Inequality, 'silver spoon' effect found in ancient societies
October 29, 2009The so-called "silver spoon" effect -- in which wealth is passed down from one generation to another -- is well established in some of the world's most ancient economies, according to an international study coordinated by a UC Davis anthropologist.
The study, to be reported in the Oct. 30 issue of Science, expands economists' conventional focus on material riches, and looks at various kinds of wealth, such as hunting success, food sharing partners, and kinship networks.
The team found that some kinds of wealth, like material possessions, are much more easily passed on than social networks or foraging abilities. Societies where material wealth is most valued are therefore the most unequal, said Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, the UC Davis anthropology professor who coordinated the study with economist Samuel Bowles of the Santa Fe Institute.
The researchers also showed that levels of inequality are influenced both by the types of wealth important to a society and the governing rules and regulations.
The study may offer some insight into the not-too-distant future.
"An interesting implication of this is that the Internet Age will not necessarily assure equality, despite the fact that its knowledge-based capital is quite difficult to restrict and less readily transmitted only from parents to offspring," Borgerhoff Mulder said.
"Whether the greater importance of networks and knowledge, together with the lesser importance of material wealth, will weaken the link between parental and next-generation wealth, and thus provide opportunities for a more egalitarian society, will depend on the institutions and norms prevailing in a society," she said.
For years, studies of economic inequality have been limited by a lack of data on all but contemporary, market-based societies. To broaden the scope of that knowledge, Borgerhoff Mulder, Bowles and 24 other anthropologists, economists and statisticians from more than a dozen institutions analyzed patterns of inherited wealth and economic inequality around the world.
The team included three others from UC Davis - economics professor Gregory Clark, anthropology professor Richard McElreath and Adrian Bell, a doctoral candidate in the Graduate Group in Ecology.
They focused not on nations, but on types of societies - hunter gatherers such as those found in Africa and South America; horticulturalists, or small, low-tech slash-and-burn farming communities typical of South America, Africa and Asia; pastoralists, the herders of East Africa and Central Asia; and land-owning farmers and peasants who use ploughs and were studied in India, pre-modern Europe and parts of Africa.
Source: University of California - Davis
Apr 02, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
Seriously, this article says that societies that value ability and knowledge over material possessions are more equal because those things are harder to pass to your kids than material stuff, and you think it's some subversive call to communism or something. I guess only a socialist would value the ability to make a Mercedes Benz over the Mercedes Benz itself.
Because a society will become dynamically unstable if there's a growing subset of silverspoon owners without merit. It's one of the disadvantages the Neolithic Revolution brought forth.
Who will hire those with 'ability'?
Henry Ford didn't have a high school education and after becoming rich stated he could hire all the smart people he needed.
I'm not saying this is necessarily the case in our society, but that's the real issue. It has nothing to do with communism or socialism, but rather the sense of opportunity and social mobility upon which capitalism and the american dream are based.
The debate should not be whether or not we should take the hard earned capital from the rich and give it to the poor. The debate is whether or not we are living in a society that allows those born without silver spoons to some day acquire one.
We are talking here about a different combination of personality traits: silverspoon=yes, merits=no.
It's not a socialism against capitalism issue, it's a 'specific individual formentative mindset as created/erected against/via a backdrop of specific individual physiological design' issue.
Look deeper (for once), and maybe the answers might finally emerge. empathy is the originator of social cohesion and actually is the core concern that allows for any sort of society and culture that expands and arises in a humane way.
Capitalism is rooted in the low empathy exploitation of such. Calling social considerations of workable cohesion and cohabitation, ie "basic socialism" (with regards to a social aspect of basic operation).. a 'dirty filthy marxist, etc' thing is a prime example of capitalism as a exploitation system -attempting to hide and protect itself.
This occurred, insofar as CURRENT records go..back into Sumerian culture.It apparently goes back as far as 12,000 years. I'd say it is not the root and causal point but merely an erection of those who feed off societies.
The problem lies much deeper.
Note that the theories arsing around the origins of secret societies (which involve such mentalities) go back to these Sumerian times - and even further. What we are talking about here, is a very stable and solid, highly evolved system -- of secret ways and methodologies of exploitation -- on many levels.
Money is not the only thing that is passed down. While the internet may help middle class (in all societies) there will ALWAYS be those that don't strive for anything better and won't use the resources available to them.. Just like it's been for the last 10,000 years.
Yes, it is about socialism.
Henry Ford was born with a silver spoon in his mouth? I think not. He earned his wealth.
Yes. And therefore he does not meet the criterion of this article. And therefore you are OT.
"Because a society will become dynamically unstable if there's a growing subset of silverspoon owners without merit. It's one of the disadvantages the Neolithic Revolution brought forth."
How do you judge merit? People who earned their wealth can keep it as long as they don't pass it along to their offspring? They can't put silver spoons in their childrens' mouths?
Obviously they can. The question is if this is wise.
Who decides if it is wise and what should be done about it?
The society decides if and what should be done. History then decides if that decision was wise. Obviously, the Mayas' decisions were not wise. Obviously, the Romans' decisions neither.
OTH the cultural identities of the Chinese and of the Greek still are around after thousands of years.