Societies with class structure expand faster than egalitarian ones, researchers say

September 26, 2011 By Louis Bergeron

(PhysOrg.com) -- Arguably the worst feature of societies with class structures – the disproportionate suffering of the poor – may have been the driving force behind the spread of those stratified societies across the globe at the expense of more egalitarian societies. During hard times, a society in which the bulk of the suffering is borne by the poor can survive and expand into new territory more readily than can egalitarian societies.

Why do most cultures have a class structure – rich, poor and sometimes middle – instead of being egalitarian, with resources shared equally by everyone?

According to Stanford University researchers, it is the very inequities of the class structure that appear to have been behind the spread of those societies and the displacement of more egalitarian cultures during the early era of .

The researchers used a computer simulation to compare demographic stability and rates of migration for both egalitarian and unequal societies. They found that class structure provided unequal access to resources, thereby contributing a destabilizing effect on the population, and driving migration and the expansion of stratified societies.

"This is the first study to demonstrate a specific mechanism by which stratified societies may have taken over most of the world," said Marcus Feldman, an evolutionary biologist at Stanford. He is a co-author of a research paper on the topic, published online this week by the Public Library of Science in the journal PLoS ONE.

Feldman and his colleagues determined that when resources were consistently scarce, egalitarian societies – which shared the deprivation equally throughout the population – remained more stable than stratified societies. In stratified societies, the destabilizing effect of unequal sharing of scarce resources gave those societies more incentive to migrate in search of added resources.

In environments where the availability of resources fluctuated from year to year, stratified societies were better able to survive the temporary shortages because the bulk of the deprivation was absorbed by the lower classes, leaving the ruling class – and the overall social structure – intact. That stability enabled them to expand more readily than egalitarian societies, which weren't able to adapt to changing conditions as quickly.

Many possible causes for the development of socioeconomic inequality have been proposed by scientists, such as a need for hierarchical control over crop irrigation systems, or the compounding of small differences in individual wealth over time through inheritance.

"The fact that unequal societies today vastly outnumber egalitarian societies may not be due to the replacement of the ethic of equality by a more selfish ethic, as originally thought by many researchers," said cultural evolution specialist Deborah Rogers, lead author of the study. "Instead, it appears that the stratified societies simply spread and took over, crowding out the egalitarian populations." The study is a product of her PhD thesis project at Stanford. Feldman was Rogers' adviser.

"This is not just an academic exercise," Rogers said. "Inequalities in socioeconomic status are increasing sharply around the world. Understanding the causes and consequences of inequality and how to reduce it is one of the central challenges of our time."

Provided by Stanford University search and more info website

4.6 /5 (10 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

Shootist
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 3.6 / 5 (9)
"Understanding the causes and consequences of inequality and how to reduce it is one of the central challenges of our time."


You know the answer. You're just afraid of the consequences of political incorrectness.

TANSTAAFL.

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" - Robert A. Heinlein.
ryggesogn2
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (14)
"Why do most cultures have a class structure "
Why are people differnt?
Why do some want more, and are willing to work for it?
Why do some want to be taken care of?
Phideaux
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 4.7 / 5 (7)
The article should have given an example of "egalitarian societies". Without examples or definitions this article isn't very informative.
juztmythoughtz
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
The article should have given an example of "egalitarian societies". Without examples or definitions this article isn't very informative.


I imagime the indigenous Australians would fall under egalitarian (their tribes didn't even have chiefs).

But yes, some more examples would have been good...
Shelgeyr
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (10)
"Reducing inequality" should NEVER be a function of government, especially that of the United States of America. If government has a proper role in economics at all - and that's arguable - I'd say that it is in "Maximizing Opportunity", which in most cases means getting out of the way and leaving things alone.

"Reducing inequality", on the other hand, is very very very much like putting a superconducting cable between the poles of a battery; the charges are equalized, the potential difference disappears rapidly, and everything gets mighty cold after a brief flurry of activity.

All efforts at income redistribution, i.e. at "equality of outcome" fail at this point. And at other points too, that I'm not addressing here.

If you want your country's standard of living to rise, the best course of action is NOT a version of Social Security, but rather to maximize the profitability of companies hiring and doing business domestically/locally.
jamesrm
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
"Reducing inequality", on the other hand, is very very very much like putting a superconducting cable between the poles of a battery;"

If you simplified your model some more it will allow you greater accuracy in bolstering your delusions, see repulsive neutron.
And add some more unnecessary sciency shit you haven't a clue about like superconductors, maybe neutrinos they are in vogue sure to impress the tea-tarder in the next trailer.
Callippo
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
It's a question of compromise. The egalitarian societies are more socially stable instead. I mean more stable from inside perspective.
tadchem
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Diversity permits far more adaptability.
The opportunity for a society to expand arises from changes in its environment, which can only be exploited by adapting.
Egalitarian societies historically often had a lower standard of living than their neighbors - sharing the misery of enhanced poverty.
Civilization may be defined by the diversity of social roles within a society - the more varied the roles the more advanced the society.
Evolution, including social evolution, requires less-than-optimum conditions to incentivize adaptation.
Following Yakovenko's analogy, people with money are like molecules with energy - thermodynamics demands a non-uniform distribution to achieve stability as a dynamic equilibrium.
FrankHerbert
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 2.1 / 5 (11)
The researchers used a computer simulation to compare demographic stability and rates of migration for both egalitarian and unequal societies.


@Shootist, ryggesogn2, Shelgeyr

I'm pretty sure all of you at one time or another have used the "model" defense to bash climate change and/or dark matter. Care to explain why class structures are different?
ryggesogn2
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
Before a model should be used to predict reality, all assumptions must be explicitely stated, the model must be verified and then validated with the real world.
Otherwise it is just an interesting game.
Callippo
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
people with money are like molecules with energy
People with money are behaving like massive particles attracting money from outside (because money are doing money). Therefore the social inequality tends to be naturally unstable.

It's true, the rich people are spending and dissipating more money (so they're more radiative like the stars), but most of these clever ones are using their money mainly for further improving their power. They tend to grow into black holes, which cannot dissipate their treasures into outside. We can see it at the example of Arabian leaders (Mubarak, Gaddafi, Ben Ali, etc..).

This is what the free market actually means, because in such market even the power is the subject of market. If you have money, you can buy a virtually unlimited power, which makes the getting of another money a much cheaper issue.
Yellowdart
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)

It's a question of compromise. The egalitarian societies are more socially stable instead. I mean more stable from inside perspective.


Because the inside is still the same guy/guys who have the power in redistribution, right?

Egalitarian societies are impossible if for no other reason than man is biased. There is always someone in power.

It isn't an equal who runs the show. It's still the elite in power. Which is why the gap between poor and rich only widens, not shrinks. It eliminates the middle class, for that is who gets the worst end of the deal, or havent you noticed that politicians and CEOs have a tendency to just trade slices of the pie, and nothing trickles down?

A true free market though, ignores race, sex, class, and is only subject to the quality of product and demand associated. Yes, some will succeed more than others, and there is nothing wrong with that. Class structure isn't the problem, it's how we treat it that is the problem.
Yellowdart
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Using a Star Trek model, the Borg is an egalitarian society. In what you gain by making everyone the same in outcome, is that you give up diversity, opportunity, freedom. That is uniformity and assimilation, not unity, not true equality.

Where as the Enterprise is composed of varying races, sexes, classes, yet works together as a whole. There is unity in diversity. There is nothing wrong with being poor, rich, black, white, old, or young.
that_guy
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
I would like to point out a flaw in the conclusions we are making of this study: North Korea. It is one of the most inequal societies out there, despite its passing relation to communism.

Note that, I am not taking issue with the article or research, I am taking issue that we are interpreting the conclusion too broadly.

While North Korea would readily expand if it were allowed to, but that doesn't mean that it serves its citizens better.

I think, as always, the best balance for the society and for its people is managed somewhere in the middle. A place where the lowers have mobility and rights, but also enough inequality to motivate the lowest to work hard and better their lot. A society that survives at the cost all to its lowest members is not a society I want to be a part of. Slavery works like that too you know.

Jeddy_Mctedder
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
The article should have given an example of "egalitarian societies". Without examples or definitions this article isn't very informative.


egalitarian society that have survived long enough to be know are those in which there is abundance of resources for everyone, little competition for its own sake within, and no competition without.

think about it, without competition, societies would nto have had to innovate.
necessity is the mother of innovation, and there is no necessity so powerful as the will to live either by defeating your enemy, running away, or finding a way to be your enemies slave/servant without being killed.

so war, is the mother of invention. and we all intuitively accept this based on simple facts we all share about ubiquitous technologies we use having been invented by militaries or fighters.

----the internet, nuclear weapons/power, many telecom devices, lasers, rockets, etc.....
emsquared
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
"During hard times, a society in which the bulk of the suffering is borne by the poor can survive and expand into new territory more readily than can egalitarian societies."

So, what happens when there is no "new territory" left for the poor to expand into? What's that? They become trapped in a socio-economic cycle of perpetual devaluation, while the wealth accumulates at the top?!

That sounds horrible.
pauljpease
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
"Reducing inequality" should NEVER be a function of government, especially that of the United States of America.


Actually, the function of government, especially that of the USA, is whatever the people want it to be. And that's why we believe in the right to change that government if we don't think it's working the way we want. If the people want to reduce inequality, then that can be the government's function.
ryggesogn2
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
"Reducing inequality" should NEVER be a function of government, especially that of the United States of America.


Actually, the function of government, especially that of the USA, is whatever the people want it to be. And that's why we believe in the right to change that government if we don't think it's working the way we want. If the people want to reduce inequality, then that can be the government's function.

Govt is not to be changed on a whim. The way to change the govt is via the amendment process in the Constitution.
Shelgeyr
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Frank! Good to hear from you! I didn't think you'd deign to speak to me again!

...have used the "model" defense to bash climate change and/or dark matter. Care to explain why class structures are different?


I'm not certain how to interpret that question...

The article opens with:
...instead of being egalitarian, with resources shared equally by everyone?


That's a fairly non-standard definition of "egalitarian", and the opposite of most definitions, i.e. equality of moral worth; equality before the law; just, fair, equitable laws based upon democracy; etc... I'm certainly not arguing in favor of FORCED (i.e. non-mobile) classes, but given economic freedom (which you can't have if aiming for "resources shared equally by everyone"), people historically naturally stratify themselves.

My argument is against government attempting to create a situation where "resources (are) shared equally by everyone", because that doesn't happen naturally.
Shelgeyr
Sep 26, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
@jamesrm, I'm going to go WAY out on a limb and assume you're an adult, all evidence to the contrary, and ask "What?"

I think you may have me confused with Dr. Manuel, with whom I occasionally converse, and who has always treated me with respect even though I firmly disagree with him regarding "neutron repulsion" - largely because I question the very existence of "neutron stars" as a construct.

If you want to bash me, please feel free but if you don't want to seem like a deranged adolescent then do so accurately.

I'm proudly an "AGW Denier", and (depending on the definition) also an "Electric Universe" proponent - either stance of which is enough to incur plenty of electronic spittle hurled in my direction. But that hardly applies to this article.

Also, please don't embarrass yourself with clueless assumptions regarding my scientific knowledge. For that matter, what do you think would happen to a battery if you bridged its poles with a working superconductor?
Jotaf
Sep 27, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
So stratified societies are good, because they're so stinking bad, that people want to move away from them!! Isn't it great?

By the way, the take away from this article is that we're smarter than that and can eventually come up with better solutions, so that we don't need a layer of poor people to insulate us from disaster. Not that "it's all good 'cause that's the way it is", as I'm sure some poor souls will read it...
william_fairholm
Sep 27, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Another consideration is that poor people tend to have more children as they have to to ensure surviving children to their old age and to do agricultural labour. This puts expansion pressure on that society. Egalitarian societies reduce this need. Given that, what happens when all societies are stratified and there is no new land to expand into? The elites will go to war to win more resources/prestige for themselves using the underclasses as their cannon fodder. So what has led to stratified societies may now be a very large detriment. War or starvation in place are now the options, if we neglect that we are a thinking species that can actually see the situation and change it to what we can all agree is a better way. All the international agencies are examples of our trying to do this, no matter how imperfectly.
mogmich
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
It might be true, that throughout history societies with class structure has been better at adapting to critical situations by expanding, but at the same time they are more likely to PRODUCE such situations.

Another thing is, that today it is hardly possible to expand, which makes the tendency to generate critical situations dangerous and negative. Climate change is probably the worst example of this?

More equality in the world is probably necessary to prevent a severe, global crisis.
kaasinees
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
the article didn't point any examples of egalitarian or societies with class structure... rendering the article blatantly pointless, which is a shame because it is kind of interesting research.
KBK
Oct 01, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Question the question:

What does societal advancement or 'increase' mean? Is the view of technology being the be-all-end-all, is that view incorrect?

Who defines the question, which in turn - frames the answer?
Jonathan_Q
Oct 02, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
This is article is a wash there is thousands of years of history of human societies this team could have used as examples. The could of compared their models with past/present societies to verify their findings. Since no examples were given it is impossible to verify there modeling procedures.
Skepticus
Oct 03, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
It might be true, that throughout history societies with class structure has been better at adapting to critical situations by expanding, but at the same time they are more likely to PRODUCE such situations.

Another thing is, that today it is hardly possible to expand, which makes the tendency to generate critical situations dangerous and negative. Climate change is probably the worst example of this?

More equality in the world is probably necessary to prevent a severe, global crisis.

ME anyone?
Shootist
Oct 16, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
@Shootist

I'm pretty sure all of you at one time or another have used the "model" defense to bash climate change and/or dark matter. Care to explain why class structures are different?


I'm not even sure what the "'model' defense" is. The problem I have with modellers of AGW is they claim an accuracy of, at least, 3 significant figures, for the planet's temperature. I don't buy that.

As for class.

Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. Both for obvious reasons.
Rank 4.6 /5 (10 votes)
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Consumption rivalry
    createdMay 25, 2012
  • Bilateral trade between all countries
    createdMay 24, 2012
  • Is the economic foundation of social media in jeopardy?
    createdMay 20, 2012
  • Psychology: Rosenthal and Hawthorne Effect
    createdMay 15, 2012
  • Is GDP and National Income the Same Thing?
    createdMay 13, 2012
  • Difference between hourly wage and real GDP per hour worked?
    createdMay 12, 2012
  • More from Physics Forums - Social Sciences

More news stories

Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study

At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...

Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

created 4 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (2) | comments 0 | with audio podcast

Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say

(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor – while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives – may do more harm ...

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created May 24, 2012 | popularity 4.3 / 5 (16) | comments 154

Ancient Bethlehem seal unearthed in Jerusalem

Israeli archaeologists have discovered a 2,700-year-old seal that bears the inscription "Bethlehem," the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Wednesday, in what experts believe to be the oldest artifact ...

Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

created May 23, 2012 | popularity 3.5 / 5 (14) | comments 24

Dollars and sense: Why are some people morally against tax?

As the U.S. presidential election campaigns heat up, the economic debate is dominated by bailouts, austerity and, inevitably, taxation. Now a new study published in Symbolic Interaction asks why tax is such an important issue ...

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created May 23, 2012 | popularity 3 / 5 (2) | comments 15

Oldest Jewish archaeological evidence on the Iberian Peninsula

German archaeologists of the Friedrich Schiller University Jena found one of the oldest archaeological evidence so far of Jewish Culture on the Iberian Peninsula at an excavation site in the south of Portugal, ...

Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

created May 25, 2012 | popularity 4.2 / 5 (6) | comments 12


Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012

(Phys.org) -- Nvidia’s competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...

'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...

T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows

By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...

Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture

When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases – and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if – it will be an expensive undertaking.

Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study

(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.