- Messages
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 9,950
The role of the hunter has been eliminated as a practical thing for most of humanity. There are so many people compared with game animals that only laws and regulation prevent their being wiped out entirely. One exception is ocean fishing. But hunting on land has for most been reduced to a recreation.
The warrior is still needed. And warriors are still celebrated in popular culture and elsewhere. A high proportion of presidents and other politicos have military experience, as does a high proportion of civilian LE. The role of the warrior in society is less than it once was because there are fewer of them by percent of population. Human fighting has largely been supplanted by machines such as bombers, missiles, etc. The same amount of destruction now requires far fewer human warriors.
Your discussion of societal specialization and production and its getting infested and taken over by people who are making no contribution reminds me of a Jordan Peterson youtube video I just heard. He was presenting one particular view of the liberal-conservative continuum and role. It was interesting because in this view both were essential. I don't know what I think of this yet, as it's too new to me. I don't know yet whether this is original with Peterson, either. I'll need to learn more. Here's the view.
He starts by saying that people are unequal, and that this leads to differential achievements, which leads to hierarchies. These are essentially hierarchies of merit and competence. Those who are contributing the most are on top, and because they are on top they can contribute even more. So these hierarchies are heavily responsible for human production and accomplishment.
Conservatives, says Peterson, are more accepting of the hierarchies than liberals, and more able to work within them. Liberals, on the other hand, are less accepting of hierarchies and less comfortable working within them. They are more likely to challenge hierarchies, rein them in, or even overthrow them and create new ones.
Part 3 is that once there is a hierarchy, lots tends to go wrong. Those at the top can rig the system so other competent people have no fair opportunities to advance. The hierarchy can become so greedy at the top and self serving that everyone elses' lives are miserable. Various bad actors can gain power illegitimately, and provide nothing in return. So control of the hierarchy can get taken over by incomprtents. And various freeloaders infest the hierarchy at all levels and provide nothing in exchange for their power and salaries.
The conservatives are, by and large, best at fitting in and running the hierarchy and defending it when it is actually mostly a legitimate meritocracy and not too authoritarian or infested with freeloaders. The liberals are needed to rein in the hierarchy and modify it when it has gone too far wrong. Or overthrow it and replace it entirely if need be.
According to this view, a stable society requires a balance of power between liberals and conservatives, with the conservatives running it and preserving it from unnecessary or counterproductive changes, and the liberals restraining it, changing it, making it more fair, or culling out the weeds and vermin.
