Why our deep history explains global inequality

The geography of our ancestors really matters.

Dec 18, 2023

In this post, I want to push the explanation for inequalities between societies into areas where we do not yet have enough data to make substantive conclusions. I openly admit that what follows in this section is speculative, but it fits in well with what is already known.

What I call the “legacy of society types” probably plays a big role in explaining why progress diffused to some societies much faster than others. This concept combines an explanation as to why the rank-order of national wealth has been so stable over the last 2,000 years with the fact that some nations have been able to transform themselves within one generation.

The Wealth of Nations Ranked

The rough pecking order for material success among nations today and in the past few thousand years has been:

Descendants from Commercial societies in 1500: England, Belgium, Netherlands, Northern Italy, and western Germany plus the nations that were settled by those people - the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
These people industrialized early, have some of the highest standards of living in the world, and score very high on development metrics. Many of these societies have ethnic minorities descendant from Horticultural societies from Africa and Latin America who have been far less successful economically. Fortunately, many of these minority groups have recently experienced significant improvements as they integrate into broader society, so there is hope for the future.
Descendants from Free Peasant societies: Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and perhaps Finland.
These nations industrialized slightly later and have some of the highest standards of living in the world. They also score very high on development metrics. Minority groups within these nations who descend from less complex society types are less successful.
Descendants from Agrarian societies that were culturally and geographically proximate to the first two groups: Germany, France, and the rest of Europe (with a gradual gradient as one moves away from Northwest Europe to Southeast Europe).
These nations lagged behind the previous groups in industrialization and have somewhat lower standards of living and development metrics. Minority groups within these nations who descend from less complex society types are less successful.
Descendants from Agrarian societies that were culturally and geographically distant from Northwest Europe: Japan, South Korea, China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam.
These nations lagged behind most European nations in their industrialization, and have somewhat lower standards-of-living and development metrics. Communist governments in Eastern Europe, China, and Vietnam seem to have hurt the transition, although the fall of the Soviet Union and the adoption of capitalism in China and Vietnam have enabled them to catch up rapidly.
Immigrants from these countries to nations dominated by the above groups have been very successful. In many of those countries, descendants from Asian Agrarian societies have been even more successful than the native-born. Given that many of these immigrants have technical degrees from the university, it is likely that they are not representative of the overall population. It is hard not to notice, however, that immigrants from these Asian societies are doing much better than the remaining groups on the list.
Descendants from Horticultural and Herding societies: Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, mountainous regions of Southeast Asia, and New Guinea.
None of these societies have made the transition to Industrial societies so far, and they lag behind Europe, North America, and East Asia in their standard of living and in most development metrics.
Many of these societies have ethnic minorities descendants from Commercial and Agrarian societies who have been far more successful economically (Chinese, British, Germans, Spanish, Russians, Lebanese, and Indians). Fortunately, most of these nations have recently experienced significant improvements in development metrics, so there is hope for the future.
Descendants from Hunter-Gatherer societies: restricted to very scattered and impoverished regions across the world.
These societies have been the real losers of history. While they once dominated the planet, they are now severely restricted in scope. In most cases, the descendants of Hunter-Gather societies have intermarried with the descendants of more complex societies, so their uniqueness is fading away. Where they can preserve their ways of life, they do so at the cost of poverty and isolation.

Why is this so? Why does it matter which society type a person’s genetic ancestors descended from?

I have been struggling to answer this question for quite some time. I strongly believe that human beings adapt to survive and prosper within their society type, just as animals adapt to survive and reproduce within their natural environment. It is clear that the society types are different enough from each other as to make it difficult for people to migrate from one to the other and be successful in their new society.

Genetics and Culture

But the exact mechanisms for what retards the transition are unclear. How much of it is genetic? Today many historians and social scientists are afraid to even raise the question, despite the overwhelming evidence from twins studies that life outcomes are largely heritable. It is important to at least raise the possibility that humans genetically evolve to survive and reproduce within their society type.

Genetics must play at least some role. But there is no conclusive evidence of genetic differences between people living in different society types, so any claims are based on rational assumptions, not evidence.

How much of the difference is cultural? Different cultures have different values, which lead to different motivations and actions. Technologies, skills and social organizations became rooted in cultures and are closely linked to identity. And when migrants move to completely different regions, they bring all that cultural baggage with them. But it is very difficult to separate genetics from culture because migrants bring their genes with them as well as their culture.

And culture is so broad. Which is more important: technology, skills, social organizations, religion, language or customs? Because migrants bring all of them with them, it is very hard to know which is the real causal factor.

Sexual Selection

While there is not enough data to give conclusive answers, we can construct a plausible theory from what is currently known. As we have seen more complex societies enable increasingly rapid innovation of technologies. The innovations of new technologies put pressure on humans to specialize in increasingly complex skills. The rapidly increasing number of skills necessary to use technology also forces social organizations to become more numerous, larger and more complex.

All of these changes force humans, particularly males, to get much better at learning new skills and cooperating with other males in social organizations. Males that are better at those two abilities will tend to be successful, whether that success is measured by income, wealth, land holdings, or social status. Some of that success will be due to luck and individual decisions, but some of the difference in outcome must also be due to genetic traits that give them an advantage.

Women prefer to mate with successful men, or at least men whom they believe will become successful. The culture of the individual society will define what success means. In a society that values hunters, women will tend to want to mate with the most successful hunter. In a society that values warriors, women will tend to want to mate with the most successful warrior. In a society that values landowners, women will tend to want to mate with the most successful landowner. In a society that values businessmen, women will tend to want to mate with the most successful businessman.

Of course, many women will have different preferences or not be able to follow through on their desires. All that is required is for differential mating and reproduction: successful men have more children than unsuccessful men. What this means in practice is that the least successful men, as defined by their culture, will pass on a lower share of genes to the next generation than more successful men.

If this is repeated over dozens of generations, humans will tend to evolve genetically for success in their society type. In complex societies, this means that they will become better at learning skills and cooperating with others in large organizations. People living in less complex societies will be under less pressure to adapt.

One might sum up the causal pathway for my theory in the following way:

Variations in geography constrain food availability.
Innovations in subsistence technologies to take advantage of foods with the most calories per unit of labor.
Greater food production and food surplus.
Food surplus is distributed to non-farmers (via taxes or market).
More complex society type evolves.
Accelerated innovation of technologies, skills, and organizations.
Greater differences in outcomes between men (status, power, income, wealth).
Women mate with more successful men + plus their children are more likely to survive to reproduction age.
Change in heritable traits that contribute to success within that society. Intelligence is likely the most important, but there are likely others as well.

Variations in geography are the critical variables that account for very different societal outcomes in the above chain of causality. If all societies had favorable geography, human societies would all have followed roughly the same pattern of development from Hunter Gather societies > Horticultural societies > Agrarian societies > Commercial societies > Industrial societies. Differences in wealth between societies would have been dramatically less. The same if all geography would enable only Hunter Gather societies to develop. It was equality at a much lower level of development.

As any biologist will quickly recognize, this is the theory of sexual selection applied to humans. While Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection hypothesized that living organisms changed over time due to variations in the natural environment, his lesser-known theory of evolution by sexual solution hypothesized that mate selection was also a driving force.

Sexual selection is the likely cause of some of the more bizarre anatomical features in the animal kingdom: the tails of peacocks, the antlers of elk and moose, the noses of elephant seals as well as the bright coloration of many male birds. Sexual selection also explains complex behavior, such as male birds that sing, construct nests, and dance in front of females.

My extension of both of Darwin’s two theories hypothesizes that:

Differing types of human societies evolved due to variations in the natural environment.
Humans evolved genetically due to competition within societal environments. The more complex the society, the greater the biological pressure.

Parenting

In addition to driving genetic changes, society types that promote innovation will also drive changes in parenting methods. All parents want their children to succeed, but the culture and the parents' social standing within society determine what success means. Parents from successful families will work hard to pass on the knowledge, skills, habits, and values that promote success.

So in addition to passing on genes that promote success, parents also pass on non-genetic traits that enable their children to better succeed. In complex societies, this means that they will be better at learning skills and cooperating with others in large organizations. People living in less complex societies will be under less pressure to teach their children to learn new skills and cooperate in large organizations.

Career Choice

Finally, society types also influence the career paths of youths. The career path that ambitious young persons, particularly young males, take is extremely important to the future of a society. This choice is strongly determined by the values of the young person’s parents, peers, ethnic group, and society. When all of these are in alignment, young persons voluntarily invest a great deal of time acquiring a skill that enables them to produce a good or service that others want to buy, society can develop rapidly. But few societies in history have valued this.

Hunter-Gatherer societies value hunters, so ambitious young men focus their energy on acquiring those skills. Horticultural and Herding societies honor warriors, so ambitious young men focus their energy on learning skills to become great warriors. Agrarian societies honor aristocrats, military officers, and the clergy. Therefore, ambitious young men living in those societies choose careers in those fields (if they are allowed to). Commercial and Industrial societies honor entrepreneurs, scientists, and engineers. Not surprisingly, ambitious young men (and more recently young women) choose those career paths.

Institutional Change

Complex society types also drive institutional change. Societies compete with each other, particularly militarily. Today, fortunately, that competition tends to be more in the field of economics. Nations have a strong vested interest in their people being able to learn skills and cooperate in large organizations. This means investing in education and job training. It also means investing in food, energy, transportation and communication infrastructure that enables large cities to grow and prosper.

All of the above means that complex societies drive changes in human genes, parenting methods, institutions and culture that enable their people to learn skills and cooperate in organizations. Hunter-Gatherer societies with relatively simple technologies and very small organizations drive relatively small changes in each generation. If a group of people lives in a geographic area that enables the evolution of more complex society types, the changes in each generation will increase.

Horticultural and Agrarian societies have more complex technologies than Hunter-Gatherer societies. They also have a greater number of social organizations, each of which is larger and more complex. Therefore, they drive more rapid changes in human genes, parenting methods, institutions and culture. The result is humans who more easily learn skills and cooperate more effectively in social organizations.

Commercial and Industrial societies push this process into overdrive. This helps to explain why people whose genetic descendants who lived in Commercial societies in 1500 have been so successful across the globe. They not only have more effective technologies, skills and social organizations, but their genes, parenting methods, institutions, and culture enable them to more quickly learn new skills and means of cooperation. This enables them to more rapidly adapt to change.

This process also shows why immigrants from less complex societies have struggled to flourish, at least initially, in Industrial societies. These people are not inferior in any sense. They are just less well adapted for success in modern societies. With each generation, however, they are placed under the same pressure to evolve as the natives who have lived in those societies for generations.

Gradually, immigrants and their descendants figure out that they need to learn new skills and learn to cooperate in large organizations with the locals. As they do, they update their parenting methods, behaviors, and culture. The more successful immigrants will move out of the neighborhood and intermarry with the native-born. Over time the two groups integrate culturally and genetically until differences diminish greatly.

Poor nations that decide to copy the technologies, skills, and social organizations of wealthy Industrial societies go through the same process, but without intermarriage and cultural integration. The first members of the society who can master new skills and cooperate with others rapidly move up the socio-economic ladder. They pass on more of their genes than less successful members of society. They also update their parenting methods to pass on the knowledge, skills, habits, and values to their children.

Cultures that were once highly resistant to change now begin to value at least some of those changes and respect those who do well by them. Governments begin to invest in education, energy, transportation, and communication infrastructures that enable further change.

Some may see this as a reason for pessimism and reject the fundamental unfairness of human history. While it is unfair that some societies were trapped in desperate poverty that we cannot imagine today, I prefer to focus on the marvelous achievement of Commercial and Industrial societies to create widespread progress.

Even more important is that progress is rapidly spreading to the rest of the world. The fact that inequalities still exist is far less important than the fact that people’s lives are getting better.

This progress was not inevitable. While the other society types were fundamentally trapped by geographical constraints, Commercial and Industrial societies are much less so. It is very easy for me to imagine an alternate history where the Commercials societies of the Netherlands or Britain never evolved or were crushed by more powerful Agrarian societies. It is also very easy for me to imagine North America never being populated by settlers from Commercial and Free Peasant societies.

Poverty, exploitation, and ignorance were inevitable. Progress was not.

Fortunately, we live in a time when almost any society can radically transform the standard of living of their people in just one generation. All they have to do is copy the technologies, skills, and social organizations of more successful people. But many people fail to see the possibilities. Others see the possibilities but choose not to copy. Some even reject the option as fundamentally immoral.

From Poverty to Progress

Discussion about this post