No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_ja94ydf wrote on February 27, 2023 at 7:31 PM

So obviously in hunter gatherers societies, some were better than others in their job. In agricultural setting skills were not evenly distributed. And also most people want to take care of their offspring. Furthermore having a clear heir such as the first born son was preferable to democracy or whatever in certain circumstances. Plus, tradition and inertia and belief in a mandate from heaven added to that. But on the whole, aristocrats are just people with nothing special to them.

Obviously you can spend your days studying and exercising or socializing. You only need to read a few chapters of War and Peace to get some other general ideas. Drinking, gambling, partying, and flirting makes for a great book, but leaving a lasting legacy somehow sounds better. It could be AGI, ASI, a Dyson swarm, or something else entirely that would be like a drop in the ocean compared to what ASI can do.

IluvBsissa OP t1_ja96fz5 wrote on February 27, 2023 at 7:40 PM

>So obviously in hunter gatherers societies, some were better than others in their job

Sorry, but any serious studies of hunting-gathering tribes shows that the premises of your statement are wrong. First of all, hunting game was a team job, second it only amounted for roughly 10% of the tribes meat intake (fishing and trapping small prey was more the norm), and third, there was no "performance" grading ins such activity. You were part of the tribe or you were not. That was their only metric. Also, the one who did the best during the hunt got to distribute the meat, and served himself last. Caring for the weakest is actually a fundamental human trait. Our culture today was unfortunately built by sociopath.