[scrollbar]

There's a huge diversity of social arrangements throughout history. Some of them communal and sharing, some warlike and taking; forced labor and not; monetary systems and not; etc. The quote you reply to is overly nostalgic and too simplistic to reflect realities of history, same with your comment.

[Manuel_D]

Social arrangements throughout history are indeed quite varied. Social arrangements in pre-history and especially pre-agricultural societies less so. Absence of agriculture puts a much lower limit on the size of social groups, usually around 50-150. Rates of violent death vary from ~12-25% (as in asking the question, "what percentage of people died naturally or at the hands of other human beings?"), across multiple continents. This is considerably higher than agricultural societies, and vastly larger than industrial societies.

[anigbrowl]

So what? Your utility function is one-dimensional, lifespan. Maximizing the productive lifespan of proles or serfs is optimal in a society where power is centralized, but you are discounting the value of autonomy to zero.

I reject the Hobbesian premise that other social forms should be dismissed as nasty, brutish, and short, and it's not for lack of familiarity with the anthropology of prehistorical conflict.

[jonathankoren]

> Social arrangements in pre-history and especially pre-agricultural societies less so.

[citation needed]