Most of humanity's time on earth was spend in small pre-historic tribes, I don't see any reason to assume those societies were monarchies. They probably didn't have the resources to support deeply entrenched power structures.

Humans come with built-in abilities to establish small ad-hoc social structures. You'd probably have some members of the community that were generally charismatic or bright (or particularly good at violence) who'd generally tend to get their way, but it is a complex web of social pressures.

I mean, just think of your friends -- you've probably got somebody who is broadly the "ideas guy" or kind of a natural leader, but they don't just automatically over-rule everybody.

There are plenty of issues with this line of argument. Black swans (monarchies everywhere we look), crystal ball gazing (we can't see the future so we can't identify if we're living in aberrant times), might is right (the powerful are the first to take control, which is interpreted as governance), elitism (power passes to the powerful), and probably more.

Although "proof by Civ" is incontrovertible, of course.

Bluntly, actual anthropology does not agree with this at all. It's some Enlightenment technocratic fantasy, so it's fitting you invoke Civ and not, like, a real survey.

If I am wrong, then you are being cruel to me simply for being ignorant. I personally do not find cruelty appealing, do you? Instead of cruel taunts that I'm on the wrong end of an information asymmetry, how about a link?

If I am right, and you know it, then you are arguing in bad faith attempting to derail the convo or just troll.

If I am right and you don't know it, and arguing in good faith, then I think the exercise of supporting your claim would be good for you. You might be surprised.

So: do you have a link to a "real survey" of the type you mean?

This is not an academic survey, but wikipedia is probably a better source than Civilization at least (good games, though). You can look at their sources if you really want to get rigorous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_eco...

> Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos,[17] although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America) are an exception to this rule.[18][19] For example, the San people or "Bushmen" of southern Africa have social customs that strongly discourage hoarding and displays of authority, and encourage economic equality via sharing of food and material goods.

> Most anthropologists believe that hunter-gatherers do not have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed.

Anyway, IMO the null hypothesis should be that small humans tribes in nature act like large extended families or groups of friends and acquaintances -- generally friendly, collaborative, and driven by a consensus of stakeholders interested in a given problem. With less ability to horde wealth, you'll get shallower power structures -- more need to keep everyone broadly happy (or at least convinced that they are better off working with you).

For a guy who flippantly dismissed my reply to your bullshit by saying it's like denying the earth is round, you also have a bad definition of "cruelty".

Nobody owes you a refutation of your vibes-based nonsense historical theories.