>>13674882The argument isn't whether it is natural in general. The argument is whether observing trait x in lobsters (in which case it would be natural and not socially constructed) is an indicator that trait x in humans is also natural and not socially constructed.
"Social hierarchies are observed naturally in lobsters, thus it is naturally in humans too." If this is a valid argument, so is this:
"Claws are observed naturally in lobsters, thus they are natural in humans too."
Now you can argue that this argument would only apply for traits that are actually observed in humans and lobsters. Hence, no claws in humans. But, well, so diving in water for a prolonged amount of time is both observed in lobsters and in humans (in the latter as a social-technologically developed trait).
Hence, it is still possible that trait x (e.g., social hierarchy) is natural in species 1 (lobsters) but not natural in species 2 (humans). Hypothetically, social hierarchies can still be no-natural constructs in humans yet biological traits in lobsters - like prolonged deep diving.
However social hierarchies are also observed in most primate species closely related to humans, and human societies across time and space have generally tended to form some sort of hierarchy. Both are, IMO, better arguments for natural tendencies for social hierarchies than lobsters (I wouldn't even call it social hierarchy in lobsters given lobsters are solitary and not social creatures. They only meet to fight and fuck).
Final word: To understand human social systems, study humans. Not crabs. Latter is not better than astrology.
