[extropy-chat] 'History' and the fulcrum of 1945

[Terry W. Colvin]

The following short article complements Mr. Davies' comments.  It ends well
stating, "But it is good to know that in this context at least, nice guys do
not come last.  They do just as well as the nasty guys and, indeed, as the
wary majority."

Terry


< http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3576344 >

Human evolution 

Games people play

Jan 20th 2005 
>From The Economist print edition


The co-operative and the selfish are equally successful at getting what they
want

MANY people, it is said, regard life as a game. Increasingly, both biologists
and economists are tending to agree with them. Game theory, a branch of
mathematics developed in the 1940s and 1950s by John von Neumann and John Nash,
has proved a useful theoretical tool in the study of the behaviour of animals,
both human and non-human.

...more at URL...

*****
Steve Davies wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Henson"
> 
> >From Amara Graps
> > >
> > >Now you, being the meme-guy, probably have a meme-explanation,
> > >yes? Maybe those people carrying the meme-of-great-beastliness
> > >usually died, and left those carrying memes-of-less-beastliness
> > >survived and reproduced?
> >
> > While memes are in the causal chain leading to wars, any xenophobic meme
> > will do to work the population, particularly the warriors, up onto a
> > killing frenzy.
> >
> > The key point is that a long time ago predators were no longer effective
> in
> > limiting the population of hominids in our line.
> >
> > Ultimately  we were forced to become our own predators.   War is the
> result
> > when the population exceeds the resources, or more correctly, war happens
> > when  hominids who are good at anticipating the future see things looking
> > bleak.
> >
> > Perception of a bleak future activates a psychological mechanism that
> > increases the gain on the class of xenophobic memes.  *Some* meme will get
> > enough influence to motivate the population.  In the case of Easter
> Island,
> > it was the "long ears" vs the "short ears."  (All of the people were
> > related having come from a founder stock of perhaps 20 people.)
> >
> > So, why has Europe stay in "war off" mode for the last 60 years?  Because
> > population growth stayed below economic growth.
> >
> > That's also why the IRA lost the support of the Irish population.  About
> 30
> > years ago the birth rate in Ireland took a major drop.  Eventually
> economic
> > growth got ahead of population growth.  Rising income per capita maps into
> > good times for our hunter gatherer ancestors, time to hunt and raise kids
> > rather than attempt to kill off the neighboring tribe.
> >
> > I recently finished a 20 page paper on this depressing subject.  Since is
> > it for publication, I can't just post it, but I can send people who want a
> > copy.  It would be ok to quote short parts and comment on them if you
> want.
> >
> > Keith Henson
> 
> I would broadly agree with that but it isn't enough by itself. Wars can
> often arise towards the end of long periods of growth when the prospects
> would seem very good. The Great War  of 1914-1918 broke out after what was
> the longest and most rapid period of sustained intensive growth in human
> history till then. I would supplement Keith's argument with one drawn from
> economics and the use of game theory to model aggregate human behaviour.
> 
> Historically there are two ways of getting wealth, by production or trade
> and by force. These translate into the two strategies of Hawk (predation)
> and Dove (cooperation/production). If everyone is a Hawk no wealth is
> produced and we're in a Hobbesian state of nature. If everyone is a Dove,
> everyone gains. Problem is the ideal situation is to be the one Hawk among a
> lot of Doves. Playing out this game in a multi-shot, multi-player format
> seems to lead to a stable equilibrium of 90% Doves to 10% Hawks, hence the
> historic pattern of a productive society and a parasitic elite. It's in the
> interests of the Hawks to establish a local monopoly of predation and to
> protect your own Doves. That way they become more productive and there's
> more for the Hawks to skim off. (A common problem is that the Hawks become
> too greedy and take too much). In the past Europe gained because it was
> politically divided - there was competition between sets of Hawks rather
> than a single one. After the 17th century a set of tacit rules developed to
> control this competition. In the 20th century you have a struggle to see if
> any one set of Hawks can establish itself in a hegemonic position in Europe
> and by extension within the world economic system.
> 
> Competition between states and their ruling classes (Hawks) or between
> ruling classes and aspirants to that position is more likely when population
> growth excedes economic growth and, as Keith points out, these are
> conditions where memes that lead to conflict will be more influential.
> Ireland and Yugoslavia both illustrate this. Yugoslavia also shows another
> thing that has been modelled by Schelling and others, that given a divided
> population you only need a small minority on either side that is committed
> to violence for an unravelling of civil peace and a polarisation of the
> parts of the community - Lebanon and the Indian Partition both show this.
> Again economic decline makes this much more likely.
> 
> However the other time when conflict is most likely is precisely when growth
> seems to be opening up unlimited opportunities. Here the temptation is for
> one set of Hawks to try to capture as much as possible of the new revenue by
> increasing its power at the expense of  rival groups of Hawks. In economic
> terms the judgement that Hawks may make is that the benefits of resorting to
> large-scale violence (war) will be greater than the costs (for them that is)
> and they are most likely to arrive at that judgement either when they are
> faced by stagnant/declining output (so it pays to eliminate other Hawks and
> grab their Doves) or when it seems overall production is rising so fast that
> there are huge gains to be made by trying to eliminate the competition. It's
> at this point that memes or ideology if you will can play a crucial role in
> the way it shapes the Hawks' assessment. The German elite took what was by
> objective standards an insanely risky decision in 1914 partly because they
> had come to see the world in a way that made the economic growth of places
> such as Russia seem a threat rather than an opportunity.
> 
> Since 1945 not only has economic growth exceeded population (that's been
> true ever since the 1740s) the Hawks have realised their interests are not
> served by violent competition but rather by cooperation. That's both good
> and bad news for the Doves - mainly good of course. One critical factor is
> the way the wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 affected and killed all levels
> of society, including elites, and left a huge psychological mark - anyone
> who has been to Verdun or Thiepval will recognise this. I don't think this
> is necessarily permanent though.
> 
> Steve Davies


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]