Okay first thing that strikes me about this article is it entirely ignores the fact current economics is based on DEBT based currency which makes the whole thing unstable and unfeasible in the first place. If you’re going to just constantly print money then the results will be predictable boom and bust cycles and that has nothing at all to do with “human nature.” That’s just the pure mechanics of badly managing resources and corruption in politics resulting in usury. Note how Canada managed to stay financially stable a lot longer than the U.S. until oops, one day it decided to privatize it’s banks and then everything started to go down hill fast. Or compare the economics of before and after the gold standard.
“These scientists assert that humans have truly cooperative instincts
which they developed over hundreds of thousands of years living and
working in highly cohesive groups. The best survival strategy for our
ancestors was to cooperate with each other and to surpress individual
greed and selfishness that was good for the individual but harmful to
the group. All the empirical evidence shows if the conditions are right,
individuals happily work together to create highly effective
organizations that look after the common good. The work of Nobel Prize
winning political scientist Elinor Ostrom shows, for instance, how
communities have been able to manage resources sustainably over
centuries with the right mix of social and personal incentives. Homo
Sapiens is the only viable model of organizational life and to deny
this, is to deny human nature.”
Survival of the kindest as opposed to survival of the strongest. Yes but even in hunter gatherer groups, horticultural societies, or various First Nations cultures one is not COMPELLED to participate. The enforcing factor wasn’t the society but rather nature itself. One was free to stay and abide by the rules of the tribe or leave and live on one’s own. Some assuredly did that, or left to find another group, but it was risky as to go out into the wilderness on one’s own can be dangerous. You can get eaten, starve or freeze (or dehydrated). There is safety within the tribe. But by no means is one compelled. In fact it was a punishment of a couple First Nations to exile problem individuals in isolated areas, say out on an island or in the middle of the forest somewhere. They would have a warden that would come and check on them perhaps, make sure they hadn’t died, but otherwise would be left in complete isolation and need o be self reliant in order to find food, build a shelter and provide for themselves. Other tribes might exile individuals completely. To be exiled could be a death sentence given the obvious dangers one could face. To this day we have a deep racial fear of being shunned for this very reason and still, to this day, use it as a form of punishment and disrespect.
So I would put forward that while the notion of survival of the kindest might be viable it does not imply the need for force or control inherent in governance. But rather survival of the kindest is about empathy and building ties with one another. It’s not about control but rather about connection.