I won’t accuse you of being completely delusional. So really, you honestly think non-statist societies were, and continue to be dominant, and that statist societies were, and continue to be the exception? I’m baffled. You think really think violent dominance heirarchies are the exception, certainly not the rule among homo sapiens, historically?
Enlighten me, please.
I dont know what makes a society “non-statist.” the word we were using before is “voluntarist” and yes, if you define “society” as a group of people who mutually extend social relations to include each other, then throughout history voluntarist societies vastly outnumber and outlast slave relations. If violence and coercion were the norm throughout human history then the human genome would be quite different, as humans arent actually very well suited for such an existence.
the state has only existed for about 350 years and it is rapidly disintegrating. So I do consider it an exception.
violent dominance hierarchies are significantly less prominent when you compare them to all the nonviolent voluntary hierarchies.
I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Again, just because prisoners/slaves/whatever word you prefer to describe the hegemonic hierarchy can exchange on a mutually voluntary basis doesn’t mean they aren’t prisoners/slaves/dominated violently.
Everything I know about evolution and homo sapiens is that our species is characterized by violently enforced dominance hierarchies. The world over, always. Civilizations were and continue to be characterized by dominance hierarchies. If there were voluntaryist societies (i.e. anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, not characterized by violently enforced dominance hierarchies) they were the exception, and they certainly didn’t persist for long—I’m actually not aware of any, whatsoever. Maybe I missed something, again, please enlighten me.
youre begging the question when you refer to these hypothetical people as “prisoners” or “slaves” or whatever. You want to divide humanity into two groups, the ones whose genome is important to you, the aggressive few, and all the rest of the people as “slaves” or whatever, whatever it takes to make them not part of your chosen representative slice of humanity. All of which is extraordinarily collectivist.
youre not going to get anywhere with me by appealing to thing you already know, as I have suggested that you broaden your horizons and reconsider some of your source material, particularly with a methodologically individualistic eye. “characterisation” is indisputably a cognitive activity, so I once more suggest that you are petitio principii.
you seem determined to characterize anyone who has ever been the victim of a crime as a prisoner/slave/whatever, and unfortunately I cant direct you to any societies without any crime whatsoever, so I regret to inform you that at this moment I appear unable to lift your veil of ignorance, and for that I apologize.
Dude you’re blowing my mind, maybe you’re some hypergenius but it’s probably more likely we’re just talking past each other. I’m trying to clear it up, so stop saying I’m guilty of this or that fallacy. Whatever, maybe I am, that doesn’t seem relevant. I’m perfectly willing to accept that I’m wrong and you’re right, but the way it’s going from my perspective you have no clue what I’m talking about. I’ve already admitted I have no clue what you’re talking about. So let’s work on clearing it up.
Hegemonic dominance hierarchies—hierarchies tied together by violence and threats of violence. As opposed to voluntaryism, a society organized upon the rejection of hegemonic dominance hierarchies—society maintained absent persistent violence or threats of violence. Note: this isn’t voluntarism, I’m not sure why you brought up voluntarism. In both social arrangements, people may exchange on a mutually voluntary basis. But only one form has completely dominated the history of homo sapiens: hegemonic dominance hierarchies. It is the rule, voluntaryism is the exception. Voluntaryist societies either didn’t exist or, if they did, were wiped out quick by hegemonic societies. Clearly, voluntaryist societies didn’t dominate history and they definitely don’t dominate the present day. Evolution: clearly genes predisposed to hegemony proved better at surviving.
We don’t even just dominate other humans. We don’t even just dominate other humans and dogs. We don’t just dominate other humans and dogs and cats. We dominate a plethora of species, unlike any species on the planet. But most importantly, our own civilizations are founded on hegemonic principles. There aren’t voluntaryist civilizations, because predisposition to hegemony/dominance has proved a better survival trait.
Perhaps you can see where I’m coming from now. I would like you to explain if, now that you see where I’m coming from, you still hold to your original contention that the driving force of homo sapiens is not to conquer—that instead, it is to organize on mutually voluntary bases.
states with taxes dominate states with voluntary funding
households based on voluntary relationships dominate households with forced relationships.
the typeical human has relationships that are voluntary and relationships that are forced.
so maybe micro level is more voluntary and macro is more force
Does the fact that something was dominant in the past and into the present mean that it will dominate the future? Let’s look at history.
The Year: 1814
Billy Joe Mackey, a wealthy plantation owner, is at a gathering when a abolitionist mentions how the days of slavery are almost over. Billy Joe points to history explaining how slavery has existed throughout most of history, pointing to Rome, Greece, and of course slavery in America as examples. “Slavery has dominated history and it’s still dominant in these great United States.” Billy Joe proudly exclaims. Paul, the abolitionist, starts to preach about the immorality of slavery, “In time people will realize the folly of their ways and abolish slavery.”, he ends as people start making jeering comments. Billy Joe condescendingly smirks at Paul, thinking how absurd the whole notion of abolishing slavery is, after all it’s been around for so long.
We all know how that story ended. Must evolution necessarily favor hegemony? Imagine two worlds. World 1 is hegemony dominant. World 2 is Voluntaryist. World 1 being dominated by hegemony, will mean that people supporting hegemony will be more likely to survive, because those against hegemony are at the mercy of those favoring hegemony, thus evolution will favor hegemony in World 1. World 2 being Voluntaryist, where those favoring hegemony will be reviled, will mean those who support Voluntaryism will be more likely to survive, thus evolution will favor Voluntaryism in World 2. In any world, that which is seen as most desirable, will become the best survival trait.
When you are born, you’er born into a society. A society with a hegemonic dominance hierarchy. Your parents dominate you, their parents dominated them, and your state dominates all of you. Further, many of you dominate each other via the political system. Yes, much voluntary exchange can go on, and indeed economics proves it is necessary to the existence of civilization. But the one obvious point is that all civilizations are statist (or hegemonic dominance hierarchical). Why? Because they won the game of history. Over and over and over, such that we can recognize a pattern. Whereas, civilizations founded on the principle that hegemonic dominance hierarchicies aren’t acceptable didn’t persist and proliferate, especially not more widely than statist ones. Therefore, the brute facts of homo sapiens—as far as we can tell from patterns, and that’s what science is—is that we tend to conquer.
Yes, I don’t think anyone in this thread disagrees that even prisoner slaves can exchange on a mutually voluntary basis.
@ Serpentis-Lucis
Does the fact that something was dominant in the past and into the present mean that it will dominate the future?
Yes, because we were dominant precisely because it’s coded in our dna. It’s a brute fact of homo sapiens. But it’s also tempered by other factors. As everyone agrees, each individual homo sapiens isn’t always purely dominant—we are capable of mutually voluntary exchange. So there may be a day in the future when our incentives are to be more voluntary than dominant, and eventually purely voluntary, at least in theory. But that won’t happen until we advance technology to a point where voluntaryism is necessary. If technology wasn’t necessary for voluntaryism to “win”, we would already be voluntaryist. History would be the exact opposite story.
Also serpentis, I think you’re on the right track with minor qualifications. Evolution doesn’t favor 1 trait over the other, natural selection does. And everywhere, always, genes are “selfish”, they “get in where they fit in”, but always for their own sake. Yes, as you pointed out, natural selection tends to favor those genes which dominate and exploit.
so why would technology lead to voluntary society rather than a even more hedgemonic one? what technology could overcome this?
Because technology connects people, by enhancing efficiency of communication. If communication becomes so advanced that humanity experiences day to day life effictively like that of a hive mind, then people will be less inclined to dominate others because such would be immediately recognized by others and retaliatory action levied right away. In other words, people won’t have the incentive to dominate others, because they would effectively be dominating themselves by doing so.
I’m not saying this will necessarily happen. But I am saying if voluntaryism is to establish, persist, and overcome hegemony in the future, it will be because of communications technology and not because many people suddenly become non-aggressive by nature.
But there are many other possibilities, all of which must account for technology. Perhaps as initial aggression decentralizes from governments, genetic modification research will be less locked down and we will learn how to solve the biological “problems” that cause us to be hegemonic in the first place. Or maybe governments will use genetic modification to enhance human farming and preempt any possibility whatsoever of a voluntaryist future.
Personally, I don’t think a voluntaryist society is likely unless technology unites humanity in such a way as to discourage the natural tendency to hegemony, or else unless we modify our dna as to eliminate the tendency to hegemony. Natural selection has selected us for our impecable capacity to dominate, and it will improve that capacity unless something stops it.
“And if any entity, anywhere in the universe, happens to have the property of being good at making more copies of itself, then automatically more and more copies of that entity will obviously come into existence. Not only that but, since they automatically form lineages that are occasionally miscopied, later versions tend to be ‘better’ at making copies of themselves than earlier versions, because of the powerful processes of cumulative selection. It is all utterly simple and automatic. It is so predictable as to be almost inevitable.”
big brother police like technology seems like it could do the same as a way to have people reaction to the initiation of agression.
it will be interesting if a collective conscousness could actualy happen to communicate when people are initiation agression.
if all is known, and people put equal presure, then society pressure can cause more peaceful interactions.
it seemed you also said this nonviolence and peace was still domination and manipulation social presure . the nap would be the dominate hegemony as those that try to break nap would have the negative consequences and be wiped out or shunned by the hive
A world where Voluntaryism would be dominate would mean Voluntaryism would be the best survival trait. Voluntaryist society wouldn’t be “dominating” in the same way hegemony is, it would likely be just that those who support hegemony are looked upon with disgust and is a minority kind of like how anarchists are looked upon now. Procreating with someone who supports hegemony when hegemony is hated would make the offspring less likely to procreate, thus as I pointed out in my last post, Voluntaryism would be the best survival trait.
Could you link me to proof that hegemony is in our DNA? My point was that anything which is valued highly will give the appearance of being in our DNA, more likely only surviving is in our DNA, so that we can adapt to any change in what is seen as most desirable. If hegemony were in the DNA then there would be no Voluntaryists would there?
I’m not trying to polemic-bomb you, I’m trying to draw your attention to (what I perceive as) the errors youre making. I appreciate your willingness to continue this discussion and I agree that we seem to be talking past each other. I might be a hypergenius but apparently not at communication.
one problem here is the level of abstraction you employ. I cant think of many societies that were held together by violence. The soviet union, perhaps. It seems like youre suggesting that anytime there is a coercive government, that necessarily entails both the presence of a violent hierarchy and the absence of voluntaryism, for any person or population circumscribed by that govt’s nominal borders, even going as far as applying the term “slave” to someone who carries the risk of victimization by said violent hierarchy. Because this person is now a slave, in your mind, they are incapable of establishing the suitability and fitness of voluntaryism. Well I dont agree. Going by the discussion so far, I think you would refuse to consider the amish to be a voluntaryist society, based on the fact that they live on territory that is nominally subject to the dictates of a government. I disagree, and believe that the amish have demonstrated the suitability and effectiveness of a voluntaryist social order, regardless of their sometime victimization by organized criminal elements.
In a political context they are synonyms. However I will use your preferred term.
you keep saying this, and I keep directing your attention to the vastly greater amount of voluntary actions, exchanges, and relationships in every society known to man, and you dismiss this glaring fact by labeling people as slaves and prisoners. I consider the magnitudinally greater proliferation of voluntary interactions to constitute domination of the history of homo sapiens.
no, it isnt. Not when measured using any conceivable metric. By the numbers, voluntary interaction is the rule. Throughout history, voluntary interaction is the rule. With regard to personal relations, voluntary interaction is the rule. Even the past 350 years of government is characterized by the voluntary participation of the majority of residents/citizens, indeed their very identification with a nation state reveals this (“I’m an American” “We should deploy troops” etc.).
Thats because in order to qualify as a “voluntaryist society” there cant be any crime whatsoever, whereas “hegemonic societies” are qualified by one or more acts of aggression. If you stopped generalizing the actions and beliefs of real people into abstract notions that include your conclusion as a premise, you wouldnt say such a thing.
Since every society in the history of ever has conducted astronomically more voluntary interactions than coerced interactions, I cant see how you would say this. And, if the human genome was predisposed towards conquest, as you suggest, they wouldnt have conducted voluntary interaction when they had the possibility of violent interaction. Are you one of those people who thinks the existence of law enforcement officers is what prevents society from degenerating into chaos? If not, then go to the mall and tell me whether you see more trade or slavery. Then we can discuss the human genome.
anytime you feel like taking my suggestion and reading a little bit about totalitarian agriculture vs hunter/gatherers (or other aboriginal societies) we can dispense with this little notion of yours. The “we” you are using is properly applied to one specific human culture out of tens of thousands that once existed. And, “we” outcompeted “them” because of technology and nutrition, not ruthlessness per se. Cf Daniel Quinn.
yes our civilization (singular) was, and that differentiates us from aboriginal societies.
if that were the case, voluntary interaction wouldnt create more wealth than coerced interaction, and these people you dismiss as “slaves” would also turn to violence in order to get what they want. If you didnt allow yourself to dismiss the preponderance of evidence towards voluntaryism, you couldnt possibly believe any of this stuff. War even has laws and rules, dude. People are trying to kill each other and they can still value social cooperation with the very people they are trying to kill over unrestrained violence.
I still feel as though my earlier assessment was correct. Youre assuming the conclusion by the way you characterize society, which is easy to do because you are operating at an abstract level, instead of grounding yourself firmly in concrete actions and methodological individualism. I have resisted asking you to define your terms, because I think we have been able to manage, but I must observe that it appears as though your thesis has morphed, originally you suggested that the innate human drive was conquest, and later you said formation of “hegemonic dominance hierarchies.” the latter is more accurate, as the undeniable drive to conquer would be hard to establish in the face of so many humans who clearly do not conquer. If your thesis is the formation of hierarchies, then thats why making them into slaves would support your case. But they arent slaves, nor prisoners, simply citizens and subjects and many if not most people over the past 350 years actually identified with their nation enough for us to reject your conquest assertion.
I would also like to add that I do consider humans to have innately violent tendencies, just like they have the innate tendency for voluntary trade. However the driving force of homo sapiens is to thrive.
what is this 350 year thing? the world has had states and kingdoms and war tribes for thousands of years
I define “state” as a social fiction, a legal person, its a corporate person but its political rather than commercial. There have been various types of government for thousands of years, but it was always personal rather than abstract. You were a subject of the king. Not a subject of the kingdom. The state and the corporation were both invented right around the peace of westphalia. Cf. Martin van Creveld.
what about the greeks?
@ Serpentis-Lucis
I’m with you on evolution.
Could you link me to proof that hegemony is in our DNA?
If the world around you, and the history of man isn’t evidence enough, I might suggest The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. To me the plain fact that everyone is livestock of one or another human-farming structure is evidence enough. Homo Sapiens didn’t evolve this tendency suddenly over a mere few thousand years. Even the intelligent apes (I forgot the word to describe the intelligent ones) employ hegemonic dominance hierarchies—not because they’re intelligent, many many many species do this. It has to do with genes, not just with homo sapiens.
If hegemony were in the DNA then there would be no Voluntaryists would there?
That’s the argument Malachi keeps making. Again, the appeal to reality is enough. Clearly, we’re capable of hegemony and mutually voluntary behavior.
@ cab21
You’re on the right track. Regarding the NAP, all I’m saying is that it’s supporters tend to be libertarians who invoke it as the foundation of a manifestly violent, aggressive system—they just want the violence to be used on their terms as opposed to on various other terms.
@ Malachi
OK, at least we’re trying to get somewhere now.
I cant think of many societies that were held together by violence.
That’s because that’s a red herring. I said hierarchies tied together by violence. Clearly, limitations on violence are the reason societies don’t fall apart.
The rest of that paragraph seems to be your argument that anyone who is capable of mutually voluntary behavior is therefore not a slave. This seems to be the root of our fundamental disagreement, this is what we should work on resolving.
I’m pointing out that across different continents independently, and throughout history into the present, the social orders that have tended to “win” are the ones characterized by the presence of hegemonic dominance hierarchies (by definition, the absence of voluntaryism). Again, we agree that the individuals within such organizations are capable of mutually voluntary behavior, so you don’t need to stress that any more.
I consider the magnitudinally greater proliferation of voluntary interactions [as opposed to the fact that these interactions occur within a hegemonic dominance hierarchy] to constitute domination of the history of homo sapiens.
The voluntary exchange isn’t greater than the presence of the hegemony—obviously, the voluntarily exchanging individuals are exchanging as individuals within the hierarchy. Again, this can be resolved when we address the root of our disagreement: I’m saying we’re basically prisoners/slaves, and you’re saying prisoners/slaves can conduct mutually voluntary behavior. I think our views are compatible, so I’m not really clear on what your disagreement is. I’ve already conceded what I can make of your point: we agree, slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
no, it isn’t…By the numbers, voluntary interaction is the rule.
Again a red herring. I don’t mean to do what I accused you of doing, but literally if I can help you to understand that you’re not understanding my point because you’re translating into something I’m not saying then we can get somewhere; and here again is our main contention: I said voluntaryism, not voluntary exchange. Voluntaryism being a method of social organization as opposed to statism or other hegemonic dominance hierarchies. Even slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
Even the past 350 years of government is characterized by the voluntary participation of the majority of residents/citizens, indeed their very identification with a nation state reveals this (“I’m an American” “We should deploy troops” etc.).
Thats because in order to qualify as a “voluntaryist society” there cant be any crime whatsoever, whereas “hegemonic societies” are qualified by one or more acts of aggression. If you stopped generalizing the actions and beliefs of real people into abstract notions that include your conclusion as a premise, you wouldnt say such a thing.
OK you personal misunderstanding (or failure to argue against what I actually said) is seeming more and more to be the root of our little disagreement here. I’m not generalizing the blah blah blah, it’s you who is translating my words into your red herrings. I’m not arguing that a voluntaryist society requires utter absence of any hegemony, or that a hegemonic society is defined by an act of aggression. That’s completely your own mistranslation.
First of all, red herring. The presence of voluntary exchange doesn’t make a society voluntaryist. Why? Because second of all, even slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
And, if the human genome was predisposed towards conquest, as you suggest, they wouldnt have conducted voluntary interaction when they had the possibility of violent interaction.
That’s just a basic lack of knowledge of natural selection. See Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. But it would be interesting to hear your reasoning… Why can’t a being driven toward the end conquest engage in the means mutually voluntary behavior?
go to the mall and tell me whether you see more trade or slavery.
Again, this highlights your misunderstanding. Even slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
And, “we” outcompeted “them”
Yes. Yes we did.
that differentiates us from aboriginal societies
Aboriginal societies are not the norm, they’re the exception by far. A planet of over 7 billion humans and by far the vast majority live in hegemonic dominance hierarchies. If you’re appealing to aboriginal groups as your voluntaryist answer, then you’ve conceded my point. They didn’t win the evolutionary battle. To quote you, “we outcompeted them”.
*conflating the presence of voluntary exchange with the absence of hegemonic dominance hierarchies
*conflating the presence of voluntary exchange with voluntaryism
Again, the root issue here. I’m not denying that slaves are capable of mutually voluntary behavior.
I would also like to add that I do consider humans to have innately violent tendencies, just like they have the innate tendency for voluntary trade.
Would you concede that the outperformance of voluntaryist societies by hegemonic dominance hierarchical ones is due to the “innately violent tendencies”?
mutual pacifism seems would be the best system at negateing violence. nap seems semi pacifist, with a threat of violent response to counter potential acts of initiation of violence.
i think hivemind pacifism would be great if we could find a way for it to work in the future
can you support this assertion?
Stop equivocating. You directly contrasted hegemony with voluntaryism, which you defined as a society. So it appears you have shifted your thesis again.
no, thats incorrect. My argument is that when a given person or group of people engages in catallacty, that is evidence for the suitability and efficacy of voluntaryism. Your argument is to assert that they are “slaves” and therefore nothing they do or refrain from doing can be used as evidence for voluntaryism. Note that your argument begins with the appellation of the “slave” label. Youre begging the question.
theres a lot wrong with this sentence, starting with your collectivist notion of social order. How does a social order win anything? Especially if some of the participants are slaves? What individuals are you referring to, and what did they win?
“characterized by hegemonic dominance hierarchies” you havent seemed to pick up on the fact that youre begging the question with this little characterization of yours. For one thing, “hegemonic dominance hierarchies” isnt even quite compatible with “social order,” but lets assume that it is. I keep drawing your attention to the fact that most of these societies exhibit voluntary characteristics to a far greater extent than hegemonic dominance. As I said earlier, characterization is a cognitive phenomenon, you cant simply assert that the characteristics that you ascribe significance to are the important ones, dismiss all other characteristics, and have done with it. Thats a claim that must be supported. Why is a hegemonic dominance hierarchy more significant than a vastly greater amount of voluntary interactions?
your statement that hegemonic dominance hierarchies are defined as the absence of voluntaryism also needs support. Who are these people who you consider to be slaves? Why do you dismiss their successful efforts to create a voluntaryist social order? How do you define the members of a hierarchy?
oh yes it is. Voluntary exchange is a far more definitive characteristic of all human societies than hegemony. This is an example of your recurring petitio principii.
“obviously”?? Obviously they are exchanging as individuals, voluntarily. As for your phrase “within the hierarchy,” it should be obvious that you have abstracted these events out of reality and transposed them into your mental picture of events. How does someone exchange “within” a hierarchy? You mean voluntary exchange between members of the hierarchy? Or do you mean that, since the hierarchy exists, everything else that occurs is subordinate to the hierarchy?
actually I am saying most people arent slaves. I’ve been charitable enough to assume that you would flesh out your case, and so I havent asked you, but this is getting tiresome. What must one do, or have done to them, in order to be a “slave” in your diction?
so you dont consider people (who may or may not be the victims of criminal acts at any given time, inasmuch as anyone may or may not) who organize themselves through voluntary acts to be an example of a voluntaryistic social order? How does one create a voluntaryistic social order, if not through voluntary behaviors, voluntary exchange, and voluntary relations?
see rothbard where? Surely you are aware that he was quite prolific.
the decision of an individual (or multiple individuals) to define him or herself as a part of a nation is firmly within the scope of methodological individualism. This is because we are talking about how an individual behaves, identifies himself, his thought processes etc. I can point to any number of individuals and say “thats Mitt Romney. He describes himself as an American. He considers his participation in the political process (voting, taxes, etc) to be voluntary. Mitt gained his wealth through voluntary actions. Thats Roger Constituent. He considers himself an American, a Californian, and a Los Angelino. He considers his participation in the political process to be voluntary. He gained his wealth through voluntary actions.” you cannot likewise point to a “social order” “winning” anything. You cant point to a “society” that is characterized by “hegemonic dominance hierarchies.” you can only refer to a group of people and make that abstract characterization yourself. Also note that you have not done with with any group of people. I was going to move on but this response of yours is glaringly inadequate:
Where did I do any of that? My analysis is grounded firmly in concrete observations. Where is the assumption, where is the abstraction? Are you suggesting that the vast majority of Americans do not self-identify as Americans? Establishing that might be your way to substantiate the appelation of “slave”.
in that case I will stop assuming that I understand which societies you are referring to and simply ask you to refer to some examples. Where can I find a slave/prisoner/whatever? Can you identify a hegemonic dominance hierarchy for me? Where has a voluntaryistic social order been obliterated by hegemonic dominance hierarchy?
I’m going to have to ask you to explain what makes them slaves (aside from your saying so).
if they are “driven” towards conquest (which you have used as synonymous with violent dominance etc) then they would be, you know, driven towards conquest not the behaviors contrary to that. I never said they “cant” I just observed that youre denying an identity. “People are driven towards conquest (even though they do a lot more cooperation, that doesnt matter) because we can look at the times they conquer (and ignore the times they cooperate) and conclude that, yep, based on our observations they are driven towards conquest.”
what makes them slaves? From all accounts, they appear to be volunteers.
on the basis of technology, food production, and population growth, yes.
your ignorance is showing. This single totalitarian agriculturist society is the exception, based on hundreds of thousands of years of human history. The population size is a function of the food supply (as with any species). Right now there are an estimated 7 billion people, because we have spent the last 10,000 years turning the entire biosphere into progeny, due to a technological discovery a long time ago in mesopotamia. The vast majority of these human still inhabit voluntary social relations, but our way of life consists of homesteading property and turning every calorie and peptide into human food and human cells. We dont know how to live any differently. Not because “humans are genetically predisposed to agriculture and violent hegemony” but because we simply dont know how to live any differently. I appreciate your willingness to attempt to argue from concrete evidence this time but youre not very well informed on this topic.
voluntaryist societies outperform violent hegemonies at basically everything except the amount of violence produced. But nonagriculturalists do tend to suffer at the hands of the agriculturalists because the agriculturalists have more people and create more people. So insofar as violence is a component of their interactions, the non-agriculturalists will get the worst of it.