**Hunter-Gatherer societies were predominantly egalitarian. It is only since the advent of farming (and therefore of surplus) that society became hierarchical** There's [lots of evidence](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists) to suggest that hunter-gatherer societies were, and in many instances still are, pretty egalitarian in structure. The big shift comes with the advent of settled, farming cultures, in which surplus can be acquired and works as a measure of capital value and power. Early settler societies soon became extremely inegalitarian. Quickly, power concentrated into the hands of very few men, who reduced women to their personal property, and excluded the vast majority of non-powerful men from the mating pool. The [results are in our DNA](https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success) and startling. The male to female reproduction ratio is roughly 17:1, which means for every 17 women who passed on their genes, only one (very powerful) man did the same. But to the opinion: while we see hierarchy all over the history of human society, and we clearly have a disposition towards it, that disposition may in fact be circumstantial (prompted by changes and opportunities in our environment) rather than somehow biologically innate to the group.

**Humans are genetically wired to create hierarchies** • Like most social animals, humans are [innately dominant](https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/games-primates-play/201203/social-dominance-explained-part-i); we live to compete against and subjugate each other. Scientists have recently identified certain [genes](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154614000163) in humans associated with dominance over others. • Studies have suggested that this characteristic serves a social function: the development of rank and hierarchy leads to a [stable society](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0347-0). • Nature itself is hierarchical. From [food chains](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/food-chain/) to [plants competing for light](https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z86gpbk/revision/6), there are many examples of hierarchy occurring in the natural world, which implies the inherency of this infrastructure. • However, whilst I believe that hierarchy in society is natural, I don’t necessarily believe that this is morally right. By the very nature of social hierarchy, it benefits some and mistreats others. Whilst many equate ‘natural’ with ‘good’, philosophers have criticised arguments that rely on this structure, calling this [‘naturalistic fallacy’](https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-naturalistic-fallacy/).