Plethora Version 4

"Firstly, the example of the Sioux is not an example of deevolution. In fact, it is an example of evolution. Even thought they reverted to what they did, they became more succesful in doing so. With the addition of horses, they became more succesful in hunting and gathering than they would have been in farming. But before horses farming was better than hunting gathering. So even though they went back to their old ways, they didn't get less complex." HG societies are some of the most complex on earth. The best example is that of an Aborigine band which has a unique social structure. There is a system of moieties, that is, special castes or clans that dictate who you can marry. Someone in moiety X has to marry someone from moiety Y and they can't marry anyone from moiety Z. Also, they have yet another social classification system on top of that, which dictates which moiety you will be in, and who you can even talk to. They are extremely complex. Also your use of the terms evolution and devolution is flawed. Modern anthropology uses a classification of societies as bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states, which is used to eliminate our bias, coming from a state society. HGs are not savage, they are often more civilized than people in state societies. "The same goes for the Mayans. A state society wasn't treating them well. And even though they went to a society of tribes, this doesn't mean they didn't still have a central Mayan society. It was extremely different than just a normal tribe society as we would think about it. They were similar to the greek city-states, in the fact that while they were their own entity per se, they still had a unifying quality or society about them. So this would be seen as an evolution, or becoming more complex. Just like America is more complex with having states, than just being a country without any divisions or boundaries within our boundary." Actually, that's false. The Mayans lived in many city states like the Greek city states. Then, wars between the states heated up, and got really scary. Mayan citizens didn't want to die, and they left the cities, and formed small farming communities, similar to a tribe model. This is almost exactly what they had before forming the great Mayan cities. So they did "devolve" as you put it. "the world is a complex infrastructure of competing governments, and warring civilizations. With the introduction of a world economy, and a world community, things don't backtrack into an anarchy. The reason for this is quite simple. The world is completely complex right now, and anarchy, although empirically proven, just wouldn't work in this complex world. People know structure and complexity, people feel safe with structure and complexity, and people want structure and complexity. Without it, they will inevitably create their own, therefore eliminating anarchy." Anarchy wouldn't work here? Somalia, an war-ridden nation has no government, the funny thing is, when this happened their quality of life improved http://en.wikipedia.org... But anyways, with ten thousand people, or even less, we will still be complex, heck we can even live in the many abandoned houses, but we don't need it, and if we are raised to be HGs, we won't have the cultural barrier you speak of. Furthermore, I never specified who the 10000 would be. It could simply be all the current HG bands, and then some "civilized" people who wanted the anarchy. "The thing with this debate, is that you are advocating anarchy on an extremely small scale population wise. This doesn't mean our technology has been lost. I can easily get from europe to australia, to asia, to south america to north america, and even antarctica if your heart desired it, all in a day or two. The world knows of a global market. America is importing all sorts of things every day, and this would still continue. The resources that America has, aren't available in other areas of the world. There are many parts of the world that have very few resources that will sustain them. While they may be rich in resources such as oil, and natural gases, they wouldn't be able to support themselves. This is where trading comes in. If you need gas but don't have it, and I need food but don't have it. We trade and this creates infrastructure. Naturally, humans are animals that desire the best for themselves. So I'm going to try and get ahead of you. Whoever has the power makes the rules. So as soon as someone has more resources, they are allowed to make the rules because everyone needs what they have. This is where anarchy falls. Another argument here, is that sooner or later, the resources are going to run out. Even with a small population." The only resources you need are food, and shelter, which we can easily get from the environment. Also, resources will not run out because the consumption is so small, and the production is rapid. For example, since 1990, 1 billion deer have been shot or hit by cars in my state. Deer are still numerous, and have higher populations than in 1990. "Another reason this would never work, is the population problem. Even if we were to only have one child for the next thousand years, and eventually get down to 10,000 people, this doesn't solve for what happens after we reach this population. People are then going to continue reproducing, and repopulate the earth. This would lead to a very similar earth to the one we have today. Not only that, but children also could help someone get ahead. When choosing who to side with in an argument over land or whatever, the children are naturally going to side with their parents...for the most part. This means that whoever has the biggest family, has a better chance at controlling the others. Once again, anarchy falls." Hunter gatherers maintained a society of 10000 for 60000 years. They did it, so can we. The thing is, HGs cannot have too many children, because they can only carry one or two infants. Second many children die of disease. We'll do fine. "he world today is very advanced. People are naturally greedy, and naturally in search of more and more power. With the technological advancements we have today, someone will naturally try and take power. Even if they fail, people will have banded together to stop them, and realize the strength in numbers. Much like the civilian militia of old, people are going to stick together against a common cause, and with those who are like-minded. Infrastructure is a natural side-effect of humans living together. It can't be stopped. Anarchy will always fail especially in a modern world that we have today. It doesn't matter how many people live on this earth." The last statement is completely false. If I am the only person left on earth I don't need government. But anyways, government is only needed to run cities of many people. Bands of small numbers can be run without any formal government. People existed like that again for 60000 years. Also, even though we have advanced technology, this does not change anything. It only makes hunting easier, and the HG life more desirable.