I agree he's full of shit, but to be fair, that was one of Pinker's relatively few factual examples. I think it was good form on Gladwell's part to address only facts and not Pinker's thesis.
I doubt there's an example of a monarchy anyone would seriously want to move to, but Medieval Iceland was a fine example of a funstioning anarchy: for longer than the United States has existed they had aterritorial, voluntary government by gothar (sort of kind of like chieftans, also sort of kind of like lawyers) who competed to provide people with governing services.
But Milton, you forgot Milton. I'm reading Paradise Lost. Maybe it is one of those things you're supposed to read, but it's genuinely really good. Like,
"to be weak is miserable doing or suffering: but of this be sure, to do aught good never will be our task, but ever to do ill our sole delight"
I think his message was mostly about how he is more free to use his time as he chooses, which seems like a noble goal to me, although I have my doubts about how well "dropping out" as he has done accomplishes this.
Also, calling the statement "property is theft" a meme does not make it untrue.
Wouldn't it make more sense to downvote either to eliminate spam/noise or to signal disagreement? I'm all for stoning spammers, but I think it's more constructive to write a response if you disagree with someone.
But doesn't "structure with incentives, accountability, clear lines of authority, and very tangible goals" pretty much describe a typical classroom, and doesn't a typical classroom suck?
You're right. That's what I meant by evolutionary suicide, and my argument (well, it's not really mine) relies on all six assumptions, more or less.
Although:
Colonizing space and colonizing space to the point where you don't need to worry about earth's carrying capacity are two quite different things. Energy and minerals might be obtainable from space somewhat soon. But we can't eat rocks or sunlight.
I don't claim population growth will be sustained into the indefinite future. I claim that it will be sustained until it stops, and that how it will stop is a question of serious concern.
As I see it there are several possibilities:
1.Population growth continues apace and, due to reproductive time lag, there are suddenly far too many people on the earth. This has a quite catastrophic domino effect and an appalling number of people, maybe 100%, die.
2.Population slows and then stops, but people's lifestyles get more and more decadent and far too many resources are transformed into far too much waste. Something, or many things, run out and disaster ensues.
3.Both population growth and resource consumption naturally find some sustainable level. Maybe that would be somewhere below where it is now. Maybe someone would invent something fabulous, say a glass elevator like in Charlie and the Great Glass elevator, and there is room for lots more consumption and lots more people.
Obviously, I prefer the third option. Maybe it will be that. I'm just sufficiently unsure to be worried about it.
I would have responded earlier if I had noticed this.
You're right that it's not quite a necessity. It's concievable that population growth could continue, albeit at a very slow rate, until people are ready to colonize space. I don't doubt that humans will figure out how to do that-- if they survive long enough.
But it seems likely to me, maybe even obvious, that at the current rate of growth people are going to commit evolutionary suicide long before that becomes possible. This because the earth is very limited and recently economic growth has been really fast. In addition to the Club of Rome stuff recommended above, check out: Capitalism Nature Socialism, a pretty good journal which often discusses these issues, and Beyond Growth by Herman Daly.
Edit: note that it was I who upvoted your comment.