you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

You're right, it is that way now. But it's not intrinsic to hierarchy, just to the current system.

As a counterexample, not as an endorsement, consider feudalism (the old form, not technofeudalism). While psycho/sociopaths have an advantage reaching the top, there is a reasonable chance that their children will not be sick in the same way.

Also Athenian Democracy, where people were randomly selected to form ruling council, judiciary, and assembly, so only as likely as the populace prevalence to be a psychopath. That system lasted for hundreds of years, including being taken over by (probably) sociopaths and returning afterwards to democracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Well - yes - I should maybe stipulate competitive hierarchy.

    Though I would tend to argue that hereditary hierarchy is relatively likely to go the same way, if for different reasons. The problem there isn't that sociopaths and psychopaths win, since there is no competition for them to win.. Instead the problem is that they're bred by drawing from a pool that's privileged and shielded from harsh realities and eventually entirely loses touch with the rest of humanity.

    If I had my way about it, we'd have Athenian democracy starting this very moment. Even with the very real threat of poor choices being made by random assortments of assholes, idiots and lunatics, it still could not possibly be worse than government by people eager to sell their influence and people eager to buy it.

  • source
  • parent