`` Ultra Society : How 10000 Years Of War Made Humans The Greatest Cooperators On Earth

The Egyptian, Assyrian, and Persian Empires possess government structure and classification that is both unique and comparable. The Egyptian Empire was formed under a divine institution and part of a universal cosmic order: Kingship. Egypt has a government of absolute monarchy, which allows the leader of Egypt to have unlimited power along with the idea of “Divine Right,” a right to rule given from god. Furthermore, the Egyptians have developed an extraordinary administrative government organization and procedures: the bureaucracy. At the top of the hierarchy was the Pharaoh who had absolute authority over the people. Pharaohs are considered gods; by obeying the will of their pharaohs, subjects believed that they are contributing to the development of a world order. Next to the pharaoh, the official who held the most authority was the vizier, “steward of the whole

When studied, early complex civilizations naturally settled in groups and developed social hierarchies. Whatever the emerging culture, there must of course be a leader. Whether it is a warrior protecting the group from warring neighbors, forcing his way to the head of the pack, or a wise and eloquent father figure, gently guiding and imparting knowledge to his subjects, in order for a society to function there must be a leader for the people to follow. Jared Diamond claimed that the emergence of social elites and eventually kings were dependent on the establishment or sedentary cultures, according to him, “only in farming populations could a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses?”. (Diamond, 1987)

An interesting question to ask oneself about ancient civilizations is “How did the various governments keep their respective populations under control?” By taking a look at some of the literature and forms of art, one can get an idea of the crafty techniques used by leaders to control the populace. The concept of social control has been around as long as civilizations have been. This can be seen in the Roman stoic ideals portrayed in the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, the Four Noble Truth’s teachings in India, and the emphasis on harmony in China with the Chinese Bronze Bell. It’s interesting to see the ways works of art and even religious texts were used to control the common people.

The world of the ancient Near East believed in a creator deity as member within a plethora of deities; that is, there was no supreme being. Within this plethora, each deity held a specific responsibility, representing such matters as order, justice, love, and truth, to name but a few. Among ANE inhabitants, according to Philip J. Nel, “a normative principle of justice was maintained as part and parcel of the created universe. The human life-world and the order of nature were seen as inextricable entwined.” It is not surprising, therefore, how ancient civilizations understood justice to be a concomitant attribute of a deity within a pantheon of deities; a pantheon where members had origins and, in most instances, were familial in nature. According to their understanding of creation, ancient civilizations held views on social and economic justice as a means that would “facilitate the service of the community to the divine world.” Nel observes that, “The principle of justice was . . . not so much regarded as a system of moral order, but rather the assumption of an existing/created autonomous design/order which should be upheld and adhered to in all sectors of society.” The Sumerians, and the Egyptians, serve as examples.

　　Equality 7-2521 conviction in the validity of his societies social values was crumbling. He reflects that “strange are the ways of evil… we are defying the will of our Councils” (Rand, 36) and that “never, not in the memory of the Ancient Ones’ Ancients, never have men done that which we are doing” (Rand, 37). He remarks with some astonishment that his activities caused him no feelings of guilt. He was shocked to realize that “in our heart there is the first peace we have known in twenty years” (Rand, 37).

The governing legal, moral and religious codes of ancient civilizations were written and enforced by a minority that exercised power and authority over the majority. This minority consisted of priests, rulers and elites with established power and influence in society. In these codes of early civilizations, there was an overarching emphasis on maintenance of structure and order in society. Simply put, while these codes reflect the conditions, needs and values of the times in which they were formulated, they also unveil the authors’ agendas to preserve their power by maintaining the status quo. Therefore, these codes acknowledge and uphold the prevailing social, gender and racial inequalities as natural conditions of human existence and reveal the manifold biases present in early civilizations.

Throughout the course of history it is evident that the values of society have dramatically changed over the years. The values that people posses change depending on what’s occurring around the world at the time, whether a fierce, bloody war resulting from a calamity or a time of peace and renaissance. The choices people make can either help change society for the better or they can help bring society down. Many different factors lead to the events that can change entire societies such as education or discrimination, both of which can have negative repercussions.

Philosophers Sigmund Freud and Eric Hobsbawm present two explanations of the origins of civilization in their books Civilization and its Discontent and Nations and Nationalism since 1780, respectively. In doing so, each philosopher establish a distinct, and somewhat similar, definition of civilization. According to Freud, “’civilization’ describes the whole sum of the achievements and the regulations which distinguish our lives from those of our animal ancestors.” (Freud, 63) There are distinct features of a civilization, such as beauty, the “encouragement of man’s higher mental activities – his intellectual, scientific and artistic achievements” (Freud, 69) and the social relations between men. While Freud refers to this union of a group

Two of the fundamental roles that wealth can play with respect to war are (1) legitimizing military leadership and social/military hierarchies and (2) motivating leaders to fight either for plunder of for control of scarce resources. Both of these intertwined roles are evident in the historical records of Tuthmosis III in New Kingdom Egypt and Sargon of Akkad, and wealth motivated them both in similar ways.

Iron and bronze will advocate for more wealth and property for rulers, while the gold and silver will argue for the preservation of “virtue and the old order” (217,547b), creating a civil war between the two factions until a compromise is met. The result of the concession, a timocracy. To satisfy the first faction, land and houses will be distributed as private property while the producers, previously regarded as friends, are enslaved for the property’s upkeep. This will cause the faction to occupy themselves with war, protecting themselves from the ones they enslaved. Socrates describes this shift in power, the midpoint between the just aristocracy and oligarchy, clarifying that a timocracy will imitate both and will add features of its own creation. He continues by explaining that the rulers will still maintain respect, while the warring-class will no longer take part in manual labor, farming, or other ways to make money. The timocracy will be apprehensive to appoint the wise as rulers, believing “they are no longer simple and earnest but mixed” (218, 547e), inclined more towards war instead of peace. These people will value money, honor, and victory over all

Ancient Egyptian’s global citizenship is documented as one of the oldest, smartest, and strongest societies to ever live. This inspired me to not just look at the strengths in global citizenship, but also examine what happened to this strong society? Upon my research, I found that ancient Egypt’s hardship and success with a societal identity mirrored their hardship and success as a society. I also found that many of their hardships and successes aligned foreshadow where my own society is heading if we continue on the path of inequity, generalized reciprocity, and finity. Ancient Egypt maintained a balance reciprocity beyond their society and a strong identity within their society; in the same breath, the oppression of the poor within their society weakened them as a whole.

One of mankind’s greatest achievements is the development and organization of diversified societies that regulate life and ethical values for those enticed within it. Societies bring interpersonal relationships that expand within a geographical region, usually populated by a collection of people sharing the same cultural, spiritual or ethical expectations. Today, we can be thankful for some of histories earliest civilizations, for they passed on diverse aspects of ethnicity into the everyday life of humanity. These ancient peoples were the building blocks for trial and error, contributing to modern day care and how we govern today’s most successful societies. Surprisingly enough, they were great educators of how societies can rise with control and authority but, even more; on how societies can weaken and crumble when negligent to the environment.

Norbert Elias’ On changes in Aggressiveness shows emphases on the connection between social structure and the structure of affects. After the 1500s (after the Middle Ages), power was centralized. A small group of people had power, particularly the elite. In order to be recognized with power, the elite were seen to have a civilized behaviour in front of citizens in order to govern them (36). When the authority obliges small or large areas to live in peace, society will gradually change for the best (38). In other words, individuals with good manners encourage their society to grow peacefully and their societies to evolve. This being said, the “mutual consideration” of individuals will also rise.

The human race has advanced a great deal over the course of recent history, particularly so since the 18th century. Countless of these developments in society can be attributed to the achievements of engineers - however, despite this, many do not realise their contribution and importance. One of the fundamental bases behind these engineering feats is the harnessing of energy sources, such as electrical and heat energy. This has allowed for many innovations, for example power stations, transportation, communications and computers, which have all become critical to society and the modern world in which we live.

War is strongly ingrained into our world today whether we like it or not and while it may seem more prevalent and worse lately considering the advances in technology and the increase in hysteria over security, war is not a recent adjunct to society. That poses the question, where does war come from? As human beings, are we hard-wired biologically to fight each other or is it a behaviour influenced by peers and morals?