I don't think the bit you've quoted argues this, though? Isn't he just saying 'like lobster society, human society also has an unequal distribution of resources' and then goes on the discuss that distribution? He's not making the argument that this distribution is based on the neurochemical mechanisms that we share with lobsters - I mean, he might do that elsewhere, I don't know? But not in what you've quoted. I agree he's pointing to evolutionary and biological factors to explain some of the ways that societies are organised but I don't think he's arguing that we are no different than lobsters.
Up to a point Lord Copper. In the bit I quoted he does not directly refer to the same neurochemical mechanisms. You have to read the whole chapter to get that he is writing about the same neurochemical (serotonin/octopamine) mechanism. The bit I quoted 'The Principle of Unequal Distribution' comes directly after 'The Neurochemistry of Defeat and Victory' and continues talking about the defeated and victorious lobsters.
He is not just saying 'like lobster society, human society also has an unequal distribution of resources', he is making a direct comparison and making a statement about the extent of the disparity in distribution of resources, "It’s winner-take-all in the lobster world, just as it is in human societies, where the top 1 percent have as much loot as the bottom 50 percent [11] — and where the richest eighty-five people have as much as the bottom three and a half billion." The use of "just as it is" is a very direct comparison. I don't beleive it is "just as it is". He's stretching, over-stating his case. He overstates the degree to which biological factors affect wealth distribution. Economic and technological advances have made the accumulation of wealth quite a bit removed from direct conflict over territory, an accumulation that can happen automatically, in the absence of the person. For example the Amazon website is there accumulating wealth world-wide 24/7 for share holders, and most of those share holders are passively accumulating wealth, with Amazon employees working on their behalf to compete in the marketplace).
Of course he isn't arguing we are no different from lobsters. But he is saying "when we are defeated, we act very much like lobsters who have lost a fight."
The part of our brain that keeps track of our position in the dominance hierarchy is therefore exceptionally ancient and fundamental. [17] It is a master control system, modulating our perceptions, values, emotions, thoughts and actions. It powerfully affects every aspect of our Being, conscious and unconscious alike. This is why, when we are defeated, we act very much like lobsters who have lost a fight. Our posture droops. We face the ground. We feel threatened, hurt, anxious and weak. If things do not improve, we become chronically depressed. Under such conditions, we can’t easily put up the kind of fight that life demands, and we become easy targets for harder-shelled bullies. And it is not only the behavioural and experiential similarities that are striking. Much of the basic neurochemistry is the same.
Consider serotonin, the chemical that governs posture and escape in the lobster. Low-ranking lobsters produce comparatively low levels of serotonin. This is also true of low-ranking human beings (and those low levels decrease more with each defeat). Low serotonin means decreased confidence. Low serotonin means more response to stress and costlier physical preparedness for emergency—as anything whatsoever may happen, at any time, at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy (and rarely something good). Low serotonin means less happiness, more pain and anxiety, more illness, and a shorter lifespan—among humans, just as among crustaceans. Higher spots in the dominance hierarchy, and the higher serotonin levels typical of those who inhabit them, are characterized by less illness, misery and death, even when factors such as absolute income—or number of decaying food scraps—are held constant. The importance of this can hardly be overstated.
Oh, but Dr Peterson I think it can be overstated.