Greta facing the deputies

[realistic ecology]

It is the peculiarity of civilizations to establish inequality between its members, from which this compulsive consumption arises in the most efficient of them. Nothing to do with any human "essence", as shown by many societies (which have made up most of human history) which under-exploit (rather under-exploit) their environment far below their capacity to action.
Closer to us, the claim of the workers of the first English industrial revolution who demanded the right to limit working time to only what was necessary for them ... and many other examples that timely negligence allows itself to be forget...

Ah! the romantic charm of the good savage, gentle, peaceful, respectful of the environment ... the charm has struck again.

It is the characteristic of civilizations to establish inequality between its members

Inequality is not a consequence of civilization. It already existed when "civilization" was limited to a group of good savages hunter-gatherers: the chief was the strongest.
This is also true in a pack of wolves, in a group of chimpanzees.

where does this compulsive consumption come from

What is the link between inequality and compulsive consumption? And between inequality and the desire to consume?

"The companies that under-exploit ..."

The romantic charm of primitive peoples. They would have done most of human history? No, they are ancient, but they are on the margins of history, they did not participate in it and do not participate in it.

In reality, the supposed wisdom of the men of old was nothing other than their small number and their mediocre technical means.
They had no idea of ​​sparing wildlife, nor even the idea of ​​sparing competing tribes.
The cod fishermen of a century ago did not exhaust the ocean's reserves; it was not the effect of early ecological awareness ... but the mere measure of their helplessness. They had no sonar, no trawl, no engines. They were going on sailboats, they were angling in their tiny dories… they just couldn't fish any more.
On the other hand, when their technique allowed our fathers to go all the way, they did so without restraint. They always considered that they were the best and the most beautiful, that even nature should submit to their law.
They started very strong, exterminating the mammoths;
… And the Neanderthals in addition.

Then the Romans wiped out entire populations of wild animals from Africa and the East, because they needed bread and the circus (500 lions exterminated at the inauguration of the Pompey Theater in Rome).

Then, with Buffalo Bill, they exterminated the bison;
… And the Indians on top of that.

The ancients also almost exterminated sea otters, seals, baby seals, elephant seals, elephant seals, and fur animals. [*]… And other peoples and tribes too. We know what happened after the discovery of the New World, the annihilation of peoples and cultures; we are less aware that war was always "the state of nature", even where we would not expect it:

“[The Tahitians] are almost always at war with the inhabitants of the neighboring islands. […] The war is waged among them in a cruel manner. Following what Aotourou has taught us, they kill men and male children caught in the fighting 1; they lift the skin of their chin with the beard, which they wear like a victory trophy; they only keep the women and girls, whom the victors do not disdain to admit to their beds. (Bougainville, one of the first to visit the newly discovered Polynesia, about the Tahitians)

(We will appreciate the delicate and refined style of the XNUMXth century: "that the victors do not disdain to admit in their bed" ... That in gallant terms these things are said ...)

[*] "Aristocrats, members of the high clergy, princes, kings or wealthy merchants buy squirrels [the vair], ermine, fox, white weasel, otter, beaver, and bring sables from the colder forests of central Europe. You need up to 2 squirrel skins or 250 sable skins for a houppelande. When the princes or the kings dress their "house" [their familiars], they can buy, like the king of France, over six months in 500 ... a million fine skins. »(The Middle Ages - Madeleine Michaud - Eyrolles)

workers in the first English industrial revolution who demanded the right to limit working time to only what was necessary

I am not aware. But I am surprised to learn that these workers were earning more than they needed. I was left with Germinal (even if it is not about England).

Nature and people

[ABC2019]

Then the Romans wiped out entire populations of wild animals from Africa and the East, because they needed bread and the circus (500 lions exterminated at the inauguration of the Pompey Theater in Rome).

starting with Europe, lions were common throughout the Mediterranean basin including in Europe (Greece, Spain ...) in Greek antiquity. Obviously the saber-toothed tigers and other cave bears were long gone.

[Ahmed]

How to respond to this galimatias which generalizes everything, when the reality is so diverse? We must not confuse the myth of the good savage with anthropological knowledge ...
Civilization and social inequality go hand in hand, since it is by the hoarding of the products of the group that the hierarchies are distinguished => conspicuous consumption ... Nothing to do with purely functional hierarchies, as we observe within packs wolves and also groups of humans from the Paleolithic or assimilated (which represent, no offense, most of human history, the rest is only a brief episode).
Liberal-Realist, you write:

But I am surprised to learn that these workers were earning more than they needed.

This is one of the many aspects that have been "zapped", but I assure you, to force the workers * to work more, the bosses quickly found the solution: they reduced the hourly rate ...

* To understand, you should know that they were initially small peasants who supplemented their income by doing tailor-made textile work at home and who limited themselves to the quantity sufficient for this complement: one of the major challenges of the first industrial revolution (which has industrial only in name) was to obtain the intensification of this work, in particular by passing from the domestic system to the fabric system ...

[sen-no-sen]

It is the characteristic of civilizations to establish inequality between its members

Inequality is not a consequence of civilization. It already existed when "civilization" was limited to a group of good savages hunter-gatherers: the chief was the strongest.

The notion of inequality has little meaning if it is not attached to a given model, because inequalities are everywhere and are even the essence of our universe.
By definition if there was no inequality the universe would not exist In a closed system of thermostatic type, there is isothermal: all the points are equal in temperature; In such a system nothing can evolve.The world of absolute equality is therefore not favorable to life, but it is a physical approach that is significantly removed from our conception of equality, attention therefore not to be possessed by words!
In reality it is thanks to the differences in potential that the energy circulates(and therefore inequalities), and it is from this circulation that complex structures have appeared (dissipative energy structure: galaxy, star, life, society, etc.).
Once this point has been clarified, we can therefore say that inequalities are necessary. However, it is important to clearly differentiate the biological model from the anthropotechnical model.

In social mammals, the "leader" is the one who generally has the greatest physical power (+ energy in the muscles) and the best experience (+ energy (information) in the brain).
In primitive societies the leader was generally the most experienced (more energy in the brain)

Now in an anthropotechnical system, it is those who have the most energy (capital,) who are the dominant ones, because we have passed into a world where it is now the economy that dominates relations, and that does not change wrong in social matters!
This therefore has nothing to do with "the human essence", but with the close relationship between the sub-elements of a system within a common architecture and the physical laws (statistical mechanics) which underlie them.
It is quite possible to develop self-stabilized egalitarian social systems*, on condition that you understand the phenomena which operate in the shadow of history.

* As is the case with the experiments on elementary cellular automata: some models develop very quickly then stabilize, others replicate without limits ...

[realistic ecology]

How to respond to this galimatias which generalizes everything, when the reality is so diverse? We must not confuse the myth of the good savage with anthropological knowledge ...
Civilization and social inequality go hand in hand, since it is by the hoarding of the products of the group that the hierarchies are distinguished => conspicuous consumption ... Nothing to do with purely functional hierarchies, as we observe within packs wolves and also groups of humans from the Paleolithic or assimilated (which represent, no offense, most of human history, the rest is only a brief episode).
Liberal-Realist, you write:

But I am surprised to learn that these workers were earning more than they needed.

This is one of the many aspects that have been "zapped", but I assure you, to force the workers * to work more, the bosses quickly found the solution: they reduced the hourly rate ...

* To understand, you should know that they were initially small peasants who supplemented their income by doing tailor-made textile work at home and who limited themselves to the quantity sufficient for this complement: one of the major challenges of the first industrial revolution (which has industrial only in name) was to obtain the intensification of this work, in particular by passing from the domestic system to the fabric system ...

confuse the myth of the good savage with anthropological knowledge ...

Precisely, I noted elements of the myth in your message: the inequality which would have appeared only with civilization, the inequality which would be at the origin of compulsive consumption, the societies ("which constituted the essential of human history ") who under-exploit ...
I gave a few examples showing that all of this is the domain of myth, and not of "anthropological knowledge".

groups of humans from the Paleolithic or assimilated (who represent, no offense, most of human history, the rest is only a brief episode

I had taken care to note the confusion between duration in history and making history. You speak of peoples who lasted a very long time, but it is not this duration that makes history. The peoples that remain out of time, in the Andaman Islands for example, do not make history, they only make their own. They are on the fringes of history.

the first industrial revolution (which only has an industrial name)

Hence the misunderstanding. You weren't talking about the industrial revolution, Germinal, etc. There were, there are still agriculture + craft economies.
But the point is still astonishing; if you are talking about this extra activity, how were they forced to devote more time to it than was enough for them?
And then let's not focus on this single example of the industrial revolution ("which has no industrial name but the name"); Do you have other examples of societies, civilizations, whose members were content or content themselves with "sufficient", without seeking to have more; without trying to have a bigger field, a bigger house, more slaves, etc. (We can limit ourselves to the last two and a half millennia)

[GuyGadebois]

Do you have other examples of societies, civilizations, whose members were content or content themselves with "sufficient", without seeking to have more; without trying to have a bigger field, a bigger house, more slaves, etc. (We can limit ourselves to the last two and a half millennia)

There is no shortage of examples.

[ABC2019]

Do you have other examples of societies, civilizations, whose members were content or content themselves with "sufficient", without seeking to have more; without trying to have a bigger field, a bigger house, more slaves, etc. (We can limit ourselves to the last two and a half millennia)

There is no shortage of examples.

a priori, it seems to me to imply a society or civilization without war (if we are not looking for anything more, why go to war?), but for that, I have no example in mind ...

[realistic ecology]

Do you have other examples of societies, civilizations, whose members were content or content themselves with "sufficient", without seeking to have more; without trying to have a bigger field, a bigger house, more slaves, etc. (We can limit ourselves to the last two and a half millennia)

There is no shortage of examples.

Here is a gentleman who has an answer for everything.

[GuyGadebois]

Here is a man who has never had anything to say but who squats here to make his advertisement and his propaganda.

[Ahmed]

Liberal-Realist, you write:

Precisely, I noted elements of the myth in your message ...

Because that's what you want to see, nothing more ...
Further:

I had taken care to note the confusion between duration in history and making history.

Precisely, the bias which consists of focusing on civilizations that do not even represent the tip of the iceberg leads to ignoring most of the past of humanity ... It seems serious to me, but it is not your case, it seems ...
And:

But the point is still astonishing; if you are talking about this extra activity, how were they forced to devote more time to it than was enough for them?

Find out, because you are too imbued with the current mentality to spontaneously understand this psychic functioning.
There is an anachronistic retro-projection bias unfortunately very widespread ...