Plethora Version 4

"1. We aren't hunter/gatherers, and wouldn't digress into becoming so. The law of evolution says that things don't devolve. They become more complex not less. This means that now that we have evolved into the complex society that we are today, we won't digress into the hunter/gatherer society. There would always be one person to capitalize somehow and end up in the power position and eliminating the anarchy." Actually, it happens all the time with civilizations. The Sioux Indians, once a tribe of small-scale farmers, returned to hunting and gathering when they found feral horses which made hunting and gathering much more preferable. Also the Mayans, at one point, went from a state society into a society based around tribes of rural farmers. "2. There will always be a competition for resources. In modern days, people need a fuel source, and people need food. As long as people need things, then they are going to try and get them. This will lead to a competition in resources, even if it isn't for quantity. People are selfish creatures that want the best. This means that if you and I are each raising cattle, but yours are better than mine, then I want your cattle. This is human nature." If my cattle are in Europe, and yours in in New York, you can't get my cattle. That's the benefit of having only 10000 people, we're all so spread out, we don't need to fight. My family and I are with my cows in Europe, your family is with you and your cows in New York. "3. There are 6.6 billion people on this earth. Getting the population down to ten thousand is virtually impossible. We have to be realistic when looking at our options. There are some things that just can't happen. Even if it can happen in a hypothetical world, this isn't a hypothetical world. There are limitations that have been placed upon us. The only truly feasible way of eliminating most of the world's population is a nuclear war that destroys virtually everything, which would cause an enormous competition for resources. If anything were to eliminate that many people, there would be a competition for resources." If everyone has just one kid, our population will rapidly decrease. UNESCO estimates say that if we had one kid only, then by 2050, we would have 3 billion people, by 2100, only 1 billion. If we kept doing this, we would eventually get down to ten thousand people, although it may take 1000 years. There are also more gruesome and immoral ways of doing this, but I won't get in to those. "Now onto some more general arguments. You say there was no leader generally. This is untrue. Often times, there would be a leader, even if it wasn't voted upon. When we look to the native americans, we find that they established leaders among themselves. When we look at the writings of Captain John Smith, the native american's had a social structure and rulers among themselves. They even had different classes. The ancient Aztecs and Mayans each had rulers. The tribes of Africa had rulers, the list is virtually endless. Even with prehistoric man, might made right. Whoever was the strongest, was the ruler." Native Americans (At least the one's Smith saw) were not hunter gatherers. They were states and chiefdoms, with rulers. Hunter-gatherers live in bands, and have a very egalitarian society. The Mayans and Aztecs lived in very advanced state societies, and obviously needed rulers. The tribes of Africa also were either herders or farmers, not hunter-gatherers. The prehistorical man bit though is just false. They were hunter-gatherers, and used what is called an equalizing mechanism to keep the strong man in the group from getting too much power. "Even if you don't believe that, there was an order to society. Anarchy is defined as a state of lawlesness, wordnet.com, often times these ancient civilizations had a moral law that they lived by. If an individual violated the society in a certain way, then they were outcast by the rest of the people. This isn't anarchy as there is a moral code they lived by." Anarchy actually means without rule, as that is what the roots mean, an-without, archy-rule. Hunter-gatherers had no ruler, they were egalitarians.