies were small, often organized in tribes or clans. As humans faced resource scarcity, external threats, and the need to compete with other groups, coming together offered a survival advantage. Grouping allowed humans to pool resources, defend territories more effectively, and leverage collective knowledge and skills.
  • In-group Loyalty and Out-group Hostility: Evolutionary psychology suggests that humans are predisposed to develop strong loyalty within groups and sometimes antagonism toward outsiders. These tendencies likely served as survival mechanisms, strengthening bonds within the group and enhancing their ability to fend off external threats.
2. Agricultural Revolution and Population Growth
  • Resource Control and Land Expansion: With the advent of agriculture (around 10,000 years ago), humans could produce food surplus, enabling larger, more permanent settlements. As these agricultural communities grew, they began to consolidate power, forming city-states and early civilizations. Controlling land and resources became essential, which led to conflicts over territory and the gradual absorption or conquest of smaller communities by larger, more powerful entities.
  • Rise of Social Hierarchies: Agriculture led to wealth accumulation and the establishment of social hierarchies, with elites (often religious or warrior classes) emerging to organize and protect resources. This stratification increased the power of certain individuals or classes to unify groups and organize them under a single rule, incentivizing expansion and competition with neighboring territories.
3. Empire-Building and Conquest
  • Domination as a Strategy for Stability: As states expanded, they often sought to conquer neighbors to create stable boundaries and reduce the risk of external threats. The result was the creation of empires, like those of the Egyptians, Persians, Romans, and later European colonial empires. These empires used their military power to absorb smaller groups, coalescing them into vast territories under central control.
  • Cultural and Religious Assimilation: Empires not only expanded through military conquest but also through cultural integration. Many empires spread their languages, religions, and customs to create a sense of shared identity or loyalty, making it easier to maintain control over diverse populations. This process is known as imperial assimilation, a powerful force in expanding and consolidating empires.
4. Colonialism and the Modern Nation-State
  • Colonial Exploitation and Global Reach: The Age of Exploration and subsequent colonialism saw European powers expanding globally, consolidating power and wealth at an unprecedented scale. The colonial model coalesced resources from around the world, leading to larger, more powerful states with global influence.
  • Emergence of the Nation-State: As colonial empires dissolved, the nation-state emerged as the dominant political structure. Nation-states often represent large territories unified under a central government, with shared national identity and citizenship. Many modern countries are, in fact, amalgamations of smaller communities, often with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds brought together under the banner of a single national identity.
5. Geopolitical Competition and the Pursuit of Global Dominance
  • Power Concentration and Global Politics: In the 20th and 21st centuries, global politics has largely centered on competition among a few large political units (such as the United States, China, the European Union, and formerly the Soviet Union). These units, each with vast economic and military power, influence global structures and often compete for dominance in economic, military, technological, and ideological spheres.
  • Economic Globalization and Neo-Imperialism: Globalization has created economic interdependence among nations, but it also reinforces the power of a few dominant economies. Some analysts argue that economic globalization has led to a new form of "neo-imperialism," where large economic powers exert control over smaller nations through trade, debt, and corporate influence rather than direct military control.
6. The Drive for Global Hegemony
  • Unipolar vs. Multipolar World Orders: The competition for dominance has led to different visions of a global order, from the unipolar hegemony of a single superpower to a multipolar world where power is distributed among several key players. This struggle is playing out through various channels, including international institutions, economic policies, technological standards, and military alliances.
  • Soft Power and Ideological Influence: In addition to economic and military dominance, modern powers use soft power—such as cultural influence, diplomatic initiatives, and international aid—to expand their influence globally. This strategy aims to shape global values and norms, consolidating the power of these entities without direct confrontation.
7. Future Implications: Towards a Unified or Fragmented World?
  • Global Governance Challenges: The world faces shared challenges, such as climate change, cybersecurity, and pandemics, that may drive nations toward more cooperation or a unified global governance system. However, ideological, cultural, and economic divisions persist, creating friction between globalism and nationalism.
  • Technology and Surveillance: Technological advancements in surveillance, artificial intelligence, and social media provide unprecedented tools for centralizing control. This raises questions about whether large political entities will become even more powerful or whether technology will enable smaller, decentralized groups to assert greater autonomy.
  • Potential for Decentralization: Some argue that future political structures might evolve toward decentralization, where smaller, more autonomous communities form networks rather than consolidate under single, large governing bodies. This could be driven by technology (like blockchain), environmental factors, or shifts in public sentiment against centralization.
Summary
The pattern of smaller groups forming larger units to achieve security, economic stability, and social cohesion is deeply embedded in human history. The drive for dominance, whether military, cultural, or economic, has historically pushed smaller entities to merge into larger, more powerful structures. Today, the world stands at a crossroads between continued consolidation into powerful blocs and a potential rethinking of power distribution, possibly toward a more decentralized, networked world.
The outcome of this tension will likely shape the next chapter of human civilizationEvolutionary and Sociobiological Roots
  • Survival in Numbers: Early human societies were small, often organized in tribes or clans. As humans faced resource scarcity, external threats, and the need to compete with other groups, coming together offered a survival advantage. Grouping allowed humans to pool resources, defend territories more effectively, and leverage collective knowledge and skills.
  • In-group Loyalty and Out-group Hostility: Evolutionary psychology suggests that humans are predisposed to develop strong loyalty within groups and sometimes antagonism toward outsiders. These tendencies likely served as survival mechanisms, strengthening bonds within the group and enhancing their ability to fend off external threats.
2. Agricultural Revolution and Population Growth
  • Resource Control and Land Expansion: With the advent of agriculture (around 10,000 years ago), humans could produce food surplus, enabling larger, more permanent settlements. As these agricultural communities grew, they began to consolidate power, forming city-states and early civilizations. Controlling land and resources became essential, which led to conflicts over territory and the gradual absorption or conquest of smaller communities by larger, more powerful entities.
  • Rise of Social Hierarchies: Agriculture led to wealth accumulation and the establishment of social hierarchies, with elites (often religious or warrior classes) emerging to organize and protect resources. This stratification increased the power of certain individuals or classes to unify groups and organize them under a single rule, incentivizing expansion and competition with neighboring territories.
3. Empire-Building and Conquest
  • Domination as a Strategy for Stability: As states expanded, they often sought to conquer neighbors to create stable boundaries and reduce the risk of external threats. The result was the creation of empires, like those of the Egyptians, Persians, Romans, and later European colonial empires. These empires used their military power to absorb smaller groups, coalescing them into vast territories under central control.
  • Cultural and Religious Assimilation: Empires not only expanded through military conquest but also through cultural integration. Many empires spread their languages, religions, and customs to create a sense of shared identity or loyalty, making it easier to maintain control over diverse populations. This process is known as imperial assimilation, a powerful force in expanding and consolidating empires.
4. Colonialism and the Modern Nation-State
  • Colonial Exploitation and Global Reach: The Age of Exploration and subsequent colonialism saw European powers expanding globally, consolidating power and wealth at an unprecedented scale. The colonial model coalesced resources from around the world, leading to larger, more powerful states with global influence.
  • Emergence of the Nation-State: As colonial empires dissolved, the nation-state emerged as the dominant political structure. Nation-states often represent large territories unified under a central government, with shared national identity and citizenship. Many modern countries are, in fact, amalgamations of smaller communities, often with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds brought together under the banner of a single national identity.
5. Geopolitical Competition and the Pursuit of Global Dominance
  • Power Concentration and Global Politics: In the 20th and 21st centuries, global politics has largely centered on competition among a few large political units (such as the United States, China, the European Union, and formerly the Soviet Union). These units, each with vast economic and military power, influence global structures and often compete for dominance in economic, military, technological, and ideological spheres.
  • Economic Globalization and Neo-Imperialism: Globalization has created economic interdependence among nations, but it also reinforces the power of a few dominant economies. Some analysts argue that economic globalization has led to a new form of "neo-imperialism," where large economic powers exert control over smaller nations through trade, debt, and corporate influence rather than direct military control.
6. The Drive for Global Hegemony
  • Unipolar vs. Multipolar World Orders: The competition for dominance has led to different visions of a global order, from the unipolar hegemony of a single superpower to a multipolar world where power is distributed among several key players. This struggle is playing out through various channels, including international institutions, economic policies, technological standards, and military alliances.
  • Soft Power and Ideological Influence: In addition to economic and military dominance, modern powers use soft power—such as cultural influence, diplomatic initiatives, and international aid—to expand their influence globally. This strategy aims to shape global values and norms, consolidating the power of these entities without direct confrontation.
7. Future Implications: Towards a Unified or Fragmented World?
  • Global Governance Challenges: The world faces shared challenges, such as climate change, cybersecurity, and pandemics, that may drive nations toward more cooperation or a unified global governance system. However, ideological, cultural, and economic divisions persist, creating friction between globalism and nationalism.
  • Technology and Surveillance: Technological advancements in surveillance, artificial intelligence, and social media provide unprecedented tools for centralizing control. This raises questions about whether large political entities will become even more powerful or whether technology will enable smaller, decentralized groups to assert greater autonomy.
  • Potential for Decentralization: Some argue that future political structures might evolve toward decentralization, where smaller, more autonomous communities form networks rather than consolidate under single, large governing bodies. This could be driven by technology (like blockchain), environmental factors, or shifts in public sentiment against centralization.
Summary
The pattern of smaller groups forming larger units to achieve security, economic stability, and social cohesion is deeply embedded in human history. The drive for dominance, whether military, cultural, or economic, has historically pushed smaller entities to merge into larger, more powerful structures. Today, the world stands at a crossroads between continued consolidation into powerful blocs and a potential rethinking of power distribution, possibly toward a more decentralized, networked world.
The outcome of this tension will likely shape the next chapter of human civilization.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam; nunc occasio est et tempus.
Reply
#2
A noble endeavor, and I submit, a worthy treatise.

Meaning absolutely no disrespect, I hope I can add some criticism, philosophically-speaking.  I will try to be brief, as best I can.

In the context of Evolutionary and Sociobiological Roots, I am a dissenter of the predominant characterization of what we somewhat condescendingly call "Primitive Man."

Clearly, once the human currency of shared knowledge and experience was established... we have little reason to assume that these people couldn't think for themselves.  We shouldn't assume that they were brutishly devoid of reason.  It was not be some matter-of-fact evolutionary force making them congregate and cluster.  The abstract idea of tribes and clans is thus poorly contrived, in my opinion.  These are inevitabilities of social structure.  It is manifested in all life sharing social nature. 

But humans "speak" to each other, and the process of negotiation was sure to follow - a necessity of communication. 
Every development thereafter is not one of animal instinct, but of a conjoining of agendas... cooperation.

The struggles of nations, empires, corporations and combines are not the struggles of "humans"... they never were. 
The dominance drive is not about humans, but instead of human 'constructs,' ultimately about competency. 
Humans do not naturally 'seek' to assimilate others, "groups" of human do...

I tend to refuse the precept that human nature is all that complicated... rather that humans 'create' or 'engender' complications in the "human" world... like a toxic compulsion.

None of this is meant to take away from an otherwise brilliant analysis. 
I was just offering a counter opinion for you to mull over, if you find it worthy.
 Beer
Reply
#3
Cool writeup, will take time to go through it all.  Are you planning to write a book, this seems like a start for something?

Some initial comments..

Option A. Human evolution was accelerated by something divine.

Option B. A terrible tragedy occurred.

"Primitive Man" is absurd, we have been as we are, just as smart, ambitious and everything else for a very long time.

"Human Societiesis emergent complexity. It's deterministic. When you mention agents seeking out things to make it a larger whole, I don't think the motives/what happened are requirements. You can just stick a bunch of people together and the same numbers of people will always do the same things.
compassion, even when hope is lost
Reply
#4
I really like these "view from 30,000 feet" analyses. Thank you.

In your description, I'm struck by the contrasts of distance: an ever-closing distance required for affect, and an ever-widening distance of subsequent effect, as sociological, economic, and technological system have matured. Today, the distance required to "reach out" is as narrow as between a cell phone and eyeball, and the scope of consequent effect can be global. The disparity seems to only be increasing. How much further can it go? Perhaps, when it reaches its maximum, we will see a complete dissolution of the concept of physical distance entirely -- nations, economies, ideologies will no longer be bound by locality at all, but will exist in a colocated "soup" of post-singularity chaos. Imagine that! Unless the heterogeneity disappears entirely, we'll be walking down the street and passing people with total different languages, worldviews, economic systems, governments of choice, etc. How will it all be mediated? It's a mystery.
"I cannot give you what you deny yourself. Look for solutions from within." - Kai Opaka
Reply
#5
(11-01-2024, 09:19 AM)UltraBudgie Wrote: I really like these "view from 30,000 feet" analyses. Thank you.

In your description, I'm struck by the contrasts of distance: an ever-closing distance required for affect, and an ever-widening distance of subsequent effect, as sociological, economic, and technological system have matured.

I had not thought about distance as a metric of social cohesion/dishesion. That's a great insight! I will need to ponder this more and perhaps consider that in my analysis. Thank you! Just the kind of feedback I was looking for!
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam; nunc occasio est et tempus.
Reply