On 4/21/06, Wojtek Sokolowski <<a href="mailto:sokol@jhu.edu" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> sokol@jhu.edu</a>> wrote: WS: Jerry, I know the spiel, I did read the _Harmless People_  and take an anthropology course or two.  I just do not buy the argument. I think it is a nice heart-warming story that we all wish were true, but unfortunately it is a myth  that uses the absence of evidence as evidence in its favor.  Not a good thing, at least in science. But none of this really matters to the point in question.  For a moment accept the controversial thesis that hominids, chimpanzees and bonobos should all be considered a part of the same human family.  Chimpanzees and bonobos are simply our closest surving relatives.  1) If this is accepted then we humans and two other species are all that are left when to studying species determined societal differences.  2)  All three species, in their original settings develop hierarchies but those hierarchies are radically different from each other.  3) There are dozens, perhaps more species in this six million year old branch of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos and we know nothing about the kinds of hierarchies that they developed.  4) We know that even chimpanzee hierarchies vary according to the surrounding environment.  For example, if chimps are in a relatively close environment, then female-female alliances develop and the male hierarchy is moderated to such an extent that food distribution is equalized. Also the sexual dominance of the alpha-male is also moderated by the fact that female alliances will often protect those males and females who break the alpha-males dominance. 5)  As near as we can tell the hierarchies established by hunter-gatherer humans is based on long-term male-female pairing and enforced equality of food division, within each group.  You simply don't see the forced inequality of food division within single hunter-gatherer groups that you do between chimpanzees.  The tendency is closer to the bonobo's division of food but for different reasons having to do with the way humans cooperate.  6) This does not mean that there wouldn't be unequal food division between hunter-gather groups.  Range divisions would likely be competitive between groups.  In other words there is inter-group competition and dominance and intra-group equality.  This seems to be true in many primate species also.  7)  The fact that we only have three species close to our evolutionary line as a base of comparison severely limits what we can conclude about our species as far as distribution, cooperation and hierarchy, but the fact that human hunter-gatherers, chimpanzees, and bonobos have developed societies that are so much at variance with each other should stop you from coming to a priori conclusions.  8) I am an advocate of the notion of "niche-creation" as a concept that can explain the differences between bonobo, chimpanzee, and human socieites.  Note also that bonobo and chimpanzee societies can vary a bit depending upon the niches they find themselves in.  Since human beings create their own niches to such a large extent there is not much we can conclude about democracy and distribution etc. from studying primates.  9) Even primate societies outside of the line of humans, chimpanzees & bonobos can vary tremendously according to circumstances.  Consider the baboons in the study by Sapolsky.  I have read Sapolsky's books but will forward to you the review from foreign affairs which explains how a baboon society was transformed.  <div style="direction: ltr;">On 4/21/06, Wojtek Sokolowski <<a href="mailto:sokol@jhu.edu" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> sokol@jhu.edu</a> > wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> I also believe that social hierarchies and inequalities are not just a historical fluke, and accidental power grab that managed to perpetuate itself.  These hierarchies are simply manifestations of our mental apriori categories ingrained in our brains that are hierarchically organized.  We cannot think without hierarchies i.e. ordering things into classes that cannot even de defined without an apriori hierarchical order (the genus proximum and differentiam specificam thing).  In short, living without hierarchies is unthinkable.  The only thing we can do is to try to minimize the negative effects of these pre-ordained in our mental structures hierarchies on our fellow human beings. Wojtek</blockquote><div> This is the example of the confusion of social hierarchies, economic class, logical hierarchies, and cognitive categories.  When you are argue from ideological analogy these kinds of category mistakes are inevitable. </div></div> Finally the above paragraph merely speculation.  The speculation may be true but there is counter evidence about how the brain works.  (Edleman's theories or some variations on Chomsky's notions). All I see here is the usual ideological prejudice.  All brains must be organized in someway or the other.  The fact that a bonobo's brain is hierarchically organized in almost precisely the same way that a chimpanzee's brain is organized, does not mean that bonobo society is hierarchical in the same way as chimapnzee society. There is no discernable differences in bonobo brains and chimp brains but the societies are radically different in the amount of hierarchy and the kind of hierarchy.  The fact is we know very little about how the brain/mind is organized outside of a few good notions about language, vision, and some empirical studies.  I don't know.  Practically everything you say Woj seems to be written as an excuse for giving up on striving for democracy of power and equality of go