Sapiens: a brief History of Humankind

collectively
.
We can weave common myths such as the biblical creation story, the Dreamtime
myths of Aboriginal Australians, and the nationalist myths of modern states. Such
myths give Sapiens the unprecedented ability to cooperate exibly in large
numbers. Ants and bees can also work together in huge numbers, but they do so in
a very rigid manner and only with close relatives. Wolves and chimpanzees
cooperate far more exibly than ants, but they can do so only with small numbers
of other individuals that they know intimately. Sapiens can cooperate in
extremely exible ways with countless numbers of strangers. That’s why Sapiens
rule the world, whereas ants eat our leftovers and chimps are locked up in zoos
and research laboratories.
The Legend of Peugeot
Our chimpanzee cousins usually live in small troops of several dozen individuals.
They form close friendships, hunt together and ght shoulder to shoulder against
baboons, cheetahs and enemy chimpanzees. Their social structure tends to be
hierarchical. The dominant member, who is almost always a male, is termed the
‘alpha male’. Other males and females exhibit their submission to the alpha male
by bowing before him while making grunting sounds, not unlike human subjects
kowtowing before a king. The alpha male strives to maintain social harmony
within his troop. When two individuals ght, he will intervene and stop the
violence. Less benevolently, he might monopolise particularly coveted foods and
prevent lower-ranking males from mating with the females.
When two males are contesting the alpha position, they usually do so by
forming extensive coalitions of supporters, both male and female, from within the
group. Ties between coalition members are based on intimate daily contact –
hugging, touching, kissing, grooming and mutual favours. Just as human
politicians on election campaigns go around shaking hands and kissing babies, so
aspirants to the top position in a chimpanzee group spend much time hugging,
back-slapping and kissing baby chimps. The alpha male usually wins his position
not because he is physically stronger, but because he leads a large and stable

---

coalition. These coalitions play a central part not only during overt struggles for
the alpha position, but in almost all day-to-day activities. Members of a coalition
spend more time together, share food, and help one another in times of trouble.
There are clear limits to the size of groups that can be formed and maintained
in such a way. In order to function, all members of a group must know each other
intimately. Two chimpanzees who have never met, never fought, and never
engaged in mutual grooming will not know whether they can trust one another,
whether it would be worthwhile to help one another, and which of them ranks
higher. Under natural conditions, a typical chimpanzee troop consists of about
twenty to fty individuals. As the number of chimpanzees in a troop increases, the
social order destabilises, eventually leading to a rupture and the formation of a
new troop by some of the animals. Only in a handful of cases have zoologists
observed groups larger than a hundred. Separate groups seldom cooperate, and
tend to compete for territory and food. Researchers have documented prolonged
warfare between groups, and even one case of ‘genocidal’ activity in which one
troop systematically slaughtered most members of a neighbouring band.
2
Similar patterns probably dominated the social lives of early humans, including
archaic 
Homo sapiens
. Humans, like chimps, have social instincts that enabled our
ancestors to form friendships and hierarchies, and to hunt or ght together.
However, like the social instincts of chimps, those of humans were adapted only
for small intimate groups. When the group grew too large, its social order
destabilised and the band split. Even if a particularly fertile valley could feed 500
archaic Sapiens, there was no way that so many strangers could live together.
How could they agree who should be leader, who should hunt where, or who
should mate with whom?
In the wake of the Cognitive Revolution, gossip helped 
Homo sapiens
to form
larger and more stable bands. But even gossip has its limits. Sociological research
has shown that the maximum ‘natural’ size of a group bonded by gossip is about
150 individuals. Most people can neither intimately know, nor gossip e ectively
about, more than 150 human beings.
Even today, a critical threshold in human organisations falls somewhere around
this magic number. Below this threshold, communities, businesses, social networks
and military units can maintain themselves based mainly on intimate
acquaintance and rumour-mongering. There is no need for formal ranks, titles and
law books to keep order.
3
A platoon of thirty soldiers or even a company of a
hundred soldiers can function well on the basis of intimate relations, with a
minimum of formal discipline. A well-respected sergeant can become ‘king of the
company and exercise authority even over commissioned o cers. A small family
business can survive and ourish without a board of directors, a CEO or an
accounting department.

---

But once the threshold of 150 individuals is crossed, things can no longer work
that way. You cannot run a division with thousands of soldiers the same way you
run a platoon. Successful family businesses usually face a crisis when they grow
larger and hire more personnel. If they cannot reinvent themselves, they go bust.
How did 
Homo sapiens
manage to cross this critical threshold, eventually
founding cities comprising tens of thousands of inhabitants and empires ruling
hundreds of millions? The secret was probably the appearance of ction. Large
numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing in common myths.
Any large-scale human cooperation – whether a modern state, a medieval
church, an ancient city or an archaic tribe – is rooted in common myths that exist
only in peoples collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious
myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on
crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was
incarnated in human esh and allowed Himself to be cruci ed to redeem our sins.
States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met
might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of
the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian ag. Judicial systems
are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can
nevertheless combine e orts to defend a complete stranger because they both
believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights – and the money paid out in
fees.
Yet none of these things exists outside the stories that people invent and tell one
another. There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human
rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.
People easily understand that ‘primitives’ cement their social order by believing
in ghosts and spirits, and gathering each full moon to dance together around the
camp re. What we fail to appreciate is that our modern institutions function on
exactly the same basis. Take for example the world of business corporations.
Modern business-people and lawyers are, in fact, powerful sorcerers. The
principal di erence between them and tribal shamans is that modern lawyers tell
far stranger tales. The legend of Peugeot affords us a good example.
An icon that somewhat resembles the Stadel lion-man appears today on cars,
trucks and motorcycles from Paris to Sydney. It’s the hood ornament that adorns
vehicles made by Peugeot, one of the oldest and largest of Europe’s carmakers.
Peugeot began as a small family business in the village of Valentigney, just 300
kilometres from the Stadel Cave. Today the company employs about 200,000
people worldwide, most of whom are complete strangers to each other. These
strangers cooperate so e ectively that in 2008 Peugeot produced more than 1.5
million automobiles, earning revenues of about 55 billion euros.

---

In what sense can we say that Peugeot SA (the company’s o cial name) exists?
There are many Peugeot vehicles, but these are obviously not the company. Even
if every Peugeot in the world were simultaneously junked and sold for scrap
metal, Peugeot SA would not disappear. It would continue to manufacture new
cars and issue its annual report. The company owns factories, machinery and
showrooms, and employs mechanics, accountants and secretaries, but all these
together do not comprise Peugeot. A disaster might kill every single one of
Peugeot’s employees, and go on to destroy all of its assembly lines and executive
o ces. Even then, the company could borrow money, hire new employees, build
new factories and buy new machinery. Peugeot has managers and shareholders,
but neither do they constitute the company. All the managers could be dismissed
and all its shares sold, but the company itself would remain intact.