The agrarian model of society is considerably less testosterone-
roiled than the hunter-warrior model. But are societies of this type entirely what we should want to emulate?

At first glance, we see a form of social order that’s peaceful, orderly, and visibly more involved in production than in destruction.  But there’s a hitch. 

When land is under tillage, it usually belongs to someone.  And in most of the world, ownership of land is passed on hereditarily, until at some point, it’s all locked up by a hereditary elite—often complete with aristocratic titles.  This pretty well freezes the vast majority of the people out of the chance to ever amount to anything.  That isn’t exactly what a society ought to strive for.

We need to consider, too, how the elite have come to own all the land.  Typically, they or their ancestors have just seized it in combat.  This means that the stability of an agrarian society really only amounts to institutionalizing the outcome of fighting a long time ago—freezing most people out in the process, and making one long-ago defeat permanent and irreversible.   This is hardly an inspiring feature.  Although the urge to pass an advantage down through all your lineage may make perfect Darwinian sense for the person who’s doing it, at a social level, the broader outcome of people being allowed to do this isn’t nearly so desirable.

It certainly isn’t fair.   Historically, many aristocrats have been far from the kinds of people who would attain prominence if they had to struggle for it on their own—whether because they’re hemophiliacs, or excessively fat, or just relentlessly dull and ordinary.   Yet they enjoy all the prerogatives of classic Darwinian "alpha males."   Or to put it just a bit differently, many are "false alphas."

The disadvantages to society of their occupying these unearned positions range from mating anomalies to the mere incidental spawning of odd and disagreeable customs.

Consider, for example, the elaborate deference rituals that tend to occur in societies where status is hereditary.   It’s a good bet these will increase and become more demeaning to the general population the less there is about the putative "alpha" to be legitimately deferential to.  For instance, many societies require everybody to bow or stoop before the alpha, so that he can be elevated above them.  Who is more likely to think up a ritual like this than a nominal "alpha" who isn’t very tall?

By contrast, the leader of a hunter-warrior band tends to have a naturally commanding presence, and thus has less of a need to impose such diminishing rituals on those around him.  And again, the right to "stand on your hind legs" is a significant one—as anyone who has had to cope with an overly hierarchical social organization knows.