(Is “Are big societies optimal for human happiness/quality of life,” a fair rephrasing of your question?)
I’ve been asking myself similar questions lately. As pointed out “made to live” implies things that never happened, in that humans weren’t created, nor were the current societies/civilizations ever consciously designed or created. They just sort of happened.
Since both humans and societies got to where they are through mostly unthinking processes, it’s easy to see how things didn’t end up optimal.
Humans were hunter-gatherers for most of their existence. It’s hard to intuitively grasp how long a time that is, but I find this quote helpful (source):
If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture.
Without wanting to get into bad evolutionary sciences, I think it’s reasonably fair that even modern humans are mostly adapted for the hunter-gatherer life, with a couple of more modern modules thrown in. It’s also reasonably fair that humans were mostly “made” to live in small tribes, hunting and gathering.
Agriculture (and later writing, the printing press, the Industrial Revolution, computers...) gave us reasons to not be hunter-gatherers any more and my naive assessment is that a good number of those reasons are good ones. It’s just that our bodies and brains haven’t caught up.
So where am I going with this? I’m not sure. What I’m trying to say is that I think it’s better to say that (our) big societies weren’t made for humans (at least, they’re not optimal for humans), rather than saying that humans weren’t made for big societies.
I like your post, but I’d reverse your punchline: humans were indeed not made for big societies, but big societies were made for humans. The problem is that our societies are a retrofit to try to coordinate humans at scales we were never meant for, hence the non-optimality.
(Is “Are big societies optimal for human happiness/quality of life,” a fair rephrasing of your question?)
That’s again a pretty trival answer. No society isn’t optimal. We don’t live in utopia.
Since both humans and societies got to where they are through mostly unthinking processes
Nation states are created via human made law and a lot of the ways humans interact with each other socially in modern society got thought up by humans as well.
Without wanting to get into bad evolutionary sciences, I think it’s reasonably fair that even modern humans are mostly adapted for the hunter-gatherer life, with a couple of more modern modules thrown in. It’s also reasonably fair that humans were mostly “made” to live in small tribes, hunting and gathering.
What does that mean? That modern humans have a lower lifespan than they would have in a hunter-gatherer life? That happiness is higher?
Others have pointed out that you’re asking an incoherent question. I’d like to state that even if you refine it to something like “can modern humans be very happy in a big society” (or whatever you do actually mean), you still have the problem of “compared to what”?
Even if you conclude “the average and median human was happier 10000 years ago”, you’ll face the (Mere Addition Paradox/ Repugnant Conclusion)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox]. You’ll have to figure out how to compare over 7 billion just-OK lives in big societies against a few tens of million pretty-good lives for hunter-gatherers.
I wanted to mean that even if they grow, they’re becoming too big for the humans and a small or medium group of persons or at least a very small society is maybe more adapted to us
This might be the stupid questions thread but at the same time I don’t think it belongs here. “Made to life” implies a designer with a purpose which is not a basic stable of LW.
To be a proper question, define exactly what you want to know instead of appealing to ill-defined concepts to make a point.
I’d prefer we err on the inclusive side when determining fitness for the stupid questions thread, and I don’t think this is such a bad question. It strikes me as the sort of thing where even if it’s a wrong question, dissolving it would be valuable.
Yeah sorry in fact i’m french and the expression to say that is “fait pour vivre” and i translated it literally . I just wanted to ask if the humans are biolocally and mentally very able to live in a big society like ours and if it’s a product of the evolution.
Yeah sorry in fact i’m french and the expression to say that is “fait pour vivre” and i translated it literally
That not the issue.
I just wanted to ask if the humans are biolocally and mentally very able to live
Human very obviously live in a society like ours. We know that because we can observe that we live, that we are humans and that we are in our society. It’s a quite easy logical deduction.
Are you serious lol ? You understood what i meant don’t be like that ! We can observe too that humans who are very very happy in such big societies are not many and the proportions of unhappy people is growing while societies grow too ; so i was wondering if a big society is the best way to live for an average human and you understood me well!
Is the human kind made to live in such big societies ?
(Is “Are big societies optimal for human happiness/quality of life,” a fair rephrasing of your question?)
I’ve been asking myself similar questions lately. As pointed out “made to live” implies things that never happened, in that humans weren’t created, nor were the current societies/civilizations ever consciously designed or created. They just sort of happened.
Since both humans and societies got to where they are through mostly unthinking processes, it’s easy to see how things didn’t end up optimal.
Humans were hunter-gatherers for most of their existence. It’s hard to intuitively grasp how long a time that is, but I find this quote helpful (source):
Without wanting to get into bad evolutionary sciences, I think it’s reasonably fair that even modern humans are mostly adapted for the hunter-gatherer life, with a couple of more modern modules thrown in. It’s also reasonably fair that humans were mostly “made” to live in small tribes, hunting and gathering.
Agriculture (and later writing, the printing press, the Industrial Revolution, computers...) gave us reasons to not be hunter-gatherers any more and my naive assessment is that a good number of those reasons are good ones. It’s just that our bodies and brains haven’t caught up.
So where am I going with this? I’m not sure. What I’m trying to say is that I think it’s better to say that (our) big societies weren’t made for humans (at least, they’re not optimal for humans), rather than saying that humans weren’t made for big societies.
I like your post, but I’d reverse your punchline: humans were indeed not made for big societies, but big societies were made for humans. The problem is that our societies are a retrofit to try to coordinate humans at scales we were never meant for, hence the non-optimality.
Thank you for your answer i was thinking the same way ! And yes it was the meaning of my question thank you !
That’s again a pretty trival answer. No society isn’t optimal. We don’t live in utopia.
Nation states are created via human made law and a lot of the ways humans interact with each other socially in modern society got thought up by humans as well.
What does that mean? That modern humans have a lower lifespan than they would have in a hunter-gatherer life? That happiness is higher?
http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/05/a-cascade-of-dunbar-numbers/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number Those links may interest you
Woaw thank you very much !
Also might want to take a look at http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html
Others have pointed out that you’re asking an incoherent question. I’d like to state that even if you refine it to something like “can modern humans be very happy in a big society” (or whatever you do actually mean), you still have the problem of “compared to what”?
Even if you conclude “the average and median human was happier 10000 years ago”, you’ll face the (Mere Addition Paradox/ Repugnant Conclusion)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox]. You’ll have to figure out how to compare over 7 billion just-OK lives in big societies against a few tens of million pretty-good lives for hunter-gatherers.
Depends on what you mean by “made to live”. We certainly gravitate toward them.
Yeah but even if it’s known that the human kindis a “social kind” i don’t think such big societies are very necessary …
What do you mean by “necessary”? They certainly grow organically.
I wanted to mean that even if they grow, they’re becoming too big for the humans and a small or medium group of persons or at least a very small society is maybe more adapted to us
This might be the stupid questions thread but at the same time I don’t think it belongs here. “Made to life” implies a designer with a purpose which is not a basic stable of LW.
To be a proper question, define exactly what you want to know instead of appealing to ill-defined concepts to make a point.
I’d prefer we err on the inclusive side when determining fitness for the stupid questions thread, and I don’t think this is such a bad question. It strikes me as the sort of thing where even if it’s a wrong question, dissolving it would be valuable.
Yeah sorry in fact i’m french and the expression to say that is “fait pour vivre” and i translated it literally . I just wanted to ask if the humans are biolocally and mentally very able to live in a big society like ours and if it’s a product of the evolution.
That not the issue.
Human very obviously live in a society like ours. We know that because we can observe that we live, that we are humans and that we are in our society. It’s a quite easy logical deduction.
Are you serious lol ? You understood what i meant don’t be like that ! We can observe too that humans who are very very happy in such big societies are not many and the proportions of unhappy people is growing while societies grow too ; so i was wondering if a big society is the best way to live for an average human and you understood me well!