"Progress"

Pre-human male hominids, we infer from observing bonobos and chimpanzees, were dominated by one alpha male per group, who got the best food and most of the females.

Um. Bonobos don't work that way. They're "dominated", if you can use the term, by less-vertical coalitions of comparitively high-status females. Food is shared widely, paternity certainty is a nonissue.

We're equidistant from them and chimps, talking divergence from common ancestors, so it's really less clear-cut than you think how well chimp analogies suffice to model proto-hominids -- both are equally-close relations, but their lifestyles and social strategies differ tremendously.

Why is this in main? For that matter, what has this got to do with rationality? Sure its nice to poke fun at people who think democracy is the shit, but it doesn't really add anything to LW.

People go funny in the head when talking about politics. The evolutionary reasons for this are so obvious as to be worth belaboring: In the ancestral environment, politics was a matter of life and death. And sex, and wealth, and allies, and reputation... When, today, you get into an argument about whether "we" ought to raise the minimum wage, you're executing adaptations for an ancestral environment where being on the wrong side of the argument could get you killed... Politics is an extension of war by other means. Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back - providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

I find the idea that humans have already found their ideal system of government suspicious. Democracy is, at best, low-hanging fruit. I do think it is a step up from previous systems, but it is unlikely that it is the best system that will ever exist. Changes in styles of governance tend to be slow, so whatever "better than democracy" systems are out there, I don't expect to see any pop up anytime soon. Whatever it is, it will probably be weird.

First, this belongs in Discussion.

Second, "progress" is more like the dialectic helical spiral, so beloved by Marxists, with various manifestations periodically revisited, albeit each time on a different level. Democracy works for a time, then it is replaced by a monarchy or an oligarchy or anarchy, then back again, though hopefully in a more "evolved" form (whatever it means). In that sense, I agree, thinking of democracy as the final form of government is rather short-sighted.

Third, the idea of democracy currently has a feel-good halo, probably due to Western (British?) influences, so nearly all dictatorships still bill themselves as democracies. One can imagine that this fad will pass and something else comes into vogue, such as "responsible corporate governance at a state level", and every government, democratic or not, will try to pretend that they are run like a corporation. Then the prevailing wisdom will be that the corporate model is the final stage of "human social development", until that fad, too, passes.

But there isn't some cosmic niceness built into the universe that makes everything improve monotonically along every dimension at once.

Who believes this?

If nothing else, futarchy seems like an obvious improvement on democracy.

This seems like a result of the same simple strategy in different environments. The strategy is: "try to get as much power as you can, and reduce the power others have". The environment includes technology and other people. As the humankind develops (technologically, intelectually, socially), different tactics become possible, sometimes small changes can lead to big results. (For other species, the tactics remain rather constant for millenia.)

How difficult is it for the most powerful individual to retain power? How difficult is it for the powerful groups to keep the most powerful individual in check? How difficult is it for masses to keep the powerful groups in check? Answer these, and you will see whether some variant of "monarchy", "aristocracy" or "democracy" will be the most "natural" form of government.

It depends on technology. Cheap weapons, such as sticks or stones, give more power to large groups (a group of weaker humans can stone one strong individual, distributing the risks of counterattack). Expensive weapons, such as nukes or battle droids, give more power to rich groups = the groups currently in power. Centralized media, such as radio or TV, give more power to their rich owners. Distributed media, such as internet, give more power to masses.

None of this is an absolute advantage; for many forms of power there is a defense that weakens it partially. A physically strong person will be also good at sword-fighting. A large group of people, containing very skilled individuals, could steal nukes or hack battle droids. A large group of people could occupy a TV station. A rich organization can pay people to defend their interests on internet. A government can censor internet communication, and punish those who break the rules. Etc.

It also depends on culture, religion, education, fashion, surrounding countries, economical situation, etc. After including many factors, sometimes the strongest individual wins, sometimes the strongest group wins, and sometimes the power is distributed widely.

If you want, you can try to fit these data into a trend (usually by filtering the evidence), or into a "spiral" (which is just a form of saying "sometimes this, sometimes that", while pretending deeper understanding).

What will happen in the future? It will depend on specific inventions and other changes, which is hard to predict, especially if something "completely new" happens. I think that some individuals will always keep trying to concentrate power in their own hands; other people will keep fighting for power as groups; and those unsuccessful will keep hating them.

If I had to make my bet now, I would bet on aristocracy. The world is too complex to be ruled by an individual, and most people are too ignorant for a real democracy. Of course the ruling class may choose a person to represent them, thus creating a nominal monarchy; or allow free election about unimportant topics, thus creating a nominal democracy. Actually I think this has already happened; except unlike old aristocracies the current one does not have exact definition and strict boundaries, so it can be joined by people who have enough skills and luck.

I'm much more interested in the question of democracy's morality per se, given baseline human nature, than its "efficiency" or costs in a given historical environment (not meaning the intristic goodness of some abstract "eidos of Democracy", just whether it should be Sacred, like other "moral essentials", or not).

Unfortunately, I don't (yet) even have a remote inkling of an answer; my intuition, of course, is that ruling people without meaningful group consent is very ugly in itself, and "manufacturing consent" too directly is paperclipping, but I'm honestly trying to reflect on the matter according to my entire breadth of view.

I do believe "progress" is a meaningful term. But there isn't some cosmic niceness built into the universe that makes everything improve monotonically along every dimension at once.

Here's my "progress" advocacy.

I don't think I go that far, though. Everyone acknowledges setbacks, AFAIK. Meteorite strikes for example.

Your article seems to link equality with progress - but ISTM that this relationship is pretty weak.

Then, human social groups even became larger, and it became possible for a central alpha-male chieftain to control a large area; and the groups became less egalitarian.

Can you explain how this would work? Why would an "alpha male" be more able to defend against coalitions in larger groups?

"Ancestral hierarchy and conflict", by Christopher Boehm. requires free registration, I think.

Quick poll: Who here has actually met someone who thinks democracy arises inevitably from human nature?

Democracy without raising the sanity waterline first is pretty much as useless a form of government as any other we've had so far. It's not really much in the way of "progress". In fact, I'd wager to say that no form of government can be that great without a decent baseline sanity level.

Large businesses tend to be organized around a central authority. Many writers have commented on the supposed alpha-male-ness of members of the executive class, and others on their supposed psychopathy.

More interesting than half of the other articles that seem to make it to Main.

There are some arguments for democracies being attractors that are worth considering. One major one is that the free speech generally associated with democracies allows more scientific production. Thus for example as a proportion of population the USSR had many fewer Nobel Prizes than most major Western countries (especially the US, France and Britain). So the democracies have faster technological progress.

Maybe "progress" doesn't refer to equality, but autonomy. It does seem like the progression of social organization generally leads to individual autonomy and equality of opportunity. Egalitarianism is a nice talking point for politicians, but when we say "progress" we really mean individual autonomy.

"The Evolution of Political Thought" by C. Northcote Parkinson (1958) points out that "political progress" actually happens in cycles and that the appearance of "progress" is just the result of people having short time horizons and not being able to see enough of history to see the whole cycle. Also not realising what is happening in the third world, where many democracies have collapsed into dictatorships.

Governing bodies can be either one person (monarch or dictator), a small group (oligarchy or aristocracy) or by a majority (democracy). (Parkinson included Communism in the chapter on Theocracy). States tend to cycle through these different types. This has been known from ancient Greek times. (The Greeks were the first place where there were lots of small city states in a small area and they could see each other in different parts of the cycle.)

Let's start with Monarchy.

A monarch has children and wants to give something to each child, not just the eldest. Thus the other children become nobles. Over time this family grows and grows and the number with political power keeps increasing until the government is really an aristocracy.

Its not fair that a limited number of people have power in the aristocracy so its size keeps growing. Eventually it is so big that there is not much distinction between aristocrats and other and the system evolves towards democracy.

The problem with democracy is that the populace can vote themselves largess from the treasury (cf current situation in USA where everyone wants "the government" to pay for their health care, or the situation in Greece where political parties that promised that Greece would not have to pay off its public debt (which would have required higher taxes and cutting pensions) were successful in the recent election). Sooner or later the government falls apart because it has no money. In the chaos a dictator arises and is GIVEN the power by the majority in return for making everything predictable and safe again.

The dictator passes on power to his children and over generations this becomes established by custom as a monarchy and so the cycle continues.

Parkinson does claim that different cultures fit more naturally in different forms of government, racing through the others until they get back to their natural form where they tend to be stable for longer.

Interesting point. Looking at democracy as a societal attractor is the best explanation I have yet to encounter.