The Pyramid is a Sphinx

I have always wondered on the preponderance of the pyramid structure in the natural order of things. It is there for everybody to see. Be it the food chain or the food groups or even hierarchy be it in corporate or religious structures or even sports. So what gives? The property of a pyramid from a geometry standpoint is that it has a large base and then tapers off into an isosceles triangle. Structurally speaking, it is stable and does not keel over easily. For the New Age believers, the pyramid is supposed to have occult powers. But what got my attention is that the stable structure inherent to pyramid is extended to even abstract notions like hierarchy. Some of it can be rationalized as related to the ubiquitous Bell Curve or Normal distribution. Though  one differentiator is that outliers exists on both ends of the curve. The pyramid is quite rigid in that sense. There is that top of the pyramid and then there is the bottom. So why do these entities gravitate to a pyramid in the natural order of things. And it is at this point that I make my null hypothesis bereft of statistical data but just my opinion. Egalitarian concepts are very good but if you see the literature expounding on it, tends to associate it strongly with Utopia. And the GPS has failed to locate utopia as far as I know. As Scott Adams , the author of Gilbert famously said the path for humankind has been probably set by a miniscule portion of humankind with the rest of us trudging along willingly and many times blindly. For these people to set the path, they need to have followers to follow and that is how the pyramid has to be formed. One might say "Why a pyramid? Why not a rectangle". For starters, the decision making process has to  be sharp and not diffused. Too many people and we have the classic adage "Too many cooks spoil the broth" in active play. So a set of people will appropriate the decision making powers and arrogate themselves the right to define the destiny of the rest of the people. The same phenomenon can be seen even in the classic ecology based food chain. The tiger is the top of the pyramid, A forest can only accommodate so many tigers simply because the base of the pyramid required to accommodate a tiger would be quite big and too many tigers would require a base too big to be feasible. And that would probably answer the question "Why don't we see tigers and lions in the same forest?". Even in the structure of religious bodies, we see that the hotline to God is appropriated by a group of priests and then the rest of the base is excluded from dialling in directly. You have to go through the operator to connect. So is pyramid good or bad? Right off the bat, I would say nature supports it since we see it in nature so often. But is it good in artificially created pyramid structures. The answer is yes and no. In nature , the pyramid structure remains the same but the components that constitute the tiers of pyramid keeps on changing. So if the tiger is top of the pyramid, the dinosaurs used to be at the top some time back. The old gives way to the new. It renews the pyramid and gives it stability. Other wise we would have either ossification or putrefaction or in some cases both. The original caste system was based on that. It was division of labour. Then it got rigid and atrophied. And we are all aware of the ill effects of that. If a pyramid structure allows migration (both upwards and downwards) based on performance parameters then its a good thing. But to assume the pole position is a given based on birth, race, colour or caste would only weaken the pyramid. The structure would be rigid and when the earthquake of change comes in, as any self respecting structural engineer would testify, the rigid structure no matter how big are the first ones to fall.
And this brings me to the question "Is there an alternate to the pyramid structure?" I don't have an answer yet. And that is why the pyramid is like the legendary Sphinx. The answers are there with it but it refuses to speak. It just sits there.