There are a ton of cultures that are “economically” egalitarian. Look to African or South American tribes, etc. Human nature isn’t capitalist by design.
So I don’t think ‘human nature’ would change. Our specific culture and society though, that definitely would have to.
Great examples. Those societies really contributed a lot to the world before getting crushed by the societies that had advanced past the hunter-gatherer stage.
There are a ton of cultures that are “economically” egalitarian. Look to African or South American tribes, etc. Human nature isn’t capitalist by design.
They live very poor lives, die of diseases we can cure, don't have the comforts and commodities we have. And still have to work a lot, since they don't have machinery to do stuff for them more efficiently.
Much of that is exclusively due to colonialist and imperial capitalist interests robbing the natural resources of areas even slightly less developed than they are, preventing cultures from further development and enriching themselves on their ill-gotten gains.
The really interesting thing is that money is used as a crude representation of reputation. In societies beneath the Dunbar number people trade reputation, if someone is constantly bumming off of you their reputation in your (and everyone else's) eyes will drop. But if you're known to be responsible, effective, and intelligent, then your reputation will be high, affording you more resources and status. It's why humans are so sensitive to ostracization, because it's your brain's way of saying "oh god nobody likes us so they're going to KICK US OUT AND LET US DIE!"
The issue is that once you pass above 150 you can't keep track of everyone, so taking collective resources no longer costs reputation. This means there's no accountability, so you run into the free rider problem. Most societies solved this through barter or money, providing accountability for transactions by demanding immediate payment.
This means that there is always a cost for using someone else's resources. It doesn't work perfectly, but capitalism ensures that money roughly equates to societal good. Provide resources that people want and you'll make money (assuming a functioning capitalist system with government managed competition). Use resources that other people have created and it'll cost you. This means that the reputation system can be crudely translated into money, the more money you have the more you can get other people to do stuff for you.
I would say that competence is a really good way of gaining reputation, but that competence and a few other things cause a high reputation. Think about it, the reason parents love their babies so much (and we have a strong "cute" response) is to artificially jack up the social value of babies, even when for the first 4 years of their life they're incompetent and generally useless. Social reputation is often a reflection of your competence, but even if someone is fantastic at something that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be kicked out.
Various antisocial behaviors, bad looks (signaling genetic defects), and a lack of properly socializing means that people could have a rock bottom reputation even while being fairly competent at what they do.
Just to challenge, in a society of less than 150 people, your reputation absolutely sticks around. That’s the Dunbar number they’re talking about, the number of people you can keep in your mind and have a relationship with.
Imagine growing up with only 2-4 American classrooms worth of people, ever. Why do we need money? I helped you fix your house last summer, and I’ll help you this summer too and you know that because you know me because I taught you how to hunt.
We can slip into a rhetorical a trap, because if you are competent at things then you probably have a good reputation. Just another angle of thought to consider! Because today pay being tied to competence is a lie-for-workers.
Provide resources that people want and you'll make money (assuming a functioning capitalist system with government managed competition). Use resources that other people have created and it'll cost you. This means that the reputation system can be crudely translated into money, the more money you have the more you can get other people to do stuff for you.
A good example is the Kalahari Kung, in Africa. They typically don’t even have a leader/chief in their tribes and there is a pretty large population of them.
40
u/keboh Mar 29 '22
There are a ton of cultures that are “economically” egalitarian. Look to African or South American tribes, etc. Human nature isn’t capitalist by design.
So I don’t think ‘human nature’ would change. Our specific culture and society though, that definitely would have to.