Number of Stateless Societies over Time

[bb113]

Does anyone know where to find (and have access to) a chart or the data behind this statement?:

"For 99.8 percent of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. At the beginning of the Paleolithic [i.e. the stone age], the number of these autonomous political units must have been small, but by 1000 B.C. it had increased to some 600,000. Then supra-village aggregation began in earnest, and in barely three millenia the autonomous political units of the world dropped from 600,000 to 157. In the light of this trend, the continued decrease from 157 to 1 seems not only inescapable but close at hand".

Robert L. Carneiro, "Political expansion as an expression of the principle of competitive exclusion", p. 219 in: Ronald Cohen and Elman R. Service (eds.), Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1978.

[1714160376]

1714160376

[1714160376]

1714160376

[1714160376]

1714160376

[Harvey]

It seems anarchy is the de facto human political system, if this data holds true. Our centralized societies are only a blip in our history as a species. Their probability of sustention seems to be undefinable to either degree, whether it stays this way or stagnates to another protocol. At the absolute least, to say big government is here to stay is far from being an absolute fact.

[speeder]

Actually it is less than 157

Several states behave in a very submissive manner to the UN.

But as it always happened, that "1" always fail in some point, and we are close to the next failure.

[Harvey]

Actually it is less than 157

Several states behave in a very submissive manner to the UN.

But as it always happened, that "1" always fail in some point, and we are close to the next failure.

I find this to be very positive. I almost find myself at peace with the world.

[Hawker]

It seems anarchy is the de facto human political system, if this data holds true. Our centralized societies are only a blip in our history as a species. Their probability of sustention seems to be undefinable to either degree, whether it stays this way or stagnates to another protocol. At the absolute least, to say big government is here to stay is far from being an absolute fact.

The data shows that anarchy is what prevailed for illiterate societies where most people died below the age of 50.  Since we don't aspire to an illiterate society where people die younger than they do in our comfortable liberal states, anarchy doesn't really have much to offer.

[Harvey]

It seems anarchy is the de facto human political system, if this data holds true. Our centralized societies are only a blip in our history as a species. Their probability of sustention seems to be undefinable to either degree, whether it stays this way or stagnates to another protocol. At the absolute least, to say big government is here to stay is far from being an absolute fact.

The data shows that anarchy is what prevailed for illiterate societies where most people died below the age of 50.  Since we don't aspire to an illiterate society where people die younger than they do in our comfortable liberal states, anarchy doesn't really have much to offer.

The average hunter-gatherer lived to 72 with little to no disease. Most deaths occurred only due to trauma and physical energy. In regards to your argument of people dying young due to starvation and disease -- that is a recent travesty. Most of this suffering is due to our own artificial constraints and the centralization of wealth.

Literacy -- literacy is just a hobby; a means to preferable ends. It shouldn't be used as a unilateral ruler for the success of societies.

[Hawker]

It seems anarchy is the de facto human political system, if this data holds true. Our centralized societies are only a blip in our history as a species. Their probability of sustention seems to be undefinable to either degree, whether it stays this way or stagnates to another protocol. At the absolute least, to say big government is here to stay is far from being an absolute fact.

The data shows that anarchy is what prevailed for illiterate societies where most people died below the age of 50.  Since we don't aspire to an illiterate society where people die younger than they do in our comfortable liberal states, anarchy doesn't really have much to offer.

The average hunter-gatherer lived to 72 with little to no disease. Most deaths occurred only due to trauma and physical energy. In regards to your argument of people dying young due to starvation and disease -- that is a recent travesty. Most of this suffering is due to our own artificial constraints and the centralization of wealth.

Literacy -- literacy is just a hobby; a means to preferable ends. It shouldn't be used as a unilateral ruler for the success of societies.

Do you believe that there is scope for 7 billion people to live as hunters ? 

[Harvey]

It seems anarchy is the de facto human political system, if this data holds true. Our centralized societies are only a blip in our history as a species. Their probability of sustention seems to be undefinable to either degree, whether it stays this way or stagnates to another protocol. At the absolute least, to say big government is here to stay is far from being an absolute fact.

The data shows that anarchy is what prevailed for illiterate societies where most people died below the age of 50.  Since we don't aspire to an illiterate society where people die younger than they do in our comfortable liberal states, anarchy doesn't really have much to offer.

The average hunter-gatherer lived to 72 with little to no disease. Most deaths occurred only due to trauma and physical energy. In regards to your argument of people dying young due to starvation and disease -- that is a recent travesty. Most of this suffering is due to our own artificial constraints and the centralization of wealth.

Literacy -- literacy is just a hobby; a means to preferable ends. It shouldn't be used as a unilateral ruler for the success of societies.

Do you believe that there is scope for 7 billion people to live as hunters ?  

Probably not exclusively. Farming will still have to be utilized. Hunting is not that efficient but far more efficient than what we have today. 20 hour work weeks for every man is preferable.

Could the human populace live in primitive subsistence-based communities? Most certainly. Will their be a cultural revolution that will enable such? Undefinable.

As always, it's a cultural problem.