Before hominids became self-aware, they were simply animals. And, like other animals, their decisions were based almost entirely on instinct. In a world rich with predators, hominid instinct demanded a certain level of aggression, violence, and a territorial imperative. Those lacking these traits didn't survive and had fewer progeny than those who had such traits. Competition with predators and other hominids was the order of the day.
When hominid intelligence increased enough to permit self-awareness, it became possible for hominids to reflect on their own responses – and to make decisions that still involved instinct, but which were, at least to some degree, influenced by reasoning. This meant that other possibilities than competitive violence became available. And at this point hominids became “people”.
Now imagine a scenario in which two groups of people, who are unrelated, are out hunting and gathering – and happen to encounter one another. Both groups are now faced with three choices:
There was nothing new in the fight or flee choices, as those were part of their instinctual heritage. But the possibility of cooperation leads to further choices:
If one group is much bigger and more powerful than the other, the smaller group's survival depends upon complying with the demands of the bigger group. The more powerful group, knowing this, will either choose to enslave the smaller group coercively, or to adopt the smaller group as part of the bigger group's family or clan. Paleontological archeology indicates that in different times and places both outcomes occurred. This was the beginning of “majority rule”.
If the groups are of nearly equal size, and it isn't obvious which would win an armed conflict, the two groups are motivated to negotiate as equals. In order to do so, both groups must be willing to agree on who makes the rules and how is that to be accomplished. The whole point being for the groups to avoid unnecessary violence. In this the somewhat bigger group obviously has an advantage.
Note that in both instances above the outcome is determined by the threat or fear of physical violence. So it's not very mentally demanding to realize that the tyranny of the majority isn't an accidental by-product of the decision methodology – but rather a predictable result of the primitive instincts in play. The majority rule standard that we call democracy is based on exactly this same process.
Today this state of affairs is further exacerbated by the fact that the more powerful (and therefore more threatening) group invariably commands more resources and can generally entice members of the lesser group to support their own desires.
As individuals cooperate with each other, whether voluntarily or otherwise, they become interdependent on one another. This fact, together with the invention of money, made it possible for human work to become specialized, providing a “division of labor” never known before. Previously, everyone had to hunt and gather – and later agriculture became the dominant human experience – as was still true in colonial times, both on this continent and elsewhere.
In today's world you don't have to be a farmer in order to eat. In fact, you don't even have to personally know a farmer. You can be a doctor or a scientist and buy your food from a restaurateur or grocer who, in turn, bought it from a farmer or food wholesaler. Without this kind of specialization modern technology simply wouldn't exist, because hunting and gathering is a full-time job that leaves no time for the activities required for the development of advanced technologies.
Still another failing of majority rule is the fact that it often leads to results that are self-contradictory – in defiance of all logic. For instance, imagine that Alan, Bob, and Charlie decide to get a quick bite to eat together – in the interest of “fairness” they use a “sophisticated” majority rule method to decide where they will eat. Here are their preferences:
| NAME | PREFERENCE 1 | PREFERENCE 2 | PREFERENCE 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alan | Arby's | Burger King | China Hut |
| Bob | China Hut | Arby's | Burger King |
| Charlie | Burger King | China Hut | Arby's |
Now suppose the three vote on their ranking. How many like Arby's better than Burger King? Alan and Bob do, so that's a 2 out of 3 majority. How many like Burger King better than China Hut? This time Alan and Charlie win the election.
Now logically, based on the above, it's agreed that Arby's is a better choice than Burger King and that Burger King is a better choice than China Hut. So by sheer logic it should follow that Arby's is a better choice for the group than China Hut. But if put to a vote we see that 2 out of 3 (Bob and Charlie) say China Hut is a more desirable choice than Arby's.
From this we can see that even in a very simple decision-making situation, majority rule can create a ridiculous outcome. It's just a bad way to make decisions.
There are in fact many superior ways for groups to make decisions, and given the complexity of the issues currently of concern, it behooves our species to put that knowledge to use in the most effective way possible – before we commit universal suicide by continuing to use the currently dominant system.
From a purely ethical standpoint, since all good outcomes derive from some form of creativity, we might decide to structure our group decisions in a way that maximizes creativity. Research conducted from 1981 to 2001 demonstrated conclusively that the most creative and ethical decisions are those made by 100% unanimity in groups optimized at 8 members. Groups can learn to do this reliably with about 8 hours of training. The use of this method essentially eliminates bureaucracy, the tendency to systematically eliminate, destroy, or avoid corrective feedback. In this way proposed actions that are not ethical are not acted upon. And what is more, the method can be applied to very large groups that have agreed contractually to utilize it.
As things stand now, our dominant institutions make consistently unethical decisions – destroying human lives, damaging the environment, and diminishing our ability to thrive and flourish. Isn't it time we stopped doing what doesn't work for humanity and started doing what does work? For a viable alternative, check out [Ethics Law & Government] (https://www.titanians.org/ethics-law-government)
