The Calculus of Civilization and Barbarism

Bibliographic Data

ID24239247
AuthorsHong Sheng (0000-0002-9083-9488)
Year2026
Volume16
Issue04
Pages185-222
Publication date2026-01-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAdvances in Anthropology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2163-9353 • E-ISSN: 2163-9361
PublisherScientific Research Publishing, Inc. (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.4236/aa.2026.164010
OpenAlexW7223002818
LanguageEN
References cited5

This paper categorizes “self-interest” into two distinct forms: “immediate and direct self-interest” and “future and indirect self-interest”. The former is violent and thus barbaric, while the latter is non-violent and thus civilized. Organisms make choices based on which behavior yields higher marginal gains. In non-human biological societies, characterized by short time horizons and limited group sizes, immediate and direct self-interest serves as the optimal choice and constitutes their natural order. In contrast, human society features extended time horizons and social scales that transcend tribal boundaries, making future and indirect self-interest the optimal strategy. This shift has fostered the development of civilized rules, including prohibitions against killing, property rights and exchange, trust, classical canons, and literature and art. The results of natural selection demonstrate that human society is far superior to non-human biological societies, proving that civilized rules are the natural order of humanity. While the natural orders of both non-human and human societies represent their respective optimal choices, one must not use the natural order of non-human species to justify barbaric behavior in human society, nor should one disparage future and indirect self-interest in human society as being immoral or barbaric.

Barbarism · Civilization · Cultural Evolution · Social complexity · Anthropological Studies and Insights · Globalization, Historical Perspectives, and International Relations · Sociology and Norbert Elias

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access