>In a situation of universal poverty there's no reason why people would automatically fight with each other rather then cooperate.
Unless they were not satisfied to endure grinding poverty. By standing over the majority, you can keep a greater share of social product for yourself.
> It would not be unlikely that the only way people could survive is to employ mutual aid & cooperate - if they're constantly fighting with each other then they may starve.
That won't work of course, because co-operation would involve everyone having the same, very low standard of living. If a small minority chooses to exploit the majority on the other hand, this minority can apportion itself a substantially larger share. The majority will be worse off, but it would actually allow for a more progressive society in the long run. If everyone is starving and desperate, social and technical progress is impossible. If 5% of the population is well fed and secure, it will have the resources and leisure to better itself and eventually society.
That is how human society has progressed.
>There have been many indigenous societies (such as the !kung and Iriquois) that have been able to provide the basic needs of their members, giving them economic security, without an industrial infrastructure. To quote anthropologist Marshall Sahin's book "Stone Age Economics":
A hunter gatherer economy is rarely compatible with economic security. Such a society has as little control over its economy as the wild birds.
>"Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times.
Hunter gatherers live an extremely precarious life. You Are talking nonsense.
But it is irrelevant anyhow. Such an economy is not compatible with the population density of modern times, so unless you are suggesting killing off 90% of the world's population it is not a feasible future of humanity. Get serious will you.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas