8 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

L5 Society founder, Keith Henson, chats with ImmInst members about his new theory on the Evolutionary Psychology Origin of Wars. (report below)

TIME: Oct 5 - Sun 8pm Eastern
CHAT ROOM: http://www.imminst.org/chat

Previous ImmInst Chat - June 2003 Sex, Drugs, and Cults



About Keith:
Homepage: http://www.operatingthetan.com/
Writings: http://www.operating...m/writings.html
Email: hkhenson@rogers.com
Phone: 519-770-0646 hm and 416-529-2789 cell

H. Keith Henson was one of the founders, and first president of the L5 Society, now merged with the National Space Society. During L5’s successful fight against the Moon Treaty he testified before Congress. In the late 70s, he wrote papers on vapor phase fabrication and space radiators with Eric Drexler. (They hold patents on these topics jointly.) Nanotech got him into cryonics where (in the early 90s) he learned how to do cardiac surgery on cryonics patients--some with HIV. His interest in human rights, particularly free speech, led him into a battle on the Internet with a certain vicious and litigious cult. As a result he is now a political refugee in Canada.

---

The Evolutionary Psychology Origin of Wars. (rough draft)
by Keith Henson

Human psychological traits were established by life in tribes. Genes were selected for mechanisms successful social primates use to get their genes into the next generation.

One of these is capture-bonding, otherwise known as Stockholm Syndrome. (Discussed in my Sex, Drugs and Cults paper.) Another is attention-rewards also discussed in that paper.

human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html

A third proposed here is a psychological tendency to go to war in economic downturns, i.e., declining income per capita.

Tribes have been faced with starvation a few times a century since we split from the chimps 6 million years ago. In a world filled up with tribes (the normal situation) and faced with looming starvation from drought, an ice age starting, the animals being hunted out or as happened in Australia the land suddenly shrinking as the water came up, human tribes went to war with each other.

As an educated guess, the psychological mechanism is a higher gain on xenophobic memes circulating in the tribe. This effect even shows up in the US. Bad economic times are usually accompanied by a rise in xenophobic neo-Nazi movements.


A particularly spectacular example was when after about 24 generation of growth, the Easter Islanders had degraded the island to the point they faced starvation. (Several graphs of simulations shown in this section of the talk.) These people from a small ancestral stock split into the "short ears" and the "long ears" and fought spectacular wars that reduced the population to perhaps as little as 1/10th of its peak numbers. (Warrior taunt, "the flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth.")


(Also mention the New Guinea simulations which include wars as part of the models.)


Another example happened in the American Southwest following about 1250. In that case the memetic response made a way of life impossible for most of the population and the vast majority of them died or were absorbed into the few remaining tribes.


One of the oddest revelations to come out of this thinking is that it pays genes for a tribe to go to war even if it is weaker and doomed in battle. This is because the children of the tribe of the tribe carry the genes of the hapless warriors. Women and at least female children from defeated tribes are normally incorporated into the victorious tribe--which is a much better outcome as far as genes are concerned than starving. (Exception being Rwanda, certain Bible tales.)


Millions of years of this kind of selection have left us with strong psychological traits to be sensitive to declining income per capita, even if it is not going to lead directly to near term starvation. As a prediction, states that are undergoing long term declines in income per capita will be the most prone to internal disruptions or starting wars with other countries. Current example is Saudi Arabia which has seen per capita income shrink by 3/4 in a generation. Palestine has this problem. Northern Ireland may have pulled out because the birth rate declined to near replacement among the Roman Catholic sub set of the population. This allowed economic gains to be translated into increases in average per capita income.


The connection between economic privation and wars has long been noted, especially in the case of Germany and WW II. Evolutionary psychology proposes a mechanism and an evolutionary reason for the mechanism to have arisen. Unfortunately, the evolved response to privation is not well suited to cultures with higher technology than hunter-gatherer.

[Lazarus Long]

As a pre-study list for this chat I suggest that we review a number of specific and general threads and even though, do to the currently fashionable willful ignorance of the past many of the threads associated with history, myth, and legend have been cast to a lower level of our little hell and banished to the Catcher, it is stil the case that many are still very important but most relevant threads will be found here in the Politics and Religion Forum

In particular I would suggest a review and additional contributions to at least these threads:

Global Arms Proliferation

Cults & Human Sacrifice

In the Name of National Security

What are the Causes of War?

Should the US go to War with Iraq?

The Origins of Religion (the Darwinian View)

Socialism vs Capitalism

Actually there is so much more study revolving around psychology, sociology, history and evolutionary science required to even begin to have a rational discourse that all too few will ever pursue this thoroughly "unprofitable" course of study in life. It is a sad and tragic irony that all too often this investigation leads eventually to a comparative ethical debate that not only doesn't end the discussion but routinely falls victim to exacerbating the differences and actually starting the conflicts that such a priori attempts at resolution are often meant to prevent.

I for one hope that Keith's discourse will be set up to enlighten us on how to consolidate our perspective beyond taking sides and to help us all not only to avoid falling prey to the common and popular hazard of self fulfilling prophecy, but to become highly sensitized to the presentation of propaganda and to learn to individually mitigate its power such that at least some of us learn to see past these powerful forces of manipulation.

Peace Making is the ultimate conflict and the most difficult arena of combat to ever enter, for it is in this arena that one must enter armed with the most powerful will, heart, and mind, one that is practically beyond the ken of most humans, but little else. To be nearly physically naked yet mentally and morally girded describes the paradigm of the peacemaker by a universally human standard from Christ to Gandhi, from Orpheus to modern conscientious objectors like Quakers, and Baha'i.

Never ever assume that innocence is a shield, for our vulnerability is all too real and the score card of historic and legendary victims demonstrates that victory has most often been on the side of violence and war makers not the pacifists. Yet even as this idea flies in the face of reason, it is reason enough for examining the image because for every Christ there has been a Constantine, for each Lao Tzu a Shogun.

There has never been a period of enduring peace that was possible without some form of powerful defensive posture but it is through this pact with the "Devil" that these "Social Shangri La's" have universally either failed eventually to protect against external threats, been subverted internally to the causes of aggression. or a combination of both. By one manner or another all previous historic and legendary attempts have come to fail the original intent.

So I ask us all to ask ourselves; does this mean for one moment that it was not worth trying such social experiments?

On the side of hope it also must be remembered that history preserves the idea and more importantly social evolution has over this period of repeated failures incrementally progressed. This social and psychological progress for our species has also been real and often predicated on the memetic power of the very same principles that drove societies to wars with ethically unresolved and dissatisfying consequences.

The study of history is, as Spinoza suggests, absolutely critical to the possibility of social evolution and progress, for without such study of past success and failure we are certainly doomed to catastrophically fall prey to ourselves and destructive repeat the errors of past eras.

The convergence of factors and forces that we face together represent the paramount demand of current events and to best navigate our course through these rapids of progress and shoals of tradition we must carefully weigh risk and reward while remembering to be not only meticulous, but scrupulous about what we define as worth while for how and why we live. Herein lies the crux of conflicts.

Also a successful outcome is logically incumbent on being as accurate as possible about the definitions of risk because the stakes are getting exponentially higher by the moment and mis-diverted resources will most likely have tragic consequences far out weighing even the most unlikely fortuitous event.

[Mind]

Going to war during economic downturns may be a psycological trait of humans, but there are exceptions to the rule. During the height of the economic boom of the 1990's the U.S. went to war with Serbia. The economy was also good during the 1960's when the U.S. got involved in Vietnam (by the end of the war the economy was in decline).

[Bruce Klein]

Vietnam, Iraq and it seems most recent US led conflicts were meant to contain and mitigate potentially larger threats. They do not seem to be classical in that they were not wars for gain of territory or goods.

This tendency by the US to wage wars of preemption could be an interesting artifact of what happens with a super power with excess capacity to wage war. Some may even look at the recent US led wars as merely large scale exercises in order to keep troops ready and sharp.

Thus, there may be an interesting parallel occurrence at two ends of the economic spectrum, while most nations in the middle of the spectrum are less likely to go to war. It's more complicated in reality, but it may be a helpful guide in predicting future wars.

[Bruce Klein]

<localroger> Well henson if you're the guest host and it's time...
* MichaelA slams the gong
<hkhenson> we can certainly start without bj
<Lucifer> Our guest tonight needs no introduction...
<hkhenson> did all of you read the short version bj sent out?
<localroger> Sorry, I've been out quite a bit, missed it.
<hkhenson> or should I do an even shorter version right here?
<localroger> How about a link so we can speed-read?
<hkhenson> sure . . . .
<Lucifer> That's a good idea
<hkhenson> hmm anyone have a fast way to get to the link?
<MichaelA> http://imminst.org/f...=67&t=1877&st=0
<hkhenson> I think I only saw it in email
<MichaelA> War seems to be the product of a superstimulus that tickles whichever modules were responsible for initating violent conflict between tribes
<localroger> 'k, got the link from MichaelA. Henson, how consistent is the relationship between war-starting and prosperity downturn? Are there any studies that correlate this?
<hkhenson> many such studies, but before I connected ep/memetics, there was no proposed mechanism
<localroger> It makes beaucoup sense, particularly the part about doing it even if your tribe is going to lose because the captured women and children pass your genes along on the winning side.
<hkhenson> wars correlate stronger with the economics of the *starting* side.
<hkhenson> local that boggled me when I doped it out.
<hkhenson> there is no check on insane biligerance
<localroger> Well I'm probably just a lot more cynical than you, it seems perfectly obvious to me :-)
<hkhenson> at least if the downside is worse
<localroger> <-- Once pointed out
<hkhenson> right. that's one of the features of EP
<hkhenson> once someone has *stated it* the typical reaction is "why didn't I think of that first?"
<Lucifer> Is capture-bonding a necessary component of the theory?
<BJKlein> Keith, Welcome Sorry I'm a bit late...
<hkhenson> no, just another example of an evolved psychological trait
<hkhenson> no problem bj
<localroger> Also, belligerence is an R-complex function, so even I wouldn't argue that your genes can turn it on, unlike some higher-abstraction things where there is a lot of nature/nurture controversy.
<hkhenson> ghod knows how many psychological traits of this sort we have.
<localroger> Well henson I think the good news is that we can rewire a lot of that baggage with our fabulous all-function-assuming cortexes. The bad news is that some of the most important stuff is among the few things we can't.
<BJKlein> Keith, do you see any higher level officials looking at your ideas about EP seriously.. and advising the president perhaps?
<Ge> There is ONE cure for war, and that is, WORLD GOV'T
<hkhenson> maybe local.
<hkhenson> nope ge, that's not a cure
<hkhenson> the only cure I can see is to never have declinging income per capita.
<localroger> Ge, actually henson's theory would say that the one cure for war is universal prosperity. That doesn't really require world gov't, and is technologically feasible.
<hkhenson> right local
<hkhenson> another thing you can predict from this is that low birth rate is going to be highly correlated with *not* starting wars
<Ge> technologically but not humanly. people need to be FORCED to redistribute wealth.
<hkhenson> because there is nothing like low birthrate to raise the per capita income
* Lucifer coughs
<localroger> Of course left-leaning political types have been saying the same thing (with less solid reasoning) for hundreds of years, but other EP problems make implementation difficult.
<Ge> and you can't cure poverty w/out redistribuiting the wealth
<hkhenson> ge, if that were true, than regimes like Pol Pot would have had no war.
<gustavo> Hi. I agree with Ge in that
<hkhenson> instead, they had massive wars, killing a substantial fraction fo the population
<gustavo> there is no "objective scarcity" today
<Ge> PP and so on didn't have curing poverty as a goal
<gustavo> I mean, if there were a political body redistributing wealth
<hkhenson> ge, my theory would indicate that declining income per capita is the root of wars.
<localroger> Gustavo, it's not objective, it's subjective. A decline such as we are currently experiencing in the USA can trigger it, as it did in fact do.
<localroger> Even though USians are still per capita the richest people on Earth, overall.
<Ge> local, you really think Gulf War 2 was caused by the economic problem?
<hkhenson> because declining income per capita gets mapped into over population for the resource base.
<hkhenson> no doubt about it ge.
<localroger> Ge, its acceptance was certainly helped by it. There were other factors, of course. Even though it's not an "economic downturn" the shock of the 9/11 attacks made a lot of people suddenly feel vulnerable, which probably had a similar effect.
<hkhenson> Gulf 2 was a response war.
<localroger> I'd also point out that we seem to be a local exception to the birthrate rule.
<hkhenson> displacement if you will
<gustavo> I think that GE questions take us to the explicative power of evolutionary psychology in general
<Ge> the US has weathered econ. downturns without launching war, and GW2 didn't help matters, no one thought it would
<hkhenson> triggered by the invasion of afghanistan not being enough of a response to make to the 9/11 attack
<hkhenson> ah. there are multiple reasons for a population to go into war mode
<hkhenson> one of them being to be attacked
<localroger> Well Ge henson isn't saying that an economic downturn will *always* start a war. Just that it's a major causative factor.
<hkhenson> right.
<gustavo> but the problem then is
<gustavo> how much relative weight has
<hkhenson> and there are cases where there were massive downturns that did not result in war right at the time
<gustavo> How much weitght is has, I mean, when you have things like Bush's political agenda, ideology, geopolitical and economic interests, etc. playing their part
<localroger> Yeah, the runup to WWII was delayed by about a decade.
<Ge> That is why we (humans) need a WG, to keep a lid on all the anger, *until* poverty can be cured
<hkhenson> the mechanism I propose is that economic downturns, especially one where the prospect of long term downturn is apparent
<hkhenson> causes the gain on the circulation of xenophobic memes to be higher.
<Ge> I don't believe that technology alone will cure poverty.
<hkhenson> I don't know the exact mechanism that causes this, but there is empirical evidence it happens
<hkhenson> didn't say it would ge.
<localroger> ...and I'd add that the longer the apparent duration of the downturn, both the greater the amplification factor and the longer the delay which might appear between the actual downturn and start of hostilities.
<hkhenson> right.
<hkhenson> I would say that it takes at least a year
<hkhenson> and perhaps more.
gustavo is JavaUser@pool-138-88-25-134.res.east.verizon.net * irc.extropy.org
gustavo on #immortal
gustavo using irc.lucifer.com [127.0.0.1] Excalibur IRCd
gustavo has been idle 2mins 10secs, signed on Sun Oct 05 19:02:31
gustavo End of /WHOIS list.
<gustavo> I'm from argentina, which seems to be an exeption so far
<hkhenson> it is probably coupled into the time it took for hurds to increase in times long gone by
<hkhenson> gus, hardly
* ChrisRovner is from Argentina. Waves to Gustavo
<hkhenson> the fauklands war was proceeded by a long period of bad econmic times was it not?
<BJKlein> gustavo's homepage: http://www.librosenr...ofaigenbaum.asp
<Ge> National governmemts are the only bodies that can do much about poverty, and for those not their citizens, have no motivation to
<gustavo> well, argentina has been in an economic decline for the last 30 years
<ChrisRovner> We did have a little war though
<localroger> I suspect henson's effect is triggered more by sudden changes than gradual doldrums.
<hkhenson> ge. national governments with few exceptions don't have a clue as to how to improve economics
<gustavo> right, I mentioned argentina because
<hkhenson> I think it is more looming bad times.
<gustavo> we had as many of you know a loss in about 20% of income
<hkhenson> privation if you will.
<gustavo> average, 2 years ago
<hkhenson> gustavo, that's nothing
<gustavo> and I couldnt sense no increase in xenophoby at all
<hkhenson> saudia arabia has seen per capita income fall by 75% over the last generation
<localroger> Sheesh henson, I didn't know that re: Saudi Arabia. No wonder the House of Saud is in such deep doo-doo.
<hkhenson> gus, you might lack a target for xenophobic memes.
<hkhenson> the british are not people to mess with. :-)
<hkhenson> but eventually, I would predict that your country will split into the long ears and the short ears
<hkhenson> or some such bs distinction
<hkhenson> and go at it tooth and nail
<hkhenson> in fact, argentian has seen some exceptionally bad social messes.
<gustavo> not at all
<BJKlein> keith was the US Civil War thus caused by en economic downturn?
<gustavo> but that would take us far from our subject
<hkhenson> I know some canadian banks bailed
<hkhenson> that's an excellent question bj
<hkhenson> I don't know exactly.
<hkhenson> it would have been a decline in income per capita and in the south
<hkhenson> since the south instigated the civil war.
<hkhenson> that is if my theory hold up in that case.
<hkhenson> it doesn't in all cases.
<Ge> Maybe an economic *threat* can trigger a conflict among relatively poor societies
<hkhenson> which is why I think a certain amout of time delay is required.
<BJKlein> hmm, seems the US had much to loose by going to war at that time... but there *may* have been a depresseion in the south caused by lack of transisiton to a slaveless society..
<localroger> BJ I'd argue that it was. The southern landholders had seen real losses and were looking at being steamrolled by an economic juggernaut from the North. Those are the people who started the war.
<BJKlein> right, i agree..
<hkhenson> if economid disaster hits fast enough, you might not get a war
<Ge> after all, 1861 America, both sides, was relatively poor, but the North much less so
<hkhenson> the potatoe famine in the 1850 in ireland didn't result in war/rebelion/etc
<localroger> Henson, there were revolutionary attempts due to the potato famine, but they failed. Follow through is kind of hard when you're starving.
<hkhenson> ge, it is *relative* decline in per capita income that sets off wars
<hkhenson> right local, too fast.
<hkhenson> total disaster hitting too fast does not generate a war.
<BJKlein> is Vietnam part of this model you think?
<hkhenson> good question
<BJKlein> wars of containment...
<BJKlein> seem to be more of an excercise by larger nations to keep the troups ready..
<hkhenson> all wars should be part of the model if it works
<localroger> I'd say Vietnam was a more modern phenomenon, cooked up in think tanks.
<Ge> Well, didn't you have a de cline relative to the north, which had the gold rushes, industrial revolution, and massive land expansion beginning in 1848?
<hkhenson> or need to be explained
<hkhenson> ge, the north didn't start the war.
<localroger> Henson, the model doesn't have to explain all wars. It can be one of several valid causes.
<hkhenson> true.
<Mermaid> the potato famine didnt result in war or rebellion because the lot of the irish was bad even before the blight
<hkhenson> but you do have to account for exceptions
<Ge> no, it was the S that had the decline, and they started the war
<hkhenson> well, wars are no longer adaptive
<localroger> Also, the North did fire the first shots in the CW and did declare war first, but one could argue that the Confederate states seceded knowing what the result would be.
<hkhenson> in fact, they are not adaptive for anything higher than hunter/gether cultures
<localroger> Henson, right. It's all noise like the cultural version of an inflamed appendix.
<BJKlein> localroger, the south fired the first shots at Ft. Sumter, SC
<hkhenson> a spectacular example is the corn farmers in the american southwest
<localroger> BJ, they didn't fire those shots at Northern troops who were sitting quietly in their bunkers.
<hkhenson> in that case, going to war undercut the economy
<hkhenson> because war forced the response of moving into forts
<hkhenson> living in forts allowed defense ok
<hkhenson> but it totally messed up access to their corn fields.
<Ge> In the absence of an overt downturn, a very stratified society can go into conflict
<hkhenson> the result was a continuing economic disaster
<hkhenson> example ge?
<Ge> because much less of a "catalyst" is required. Eg, Mexico in 1910
<hkhenson> in the southwest, the effect was so bad that 24 of 27 groups died out entirely
<BJKlein> how did they get that data keith?
<BJKlein> that was quite a long time ago...
<hkhenson> archeology bj, if you are talking about the american southwest
<BJKlein> hmm, ok
<hkhenson> look up the books by steven a. leblanc
<hkhenson> a while ago I read Prehistoric warfare in the american southwest.
<BJKlein> amazing what they can find in the dirt
<hkhenson> there is relatively little disturbance there.
<hkhenson> because of the low rainfall.
<BJKlein> i'd guess carbon dating comes in very handy as well..
<hkhenson> bad situation fer sure.
<hkhenson> absolutely bj.
<hkhenson> all of this happened there about 1250
<BJKlein> so that's how they can get the date with such accuracy..
<hkhenson> anyway, I think we can account for most wars as secondary effects of economic downturns
* BJKlein hopes he doesn't ever have to dated by carbon atoms
<hkhenson> because humans map that into looming privation
<Mermaid> what about acts of violence?
<hkhenson> and the response to looming privation was to go to war with your neighbors.
<Ge> BJK, if you give up your body, won't thy be able to C14 that?
<Ge> while you chill outt in uploaded form
<BJKlein> i sure hope so..
<hkhenson> because win or lose your genes were better off going to war than starving.
<hkhenson> bummer.
<hkhenson> but it does give us the tools to make predictions.
<hkhenson> *china* is not going to be the source of wars for a while
<BJKlein> keith, I wonder what Dawkins would say about your thoery...
<hkhenson> they have the population more or less under control
<hkhenson> ask him bj.
<BJKlein> have you seen Gardner's new book?
<BJKlein> i will..
<hkhenson> and the economic situation is doing well there.
<Ge> ISTM they are the major danger. An exploding populatiion and fixed resources
<hkhenson> India is much more likely to be a war.
<hkhenson> ISTM?
<Ge> their pop. is still rising despite their drastic ciontrol measures
<Ge> It Seems to ME
<hkhenson> what is ISTM?
<Ge> It--Seems-To-Me
<hkhenson> ah.
<hkhenson> well, my theory says that rising income per capita will inhibit them becoming warlike.
<Ge> China also has nuclear ICBMs, which gives them a leeway for war that other nations don't.
<hkhenson> they can still be attacked and that will cause them to jump into a warlike mode.
<hkhenson> according to theory.
<hkhenson> income per capita can fall for two reasons.
<hkhenson> one, absolute income falls for some reason/set of reasons.
<hkhenson> two, population growth exceeds the rise in national income.
<gustavo> but what about redistributive policies? Like cutting taxes for the rich and cutting social services for the poor?
<gustavo> would that also cause the poor to go into a warlike mood?
<hkhenson> gus, possibly.
<Ge> Gus, how is that redistributive? If you cut both, ISTM that is more conservative
<gustavo> ok, just a problem of terminology
<gustavo> I mean the poor work
<hkhenson> if the per capita income of a substantial group is falling and looks to be falling into the future,
<gustavo> and the wealth gets "redistributed" to the rich
<localroger> Gus, the poor don't start wars any more. It's a question of whether the people making the decisions feel they are facing loss of income/status or looming privation (by comparison to what they're used to).
<hkhenson> then you are going to have xenophobic memes doing well.
<Ge> is hkhenson keith?
<hkhenson> if the xenophobic memes capture a high enough fraction of the population, then you are going to have trouble.
<gustavo> I agree localroger
<gustavo> but if you are right
<hkhenson> yes ge
<gustavo> then it means that social control, ideology, political manipulation, etc.
<gustavo> are more important than the memes
<hkhenson> mcuh the same gus
<Ge> keith: in your thinking, ehat happened economically in France in 1789 to serve as a trigger?
<hkhenson> "let them eat cake"
<hkhenson> there was a horrible food shortage.
<localroger> Times were terrible at that point in France. They were having a famine.
<Ge> she didn't really say that though?
<localroger> Yes Ge, she did.
<hkhenson> but what she said was not as important as the fact that people were hungry
<Ge> Was this part of the global mini-climate change in that period?
<hkhenson> I don't know.
<localroger> She ridiculed their hunger, and that quip more than any other action got her sent to the guillotine.
<hkhenson> that was toward the end of the little ice age.
<Ge> if so, natural events can provide the catalyst for conflict
<hkhenson> but you always have to adjust things to consider the rise in population.
<hkhenson> sure ge
<Ge> the more people, the more unstable the situaion
* localroger checks the Global Warming Thermometer
<hkhenson> any kind of downturn in the ecosystem productivity would set off a massive bunch of wars/killings
<hkhenson> but you didn't require even that.
<hkhenson> if the population went up enough, like it did in Rwonda, that's enough to set up the conditions for a war/massive killing.
<hkhenson> the main thing is income per capita.
<gustavo> But today, who eats and who doesn't depends more on politics, international relations, and trade agreements that on climatic changes
<gustavo> I mean, if world leaders had the political will
<hkhenson> I don't know how to account for distribution of total income
<BJKlein> keith...
<Ge> Human life is like a gas under pressure, the more bodies, the greater the pressure
<BJKlein> do you see mind altering drugs as way to mitigate future wars?
<hkhenson> hmm
<BJKlein> such as prozac, etc...
<hkhenson> never considered that.
<hkhenson> they might help.
* Sat is fairly peaceful
<Ge> BJK, NO WAY. You won't get everybody to take that stuff
<localroger> I would think we would have to identify the mechanism.
<hkhenson> sat is peaceful because he has a full belly. :-)
<localroger> But we want to have a nice peaceful society. You take the happy pills or we blow your fuckin' head off.
<Ge> and everybody would have to take it
<hkhenson> but I think it is beyond that.
<BJKlein> let's say the hijackers were taking prozac rather than drinking beer...
<hkhenson> I think people could go to war over the relative rise of gas and snow blowers.
<BJKlein> would that have stopped them?
<hkhenson> hmm. I doubt it bj
<Ge> besides, can you operate a society where everybody is stoned?
<hkhenson> they were the sharp edge of a billion islamics who are not doing well and know it.
<hkhenson> ge, hasn't had any effect I have noticed.
<gustavo> keith, have you seen "bowling for columbine"? If so, what'syour opinion on the movie?
<localroger> Actually I'd think Prozac (or one of the similar drugs) would have kept the 9/11 hitchhikers on the ground, but those drugs have other effects. Perhaps most noticeably they can make it impossible to achieve an orgasm.
<hkhenson> seen it gus.
<gustavo> it's a very systematic search for the cultural (not biological) causes of violence
<Sat> I'd rather be depressed an unstable then unable to have satisfying sex.
<hkhenson> might have local. might not.
<Ge> local, if that's true, then indirtectly it might solve world overpopulation
<hkhenson> not really.
<localroger> Well that would be a secondary beneficial effect, but as henson is probably about to point out people also tend to suicide on those drugs for reasons that aren't well understood.
<hkhenson> you don't need very many orgasms to fill up the world.
<hkhenson> one of the things this made me accutely aware of is the need for population control.
<localroger> Sat, it was explained to me by one person on Prozac that while yes, he couldn't have an orgasm, because he was on Prozac he felt just fine about this :-)
<hkhenson> at least you need population growth to be less than your economic growth.
<Sat> that's horrid localroger.
<localroger> I thought it was pretty screwed up myself.
<hkhenson> or you might substitute a lot of prozac . . . .
<BJKlein> keith, could it really be the other way around? you need ecn growth to slow pop growth?
<hkhenson> that's a switch function bj
<BJKlein> and it depends on the dominant ecn. such information or industrial or agraculture
<Ge> some sexual fun will have to be sacrificed for the good of the world
<Sat> I read sometime this year that one of the contributing factors to wars is human's have a tendency to overestimate thier own 'war prowess' while underestimating that of thier enemies.
<hkhenson> absolute income over a few k dollars per year will get the population (usually) to go through the demographic transition.
<hkhenson> that's not allways the case.
<hkhenson> the saudis have a very high birth rate.
<hkhenson> in that case, culture is involved,
<hkhenson> they forbid any birth control in the kingdome
<BJKlein> wow
<BJKlein> that sucks
<Sat> I've always been the opposite of that, actualy. I think everybody else is way better at fighting.
<hkhenson> Sat, that's exactly what you would expect.
<Lexx> and yet they depend heavily on foreign workers to keep their economy going
<hkhenson> because it is the genes that are setting up these conditions.
<hkhenson> and the genes do better than starving even if all the males in a tribe get killed.
<hkhenson> because the children and women get taken into the winning tribe.
<Sat> I think a better strategy is the 'run away' one. I suspect that is what many of my ancestors did.
<hkhenson> so ben ladin's genes are expecting us to kill all the males in his tribe and take the children and women in as slave/second wives.
<hkhenson> slaves.
<Lexx> so the Hebrews in the old testament went against darwinian theory by killing even the women and children of the peoples they defeated in war
<hkhenson> but ben ladin's genes are a bit behind the times. . . . .
<BJKlein> keith, that's really an eye openiner of an idea.. and so true
<hkhenson> lexx, they didn't do that very often
<Lexx> and if I remember my Bible right, they had problems with it
<hkhenson> bj, it downright boggled me when I came to that conclusion
<Sat> I thought that they kept a few virgins
<hkhenson> but it is a straightforward application of what we know from history and evolutionary psychology.
<BJKlein> humans are very much irrational on an individual basis.. but in groups with this theory.. it makes sense
<BJKlein> such as why women would want so strongly to have children today...
<hkhenson> the genes have built very successful survival vehicles.
<hkhenson> bj, amazingly they don't
<hkhenson> as EO wilson says, we are in extreme luck
<Ge> 3This is why I expect the US Givt to oppose serious life-extension. If young citizens co=an look forward to unbounded life, they might be less willing to die for their country.
<BJKlein> well, tell that to my wife.
<BJKlein> they seem to want *some* children...
<hkhenson> that women don't want to have a dozen kids each when the they reach a certain degree of wealth.
<Lexx> BJ: time to have some little ones?
<Lexx> lol
<Lexx> : )
<BJKlein> if not dozens like evolution asks
<hkhenson> some is a very good idea bj. :-)
* BJKlein shakes his head
<hkhenson> 2.1 in fact.
<BJKlein> not to great for an immortalist
<hkhenson> actually bj, kids are a great deal of fun.
<Lexx> I want at least a baker's dozen myself!
<Lexx> *not a parent yet*
<gustavo> my first is coming in 2 months
<hkhenson> especially when you don't have to bail them out of jail.
<Lexx> gustavo: congratulations
<BJKlein> keith, i think it depends on the personality type... i just dont think i could split my focus
<gustavo> thanx
<BJKlein> ah shweet gustavo.. good luck
<hkhenson> well, bj, it is going to take at least one more generation
<BJKlein> ah, we'll see i guess..
<Lexx> I'm sorry.. one more generation to do what?
<hkhenson> and your chances of having a kid smart enough to contribute are much higher than average.
* localroger smacks himself on the forehead
<localroger> Damn! I totally forgot to have kids!
<hkhenson> one more generation to the singularity.
<hkhenson> 5 kids here.
<Lexx> roger: just find a gal off the internet who wants to have some!
<hkhenson> but my brother had none
<Sat-an> I do not take it as highly probably that the singularity will happen.
<Sat-an> probable
<localroger> Lexx, I have a gal and we've been together for 20+ years. In harmonious agreement that we do not need to add a couple of ticks to the world population.
<Lexx> will people still have children as we do now after the singularity hits?
<hkhenson> I see nothing to stop it.
* BJKlein predicts that in the upcomming decade it would be more advantagious for me to help other immortalist rather than have children
<hkhenson> for better or for worse.
<Ge> 3a black hole?
<Sat-an> fundamentalism?
<Lexx> roger: but they will be YOUR sweet and adorable parasites on the biosphere...
<Lexx> : )
<hkhenson> local, I used to worry a lot about smart people not reproducing.
<localroger> Lexx, I am having enough fun parasitizing the biosphere myself.
<Lexx> roger: that is a big concern of mine, too
<hkhenson> I finally came to the conclusion that you should expect very smart people to be poor at reproducing
<Lexx> but I don't see it really mattering with the amount of time we have left
<hkhenson> like any other extreme trait.
<Ge> 3keith no worry abiout that. sex drives are mind-independent
<BJKlein> keith, why not see that humans are not really smart.. that AI will be much smarter soon.?
<localroger> Well I don't really think intelligence is strongly coupled to genetics anyway. (dons flame-retardent suit)
<hkhenson> that's actually not so ge.
<Lexx> usually smart people go to college where they get "brainwashed" into believing they must do their part to save the earth by having no or just a few offspring
<hkhenson> well, sex drive may be, but the smart people are better at keeping the sex from resulting in kids
<Ge> sex mechanisms don't even require the mind.
<Lexx> roger: I totally disagree with you regarding intellect and genes
<Lexx> 4*strongly connected!*
<localroger> Yeah Lexx, that happened to me around the age of 5. I think GF decided in her early teens. Those colleges get to you early :-)
<Lexx> lol
<hkhenson> in any case, consider the case where being far out on the bell curve of some trait did not result in reduced reproductive success.
<BJKlein> I look at humans as not even close.. when compared to what AI will bring soon..
<hkhenson> especially in the case where being far out in the other direction did.
<Ge> 3BJK, then what are you looking forward to, years of being a "pet" to an AI?
<BJKlein> Ge, augmentation.. working with AI
<BJKlein> letting it help me
<hkhenson> ge, there is a chance that AIs might kill the lot of us. put us out of our misery
<BJKlein> just as Google helps me now
<Lexx> unless we have a Dune style jihad against the machines and have to genetically engineer ourselves to be a bunch of mentats
<Ge> 3keith that is what I would expect
<hkhenson> but in any case, intelligence is kept where it is by those far out on the curve either direction having reduced reproductive success.
<Ge> 3lexx, what "time" do you mean, time to what???
<Lexx> Keith, I'm not sure if I agree with you
<hkhenson> the average for mensa couples for examples is well under one child per couple.
<Lexx> test
<hkhenson> lex, it is unavoidable.
<hkhenson> logical conclusion.
<hkhenson> totology
<Lexx> GE: the time left before a mindboggling singularity hits and supposedly changes everything
<hkhenson> to sum up,
<Lexx> I suppose you are right but I would have thought having very high level intelligence would be a total plus (at least in our society)
<hkhenson> phone call
<BJKlein> k
<localroger> Lexx, high intelligence can be (isn't inevitably) a plus for you personally, but it's usually bad for your genes, especially if your IQ gives you the bright idea that you can live a happy and fulfilled life without reproducing.
<Lexx> too smart for ones own good?
<Lexx> lol
<localroger> Too smart for ones' /genes/ good.
<Lexx> yep
<localroger> Frankly, my genes are so messed up it would be a cruelty to pass them on to another poor schlep.
<Lexx> so those genes "outsmarted" themselves by endowing their carrier with such ability
<localroger> Lexx, yep. It's a game theory world mostly played by entities that are too stupid and automatic to study game theory.
<Lexx> roger: in some ways I could say the same thing but I think it's worth 3-4 rolls of the dice to see what my fiancee and I can eventually create between ourselves
<Lexx> 4*genetic dice*
<Sat-an> my genes gave me intelligence and an insatiable libido. they balanced out and resulted in one very bright kid.
<Lexx> Sat: not a bad deal
<localroger> Well Lexx somebody does have to do it. I hereby give you permission to have one point oh five of my two point one kids.
<Lexx> thanks!
<Lexx> : )
<Sat-an> after him. I opted for a vascectomy. this way I can act like I am spreading the seed.
<Lexx> if I had one great kid I know I would want one more
<BJKlein> how was that Sat-an?
<Sat-an> (but not have to be re3sponsible for 25 + children)
<Sat-an> painless
<localroger> See Lexx, they're like peanuts, you can't have just one...
<BJKlein> really.. and you decided to do specifically not to have children?
<BJKlein> sorry..
<Lexx> but I have seen couples where one or two of the offspring are exceptional (bright and goodlooking) but the others are sadly lacking in one or both qualities and it's a painful scene know one wants to really notice
<Lexx> how can they?
<BJKlein> i see.. on bright kid..
<Sat-an> however, I occasionaly feel my left testical becoming slightly inflamed. It just can't seem to accept that it isn't needed.
<localroger> BJ that's one of many reasons I think intelligence is loosely coupled to genetics, if coupled at all (beyond gross defects like trisomy 21).
<BJKlein> Sat-an, so you don't shoot anything? if you don't mind my asking?
<gustavo> interesting question
<Lexx> I believe a good environment simply allows for the full development of whatever potential HEREDITY endows a person with
<Sat-an> one still shoots. In fact it looks the same, smells the same, has the same viscousity... just no sperm.
<Lexx> *potential native intelligence HEREDITY*
* BJKlein need to brush up on male anatomy
<localroger> Sperm is actually a pretty minor component of the ejaculate.
* Sat-an nods
<localroger> Most of it is generated by the prostate.
<Sat-an> yup
<BJKlein> heh, just like a bunch of males.. sitting around talking about ejaculation.. ahh nice
<Sat-an> It hasn't adversely effected my libido either.
<Sat-an> and everything feels like it did before.
<Sat-an> It's been about 7 years since I had it done.
<BJKlein> so, quick and painless... i may have to look into this..
<localroger> Well the tubes they cut in a vasectomy don't stop 'em from releasing testosterone into your bloodstream.
* celindra keeps checking in on the chat and seeing the weirdest topics ....
<BJKlein> celindra, heh, check back in about 10 min
* Sleepian chuckles
<localroger> Some men do have minor problems, though.
<Sat-an> correct. They key for minimal shock to your system is to have a very good uroligist.
<BJKlein> gustavo, you ready for yours?.. baby room etc?
<localroger> Sat, did you have the low-invasive laparoscope procedure?
<Sat-an> I have a friend that let a student snip his vas. It was a very different experience from mine.
* localroger thinks "ouch."
<gustavo> I am ready
<Sat-an> Here's how it went. shave scrotum, make anesthesia (local) two small inscisions...
<celindra> Sat, that "snip" didn't involve losing a bet did it?
<gustavo> now, one interesting thing
<gustavo> is that my knowing that I was going to be a father
<gustavo> strongly increased my fear of death
<BJKlein> ah, really...
<Sat-an> pull the tube out, cut it, cauterize...
<gustavo> I always wanted to be immortal, but it is only now
<BJKlein> the urge to take care of your offspring
<gustavo> NO
<gustavo> not that
<localroger> Sat, you actually observed the doc pull your vas out of your sac to cut it?
<BJKlein> hmm..
<BJKlein> sense of life.. maybe
<gustavo> but an anticipation of my own death
<Sat-an> put it back in, one stitch each side, and you walk away feeling like your nuts hang a bit lower.
<BJKlein> seeing they cycle of life first hand..
<gustavo> exactly
<gustavo> now you got it
<BJKlein> ah i see..
<Sat-an> yes localroger
<gustavo> The Unavoidable Laws of Nature
<BJKlein> we're all wrapped up in it.. true
<Sat-an> I am very non squeemish
<localroger> The log of this chat is going to resemble one of those weird postmodern free-verse poems that nobody except graduate students ever read.
<gustavo> sure, but pastrami always tastes good
<BJKlein> double heh. for googlebot and localroger
<googlebot> hmm?
<BJKlein> gustavo sorry
<BJKlein> you go back to sleep there googlebot
<googlebot> yeah, OK
<BJKlein> thanks
<Sat-an> I would have loved to watch my appendectomy, but alas I was under for that.
<BJKlein> hmm, are you becoming sentient googlebot?
<googlebot> I'm not sure
<Sat-an> (I did ask to see my appendix immediately on awakening however)
<BJKlein> well be sure to tell us when you are... this is sorta scarry
<localroger> I was conscious throughout the first of my two hernia repairs, although the docs didn't intend it. Turns out valium doesn't put me out.
* Sat-an chortles
<Lukian> ouch :-/
<localroger> I thought it was normal at the time.
* Sat-an pats localroger on the back and chuckles
<localroger> On having the other side done, I happened to mention to the nurse (same nurse, same doc, same center 6 months later) some bit of conversation from the OR. She turned the exact same color as Caspar the Friendly Ghost.
<BJKlein> damn, that's a long phone call there hkhenson
<Sat-an> he's WAY into phone sex.
<John_Ventureville> LOL
<localroger> The anesthesiologist came to see me. "We try to avoid that," he said, and he stuck a needle into the rubber thing on my IV, and the next thing I remember is being wheeled out of the OR.
<BJKlein> ah how would you know Sat-an?
<hkhenson> back
<localroger> Turns out I was conscious for THAT ONE TOO, but the drug was a memory blocker so I DON'T REMEMBER IT.
<hkhenson> where was I.
<BJKlein> conclusion..
<Sat-an> that's a personal secret BJK
<hkhenson> the psychological trait for wars was evolved into people
<hkhenson> in the past it was (usually) better for you genes to go to war than to starve
<hkhenson> your genes
<John_Ventureville> do you think it was already firmly implanted by fighting between small bands of hunter/gatherers?
<hkhenson> so such traits were highly selected.
<John_Ventureville> or did it take farming & established settlements to really get it going?
<hkhenson> I think before farming.
<hkhenson> long before farming in fact.
<BJKlein> it takes millions of years to change such traits i would think...
<hkhenson> I agree with bj on this point.
<hkhenson> the mechanism is not exactly clear
<hkhenson> but I think memes are involved
<BJKlein> i'd say it was with humans before we came down from the trees to some degree
<hkhenson> memes synch up a tribe to attack
<John_Ventureville> my "tribe" is trustworthy

<hkhenson> the scum suckers over in the next valley
<John_Ventureville> the other "tribes" are not
<John_Ventureville> better not take any chances
<hkhenson> hell, my tribe is human.
<hkhenson> the rest of them are animals.
* Sat nods
<John_Ventureville> that is a common concept among native american peoples
<hkhenson> even if we do grab all the women after we kill them.
<John_Ventureville> maybe not "animals
<hkhenson> human males will mate with anything. :-)
<John_Ventureville> but that only ones own tribe is truly human
<Sat> so in your tribe capture bonding is a form of anthropomorphism?
<hkhenson> so the argument runs that wars come out of looming privation.
<hkhenson> privation that comes on too fast like the irish potatoe famine might not result in a war.
<John_Ventureville> could you look at WWII in this way?
<hkhenson> but populations which are undergoing a rise in percapita income are not going to start wars.
<hkhenson> absolutely john.
<hkhenson> many have ascribed the rise of the nazies to the bad economic conditions in germany
<John_Ventureville> some historians say we forced Japan's hand by our oil embargo
<hkhenson> that may be the case.
<John_Ventureville> test
<John_Ventureville> t
<hkhenson> so by this theory, China will not be a problem for a while
<localroger> JV: We hear you now.
<John_Ventureville> cool
<hkhenson> but most of the islamic countries are a source of war problems.
<hkhenson> potential at least.
<John_Ventureville> Keith: what is your prediction regarding China over the next two decades?
<hkhenson> I think chances are good it will be a peaceful place
<John_Ventureville> Will they be the next Soviet Union in terms of military threat potential?
<hkhenson> unless *it* gets attacked.
<hkhenson> possibly.
<hkhenson> but I consider it fairly unlikely
<hkhenson> the biggest problem they have is north korea.
<John_Ventureville> Some say China has a longterm plan which combines economic global domination with a strong military buildup so they can project power as the U.S. can now.
<hkhenson> china can't reach that before ordinary military potential loses meaning
<hkhenson> ghod knows what military power is going to mean in 20-30 years
<hkhenson> India is another problem. They may not manage to get into a rising income per capita
<John_Ventureville> they are investing heavily into nanotech, biotech, etc.
<John_Ventureville> *the Chinese*
<John_Ventureville> hopefully we can learn to live in friendly competition with each other
<hkhenson> yeah, but those technologies tend to have huge potential for growing the economy as well.
<hkhenson> that should keep them from being interested in attack.
<hkhenson> the big problem will come from them being attacked.
<hkhenson> because it only takes *one* party to start a war.
<John_Ventureville> Nazi Germany had an economy which was doing great when they launched their blitzkrieg attacks....
<hkhenson> right john, but there are huge lags
<John_Ventureville> you have to keep in mind the political/ideological memes going on in the heads of world leaders
<John_Ventureville> they do not always mirror ours
<hkhenson> the attacking was set way back when they were doing badly and elected hitler.
<hkhenson> the memes don't matter that much.
<hkhenson> the particular memes.
<hkhenson> humans will split up into the short ears and the long ears and duke it out if their genes tell them it is the right thing to do.
<John_Ventureville> remember the classic Dr. Seuss story....
<John_Ventureville> the "starbellies"
<hkhenson> what amazes me is the lenght of time it took to reduce the population on easter island.
<hkhenson> took far more than a generation.
<hkhenson> for the population to fall an order of magatude.
<hkhenson> right john.
<hkhenson> but those kinds of divisions are driven at the level of genes.
<hkhenson> they are damped with good economic times and become serious problems in bad times.
<hkhenson> but the one thing that comes out of this kind of thinking is the vast importance of population control.
<hkhenson> which of course includes women having the freedom to limit the number of kids they have.
<hkhenson> anyway, it is ten pm.
<hkhenson> so if bj concurs, I think we should call it a night.
<BJKlein> yes..
<BJKlein> thanks again and again keith.. for an excellent discussion

[Lazarus Long]

The Irish potato Famine did result in minor rebellion and the large scale one was averted by the use of forced migration to the US and Australian. A defacto state of war had existed between the English and Irish for generations by that point and only got worse going into the 20th Century.

Be careful of trying to tie the trends of events too closely to specific dates in relation to long periodicity that influences economic psychology. I generally agree with Keith's assessment but I differ on some interpretive aspects.

For example the argument made by:

<John_Ventureville> Nazi Germany had an economy which was doing great when they launched their blitzkrieg attacks....
<hkhenson> right john, but there are huge lags
<John_Ventureville> you have to keep in mind the political/ideological memes going on in the heads of world leaders
<John_Ventureville> they do not always mirror ours
<hkhenson> the attacking was set way back when they were doing badly and elected hitler.
<hkhenson> the memes don't matter that much.
<hkhenson> the particular memes.
<hkhenson> humans will split up into the short ears and the long ears and duke it out if their genes tell them it is the right thing to do.

Actually it took the great depression and the mechanisms put into place long before Hitler with the post WWI demand for reparations, which only got worse after the world collapsed into the economic downturn. One interesting thing about this is that Hitler used it as a pretext to rebuild the military industrial establishment both for political AND economic reasons and that is why they had achieved some relative success at getting out of the depression by the time the war begins but also the cost of building up the military was that the Germans had to use it or lose, especially when they needed a vast new amount of energy and raw material to supply it. They set their sights on the Middle East and oil was a geopolitical factor in that war as well.

Energy is an aspect of wealth.

[Bruce Klein]

Establishment of Villages Led to War
Gabe Romain
Betterhumans Staff
Wednesday, September 17, 2003, 3:54:03 PM CT

http://www.betterhum...ID=2003-09-17-2

Evidence from archaeological sites in Oaxaca, Mexico suggests that organized violence evolved from the establishment of villages.

In a new report, Joyce Marcus, a curator in the Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan, and colleagues explain that war did not always exist.

As evidence, they cite the Archaic Period in Oaxaca from 10,000 to 4,000 years ago, in which no evidence was found to indicate group conflict.

The human populations of the time were small and nomadic, with people spending most of their time hunting and gathering.

Organized raids

It wasn't until village life was established at a site called José Mogote some 3,600 years ago that organized raiding began, as evidenced by six burned potholes that once supported wooden posts that formed a palisade.

Marcus says that the burned palisade is "the earliest evidence for a need for defense from raiding."

Instances of raiding are evidenced by charred structures, including a temple that was burned so intensely that its clay became vitrified cinders.

More heinous evidence of warfare was found on a stone dating back 2,650 to 2,450 years. On it is carved a picture of a prisoner whose heart had been removed by the area's Zapotec warriors.

Organized violence steadily increased as the Zapotecs moved beyond San José Mogote to the limits of the Valley of Oaxaca.

Skulls from slain enemies greeted visitors at one village entrance site.

"A terror tactic, like the Romans crucifying Spartacus's men along the roads for all to see," says Marcus.

Minimizing violence

Marcus doesn't suggest that violence didn't exist before village life; rather, that violence took on a greater dimension as societies began to grow and people began to vindicate the killing of members within their extended group.

"All segmentary organization does is convert homicide from an individual offense to a group offense," Marcus said in an interview with Discovery News. "That sets the stage for group action, should homicide occur."

Marcus is doubtful that organized violence can be completely annihilated but insists that strategies can be developed to minimize or contain it.

"We fear that the idea that we can 'prevent conflict' is a vain hope," she says.

The report is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (read abstract).

[galtsgulch]

I highly recommend "The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into The Forces Of History" by Howard Bloom (www.howardbloom.net) for anyone interested in reading about the evolutionary/biological roots of war. Mr. Bloom's work is heavily footnoted and well researched. He shows how organisms from the lowly bacteria and ants to the revered chimps wage war against one another. He also explores the neurochemical basis for “pecking order” aggression in many animals, including Man.

[Bruce Klein]

The Man with a Plan to Convert a Galaxy into Beer Cans
Few people stretch the imagination as much as controversial theorist and activist Keith Henson


Monday, November 17, 2003, 9:13:34 AM CT

There are those who take solace in convention. For them, societal norms are a safety blanket and envisioning radical change is too unsettling. Then there's Keith Henson, who goes a long way to counterbalancing these futurephobes.

Anyone interested in stretching their imagination would do well to read Henson's writings, as there are few people as connected to today's cutting-edge thinkers and thinking. Since 1975, Henson has been involved with activities in such areas as space colonization, memetics, artificial life and nanotechnology, and made a name for himself as a prominent critic of—and even refugee from—Scientology.

It's thanks to his Scientology-critic role that I was able to meet Henson recently in Toronto, where I grabbed a coffee at a hotel with him, his wife Arel Lucas and Montreal "memetic engineer" David McFadzean.

More: http://www.betterhum...ID=2003-11-17-3