It's just plain bollocks that humans don't exert political will - often to bolster their own personal gain - which has no organic or evolutionary benefit. As previously stipulated, both agriculture and the dominance hierarchies of patriarchy both caused massive disruptions. That doesn't mean that there were no positives, but humans did undeniably go from a state where everyone ate, everyone had their medical needs tended to even if they were severely disabled, where everyone had equal status to one where some people counted and some people didn't, where some people ate and some people didn't. And that this dynamic was enforced through coercion and violence. That's not exactly something that is in dispute.
Here's something that further speaks to the fact that people from the same environments willingly chose to differentiate themselves through intention and will:
"Cultures were, effectively, structures of refusal. Chinese are people who use chopsticks, but not knives and forks; Thai are people who use spoons, but not chopsticks, and so forth. It’s easy enough to see how this could be true of aesthetics — styles of art, music or table manners — but surprisingly, Mauss found, it extended even to technologies which held obvious adaptive or utilitarian benefits. He was intrigued, for example, by the fact that Athabascans in Alaska steadfastly refused to adopt Inuit kayaks, despite these being self-evidently more suited to the environment than their own boats. Inuit, for their part, refused to adopt Athabascan snowshoes."
Graeber, David. The Dawn of Everything (p. 175). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.
The historical record is hardly analogous to biblical myths and stories. You can refuse to grapple with reality in favor of what feels good to you, but it doesn't make actual history evaporate to do so. Patriarchy allowed for population explosion and the advent of things like grand architecture and scientific advancement. Nobody thinks we are better off without penicillin. On the other hand, we now also live not only with gross inequality and wealth disparity, but most people live in a kind of social isolation that is antithetical to human nature and happiness. Reasonable people can disagree about whether those trade-offs are worth it, and I'm not even saying that I'd want to go without wifi and lasers, but that doesn't mean that we can't look to the best elements of the human experience and try to incorporate them into the present and the future.
And there is no intelligent or legitimate support for the notion that some people are more important or worthy than others based on immutable traits such as race, gender, sexuality, or economic status. Those are the fundamentals of a patriarchal system. If you want to cling to them, I wish you luck, but it's kind of pathetic.
People who can only look at zero-sum dynamics (someone has to lose in order for someone else to win) are a product of patriarchy. Think bigger, dream wider. Imagine a world where we can have both modern conveniences and care about each other. What a concept?
