Okay, so, first of all, let’s define the problem: hierarchies are important to creatures interacting with each other in a beneficial way, and all species, and in fact all ecosystems, need methods of establishing hierarchies. Beyond that, hierarchies are especially important in social species. So there needs to be a way to decide who sits where on these hierarchies. No way around that. It’s a problem that must be solved somehow.
The most obvious, simple, and direct solution to that problem is that there’s a fight, and the winner takes his place in the hierarchy above the loser. It works, but it’s not a very good solution, because of the costs involved. (and because the results may or may not produce a functional hierarchy)
So nature, in its evolutionary “wisdom”, actually avoids this solution as much as it can. It’s not true that “all creatures fight”. Far from it. And it’s most definitely not true that they fight to the death, or hard enough to risk death or serious injury. That almost never happens. Not even between different species, unless it’s a predator-prey relationship (which is not relevant to this problem).
Species go to great lengths, at great cost, to avoid this problem. Birds develop spectacular plumage, other species elaborate skills, etc., etc. All very expensive things, just to be able to compete (and establish all-important hierarchies) without fighting.
Many argue that the big human brain is actually our version of “plumage”. That it came into existence not to help us build cars and computers (hopefully, it’s obvious that that wasn’t the driving impetus of evolution), or even to get smarter at hunting and gathering ( one might argue that, while certainly useful, a big brain is not important enough for those activities to justify the costs). Bigger muscles, greater speed and reaction time, greater endurance seem like they are more useful for those activities than a big brain.
However, the evolution of a big brain makes a lot more sense once you consider this other, also very important need: the need to establish hierarchies. Then, mental acuity is an extremely useful tool, that helps avoid fighting. Just as two birds may have a competition for a mate by displaying their tail feathers, two teenage boys are far more apt to have a competition for a girl’s affection by displaying their competence at mental sparring, than they are to have a fist fight.
The fist fight isn’t the norm, it’s what happens when those boys were raised to be brutes by an irrational culture. In any kind of functional culture (doesn’t have to be Objectivism, a semi-rational culture is good enough), the norm is non-violent competition, or, if there is fighting, it’s a highly regulated form of fighting. One in which no one dies or is seriously hurt.
Quote
Wouldn’t a philosophy that accepts that “fighting” is normal, given that we all want the same scarce things (at least the basic things), be more close to reality?
Depends on what you mean by fighting. Objectivism certainly accepts physical sports as normal. And many of those sports are more “fighting” than 99% of species engage in. So, in that sense, Objectivism accepts fighting as normal.
But that’s regulated fighting, designed to keep everyone involved fairly safe. The “regulation” Objectivism proposes is simple: the fighting must be voluntary. So long as it is, that’s an application of the principle I described above. Once a culture decides that violence against someone who didn’t agree to fight is acceptable, it no longer is. Now it’s the kind of fighting other animals almost never engage in … because it’s self defeating. And it’s far worse for humans than for other animals, because we are much more powerful than other animals. The damage we can cause is far greater. In fact, we can annihilate our species, along with most life on Earth, if we go down this path.
Another thing: “fighting” is a non-essential issue. It’s not the primary solution to the problem I outlined in the first paragraph. The primary solution is our big brain, which allows us to compete in endless ways which are far more satisfying and effective at creating hierarchies, than fighting.
Quote
The thing is that a society of fighters is prone to collapse, we can’t all be millionaires, we can’t all be atlas shrugged industrialists. There has to be people who work to maintain the sewer system or pick up trash. Some people serve and other people are served. Independently if it is a capitalistic, communistic or socialistic society. So what could be the solution?
Nature’s solution is to have hierarchies. And that really is the only solution, ultimately. Socialism/woke-ism, etc. are failed attempts at denying that simple fact. That’s why they fail. Capitalism doesn’t deny it. Capitalism is all about competition.
It’s just that, like I said: competition for spots on a hierarchy really doesn’t need to involve fighting. It can, and that’s fine so long as it’s safe, voluntary fighting, but it’s not really necessary.
And, finally, a very important thing to keep in mind: there isn’t one hierarchy, that we’re all competing to get on top of. There are many different hierarchies within a society. And what’s important isn’t necessarily where you are on any given one. Being at the bottom of a hierarchy might actually serve you very well, while being at the top of another one, not so much. As an example, being at the bottom of the hierarchy on a Major League baseball team means you’re making ~$700K/year. Being on top of the hierarchy at your local Antifa chapter means you’re the most enthusiastic thug of the bunch, and you’ll probably be in prison soon.
The goal in life, then, isn’t to play games you win. It’s to play with people who, win or lose, will be happy to build up a mutually beneficial relationship with you. For example, if I had my wish of a hierarchy to be in, right now, it would be the one in Elon Musk’s circle of trust at Space X. I would be incredibly happy to be on the very lowest rung on that hierarchy. That last spot on that hierarchy would be of greater benefit to me than any spot, on any other hierarchy I can think of.
There are many, many more examples of last place being better than first place. Endless ones. The point of hierarchies isn’t to win them, it’s to make things work. To help people get shit done.
The reason why homeless people are homeless isn’t because they’re at the bottom of a hierarchy. A homeless guy is just as likely to win the games he plays as a millionaire. His issue isn’t “losing”, his issue is that he’s playing stupid games which won’t help him buy a house.
Same for an incel: he’s not an incel because he’s worse at some specific game than all the people with girlfriends. He’s an incel because he’s playing the wrong games.