If the world were just 100 people

[GoldenRivet]

I recently watched a which took the worlds population and reduced it to 100 people. It then went on to tell how many of them would belong to what nationality, how many of them would belong to which race, how many of them would make more than or less than a few dollars a day and how only one or two people would be grossly wealthy etc. all for the purpose of making the point that equality should be easier to achieve

While the video is interesting, it presented me with a question. Why, with around 7 billion people living on the earth, is "equality" so hard to achieve?

Then i thought back to my sociology class in college. There is some principle of sociology i barely recall which basically states; "as a society grows larger, the importance of the individual shrinks." that is to say, that in a tribal group of 100 nomadic people, equality is easier to achieve because everyone in the group would have more or less the same food, more or less the same shelter, more or less the same tools and belongings etc. this is likely the result of a smaller group being easier to support. Additionally, if i were a member of a 100 person tribe, i would have a connection to "Robert" one of the tribe members, he would be a person i would interact with every day, and if his hut or wigwam or whatever burned down, it would be little trouble for me and the other 98 people in the village to help Robert rebuild and get back on his feet. Every individual in the society has some sort of investment in the others. losing Robert would deprive the group of a hunter, or farmer or tool builder.

The video makes equality seem simple to achieve, because it has boiled all of humanity down to this one nomadic tribe of 100 people.

on the other hand, lets place Robert in a massive society.

A society consisting of 300,000,000 people becomes less equal perhaps because it is harder to logistically provide equally for such a large group. the individual "falls through the cracks" so to speak. Driving down the street, when i pass Robert and see him begging for money on the side of the road, he is a stranger to me. i have no idea who he is, and i have no investment in this Robert on an emotional or societal level. In all probability, I may never see Robert again.

But, at what point does this disconnect with Robert occur? Does it occur when the population hits 200? 500? 1,000? 10,000?

Robert is important to the 100 people in the nomadic village (or the 100 person mars colony for example) because Robert probably contributes considerably to this small society. Either he produces invaluable tools for the group, or he is a strong hunter, or he is particularly skilled at farming... or in the mars colony example, he is very good at maintaining life support systems. We need you Robert, and I will gladly share my wealth of food or money or shelter etc with you.

In the larger society, Robert's vitality to the 299,999,999 other hypothetical people is substantially reduced. If Robert dies of starvation on the side of the street, we will only have 11,279,316 tool builders remaining and a new one wont be trained to do his job for another week. which begs the other question... of Robert is in fact a skilled tool maker, why is he starving and begging for change on the side of the road? Surely it isn't because our massive society has 11,279,316 tool builders but only enough jobs for 11,279,315 of them.

For starters, Robert is lost in the numbers.

But thats not all.

Sociology is defined as "the study of social behavior or society, including its origins, development, organization, networks, and institutions. It is a social science that uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about social order, disorder, and change."

Psychology on the other hand is more focused on the individual mind.

one massive variable that cannot be removed from the sociology equation is the psychology individual.

Robert, our tool builder, is sitting on the side of the road because he squandered his wealth on methamphetamine and prostitutes. Robert may be a skilled tool builder, but he also makes terrible life decisions which have left him broke, and starving on the side of the road by the intersection where we sit in our brand new car and ponder these societal questions.

That isnt to say that "Billy" standing next to him is begging for change and food on the side of the road for the same reasons. Its entirely possible that "billy" has never touched drugs, never hired a prostitute, and finds himself in his current unfortunate state because of a series of unfortunate events that very well may have been beyond his control.

Again though, in a population of 300,000,000 people, Robert and Billy, side by side, dont amount to much. and it is just as easy to give them both a dollar or two as it is to roll our eyes and wonder what drugs they would blow our spare change on tonight.

either way, did we really make a dent in the problem?

Billy earned just enough to feed his belly and come back for more spare change tomorrow because this life is easier than working.

Robert earned just enough to feed his addiction and then come back tomorrow for more spare change because he has no interest in doing anything else.

Both men cease to be a functioning member of society either way.

for as long as mankind has stepped out of the cave and searched for something better, equality has often been a dream of many civilizations. The purpose of a civilization is really just to improve quality of life for all of us as a whole. but i think, personally, that equality will likely be something that man never truly achieves.

[Captain Jeff]

I was doing research for a book I was writing that took place in the Ice Age. I remember one of the articles I read was about a skeleton discovered by the archaeologists during a dig. The skeleton was a man who died when he was around 40 years old. (Not a bad lifespan for the time he lived in.)

What was remarkable was that this man had a debilitating bone disease. He was disfigured. It is doubtful he could walk without help. It is certain he could never participate in the hunting required to feed his tribe. It is certain that he was very little use to the people around him.

Yet he lived to be 40 years old. And he was buried in a way that suggested he was loved and honored. His people took care of the "useless person" until he died and when he died they buried their lost loved one with honor. Perhaps their idea of a "useful person" was somewhat different than ours even though they lived much harsher lives.

Now we pass homeless Robert on the street and sneer down our nose at him because he isn't perceived as being "useful" to society and, therefore, useful to me. I don't think this comes from the size of our society as much as it comes from the way we run our society.

Do away with the big mass production systems, (ie. collectivized production), and maybe we'll quit judging each other based solely on how "useful" one is to these systems. Do away with the big group plans, and group funds, that we use to finance so many aspects of life, (retirement, healthcare, automotive collision repair, etc.), and maybe we'll quit judging each based solely on how "useful" someone is to these systems.

You were not born to be "useful" to some large corporation. You were not born to be "useful" to some large group fund. You were born to live your life and find happiness. This is why you were created. This is why you are here. If we can get back to this way of thinking then maybe some of us will once again care about Robert. Or maybe Robert would just be better off if he could make his own way without having to appease whoever runs "the system."

Or maybe I'm wrong!!! (It's been known to happen!!)

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Captain Jeff

It is certain that he was very little use to the people around him.

Far from certain, I would opine that this is an assumption and, frankly, one not supported by evidence.

He could have been a teacher, spiritual leader, skilled in preparing food, perhaps good at producing/repairing things. There are probably several things he was good at that I have not listed. Any one or a combination of them could be of value to the group.

[Catfish]

I agree with Captain Jeff, though i find G. Rivet's take in "equality" interesting.

Those people described are useless because they are not useful or "valuable" to feed the golden calf, but this golden calf is probably the reason why they made their decisions. It is the system itself that produces problems, and unequality.

[Eichhörnchen]

If the world were just 300 people, then I'm afraid one of them still would be Justin Bieber.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Eichhörnchen

If the world were just 300 people, then I'm afraid one of them still would be Justin Bieber.

But he'd have less bodyguards

[BossMark]

Originally Posted by Eichhörnchen

If the world were just 300 people, then I'm afraid one of them still would be Justin Bieber.

Then it would very very quickly become 299 people.....