You see, in The Ape and the Sushi Master, while completely demolishing the "human exceptionalist" view of culture, etologist Frns de Waal also makes some points about hierarchical structures being nearly inevitable, and not only among humans, which are quite shocking from an egalitarian leftist point of view [one of his best quotes is "put a bunch of left-leaning professors with an egalitarian ethos in the same room and watch a hierarchy develop: it's automatic"]. As you point out, in some cultures the "big man" position changes with context, and indeed there are two ways to look at our own culture. One is to say that it has only one hierarchy and that that comes from somehow, by institutionalising the natural hierarchy of status arising in one situation, extrapolating it to all realms of community life; the other would be to recognise that we, too, are active in multiple realms in our community life and that the status system in each of them is different.

I'm going to finish one more book before I do a diary on the final death of my leftist idealism over the past few years stemming from acceptance of evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology. I think that is all that is standing between your views and deanander's.

In my (newish) universe, the cultures humans are able to create can be used to either amplify or retard the base "desires" innate to our pesky brain stems. I have no other starting point now that I reject the "blank slate" concept.

you are the media you consume.

One of the features of blogs like this [and of the entire open-content/creative commons movement] is that the status system is a gift culture: the more you give to the community the higher the status. And you and I have enough experience in academia to see an entire parallel status [and hierarchy] system separate from the "main" societal one.

That brings up a really interesting and key issue:  What kinds of hierarchy are "alright" (and even necessary), and what kinds are noxious.  (See ATinNM's comment below that There is nothing necessary wrong with "Heirarchy." )

Maybe a key distinction is that between "power-created/enforced hierarchies" and "gift-generated hierarchies"?

I wonder whether you saw my exchange with Nomad on the issue you mention of how much of the current civilisation can be made sustainable, where I pointed out that you have to take into account and utilise the modern knowledge base, and moreover that there are certain advanced technologies that one would like to deploy for a sustainable, prosperous lifestyle and that are impossible without certain economies of scale and a modern industrial base (like, for instance, how are you going to manufacture the advanced materials you need for solar panels, or wind mills? Certainly not in a smithy.)

Could  you indicate what diary that exchange was in?

For what it's worth, I am finding this acrimonious exchange extremely informative, challenging and stimulating.  I'm glad I got ring-side tickets!  ;-)

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

Er... Incas.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

How long do you have to wander outside the lab to realize that biology has been studied completely upside down?  Indeed, competition DOES happen, but it is only possible because MOST biological activity is co-operative.  

Do not trust energy transformation theories beyond their limits.  Even where it is true, it may not be telling you what is important.  It may tell you what is possible (or not  possible) but not what is desirable, or even what living systems seek.  

And that co-operative activity is what most biologists never look at, with the result that their theories are fine for creating frankenfoods, but are no use to us at all.  We have to start THINKING.  

Any economic model based on counting trade markers will just get us killed.  This is not how sustainable people think, and it is not how ecologies function either.  

We have to open our discourse WAY beyond the boundaries of imperialist/unsustainable patterns.  

And, really, considering I was born after the 1970's oil shocks, I really feel like I am not responsible for exceeding the tipping point, and that at some level it is irrelevant whether exterminism was the cause, or just a narrative more palatable to leftists than just plain human stupidity. What I am responsible for is for what I do about the consequences of living after the tipping point.  

Guilt is not the issue.  No guilt!  Exterminism vs. stupidity:  For whatever reason we have chosen death, not all peoples have done so.  Can we unchoose it?  What would it take to even WANT to unchoose it?  

Some humans are likely to survive.  What would we WANT to be carried into the future?

The Fates are kind.