Plethora Version 4

To my esteemed opponent. I thank you for this wonderful debate, and am eager to get this on the way. With that, I shall begin. 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. Which is what I was talking about in the first place. 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. Now let me revert this back to the debate. The reason this is important, is because right now, 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. 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. 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. It's interesting that you say "The mayans and Aztecs lived in very advanced state societies, and obviously needed rulers." The 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.