Three Edenic laws of evopolysci

Zeroth law: Politics is war by other means, typically necessitated by a centralized government’s monopoly on force. Because war is a group selection strategy in the Darwinian war of all-against-all for survival, resources, and reproductive success, all political advocacy will be characterized by struggle between 1) genotypal breeding populations under an imperial government and 2) differing phenotypal reproductive strategies within these breeding populations.

The dividing lines between breeding populations and the in-group defection rates (where individual success is preferred over group success) shift according to the environment’s carrying capacity (e.g. cold European climate), the reproductive Dawkins’ selfish gene theory (“I would gladly give up my life for two brothers or eight cousins.”), and so on. Asking how many races, nations, ethnicities, tribes, etc. is like asking how many hills there are in New Hampshire—the answer could be three or ten thousand, depending on how we’re quantifying the definition. Phenotypal reproductive strategies are not defined by differences in values, but rather by differences in the strength of those values as expressed in different environments. For example, political liberals in America typically have high in-group defection rates because they place higher salience on individual success over the success of the greater breeding population, and this difference in values is seen in their high disgust thresholds. This higher salience is colloquially referred to as an R-“type” strategy, and we see that it flips to K-type when the environment changes to favor group strategies. So, the liberal-conservative divide is not a Manichean struggle between polarized types so much as a spectrum of value preferences exacerbated by situational game theoretic considerations.

First law: Intra-population conflict stems from various phenotypes unconsciously trying to alter the environment to favor each of their respective reproductive strategies. Phenotypal identity classes often result in the formation of both intentional conspiracies (such as GamerGate’s infamous Journolist) as well as spontaneous coherent political activity (such as African American flash mobs and Jewish tribalism).

Second law: Each breeding population and phenotypal reproductive identity class will advocate to tear down group selection mechanisms by which their competitor groups disproportionately benefit. For example, white conservatives in America advocate against socialism because it disfavors their reproductive strategy and favors the reproductive strategy of blacks.

Corollary to the second law: A loss of faith in humanity is phenomenologically identical* to a resolution to tear down all moral restrictions on human behavior.

*Not equivalent.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Three Edenic laws of evopolysci

  1. Sammykid says:

    This all makes sense to me. This is why the r-selected Jews will always favor r-selected populations. K-selected Jews will favor K-selected populations. This is why certain Jews vote Republican and why certain ones vote Democrat. They’re strongly divided on the r/K spectrum, with Jewish populations being at the extremes of both ends and thus focusing on bringing resources to people whose political phenotype is like theirs.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      If you look at the Pyrrhic cycle graph, Jews would cluster in the upper left with both high r and high k. Their general political strategy shifts with the environment, with e.g. Shapiro favoring R policies one minute and K policies the next, but their specific tribal is robust against change.

  2. Heaviside says:

    >Because war is a group selection strategy in the Darwinian war of all-against-all for survival, resources, and reproductive success, all political advocacy will be characterized by struggle between 1) genotypal breeding populations under an imperial government and 2) differing phenotypal reproductive strategies within these breeding populations.

    This is a false assumption. War simply is, it can happen for no reason at all. It is beyond biology.

    >For example, white conservatives in America advocate against socialism because it disfavors their reproductive strategy and favors the reproductive strategy of blacks.

    And they advocate for the end of abortion because it hinders the reproductive strategy of blacks? “Socialism” is a meaningless buzzword. Conservatives don’t like it because they’re dumb. There are many things which could be described as “socialism” that would help them reproduce.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >War simply is, it can happen for no reason at all. It is beyond biology.

      There’s some truth in that, but if you’re implying that there is no biological component at all then it’s gonna be a tough case.

      >And they advocate for the end of abortion because it hinders the reproductive strategy of blacks?

      The abortion debate is generally a religious/philosophical difference on the value of human life. Among rightists who believe human life has no a priori value, like the alt-white guys, they typically take the opportunistic position of “what’s good for us”.

      >“Socialism” is a meaningless buzzword. Conservatives don’t like it because they’re dumb. There are many things which could be described as “socialism” that would help them reproduce.

      Certainly not in an integrated white and black society, unless it were specifically designed to kill off blacks at a higher rate.

      • Heaviside says:

        >There’s some truth in that, but if you’re implying that there is no biological component at all then it’s gonna be a tough case.

        Why don’t biological organisms cooperate to aid each other’s survival and reach a harmonious equilibrium? Because war is sovereign, it imposes itself on biology.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          >Why don’t biological organisms cooperate to aid each other’s survival and reach a harmonious equilibrium? Because war is sovereign, it imposes itself on biology.

          I understand that conflict is more general than biology, but to conclude there is no biologically driven conflict is like saying combustion engines don’t produce entropy because statistics is more general than physics.

      • Heaviside says:

        >Certainly not in an integrated white and black society, unless it were specifically designed to kill off blacks at a higher rate.

        Do you think welfare comes from the kindness of the government’s heart? When poor people get money they don’t hesitate to spend it. That’s good for business.

    • Anonanon says:

      So you have war between stones, between cans of water, between blocks of concrete,… war without biology.

  3. Brilliand says:

    Is it fair to read “phenomenologically identical” as “having the same root cause”?

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      No, although that could be true. Phenomenologically identical means there is no element of either conscious experience which is not shared by the other.

  4. Anonanon says:

    >Zeroth law: Politics is war by other means

    What about: Politics falls within “socials”: as such, it is war by other means.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I’m trying to distinguish between humanity’s war of all against all that I mentioned in the post “On humans”, and the collective political advocacy of overlapping interest groups.

  5. Anonanon says:

    A translation of the corollary could be: when you stop feeling/thinking any human group as your own kin, you feel/think you are at war with humanity on the whole — thus you wish group selection mechanisms that benefit any other human but you to vanish (to be torn down).

    But

    1) Losing faith in mankind could leave you indifferent to it (surely there is no such a thing as political indifference if you do politics but the post’s end seems to be about psychology more than politics, or no?).

    2) You could be unable to understand that moral constraints serve a beneficial function (at least “reproductively”), and for example sincerely want the best of your neighbours and want them to be as… uncostrained as possible.

    Still, if indifference isn’t possible for you, and you can see the use of moral constraints, then the corollary sounds pretty true to me.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >A translation of the corollary could be: when you stop feeling/thinking any human group as your own kin, you feel/think you are at war with humanity on the whole — thus you wish group selection mechanisms that benefit any other human but you to vanish (to be torn down).

      Very close. Radical disaffection (read: narcissism) necessarily means that any group’s success is a competitive threat, because they are not “us” by definition.

      >Still, if indifference isn’t possible for you, and you can see the use of moral constraints, then the corollary sounds pretty true to me.

      Political indifference is a pose, mere virtue signalling to say “you need me more than I need you”. Humans are THE social animal, and the drive to connect does not simply evaporate into thin air.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s