[extropy-chat] Human Machinations

[Russell Wallace]

On 2/17/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> The paper and the model makes the case that--because economic growth got
> ahead of population growth in Ireland--the average gain on the mechanism
> in
> the population was turned down.  (I.e., a behavior switch was
> flipped.)  With a gain of less than one, the circulating memes encouraging
> the warriors to fight were damped till they lost motivational force and
> the
> IRA went out of business.


Ah, okay - population wasn't involved as a causal factor, only as a later
effect, but yes, economic growth in Ireland did play a role in damping down
the level of sectarian violence. (Damping down, not eliminating - the IRA
are still very much in business - but they're moving more in the direction
of a Mafia-style outfit these days; there isn't as much hatred and killing
as there was.) I suspect memetics played a larger role, though it's hard to
untangle the different causes for something like this.

Abstract:   Evolutionary psychology and memetics are used to propose a
> model of war.  Population growth leads to a resource crisis.  An impending
> resource crisis activates a behavioral switch in humans allowing the build
> up of xenophobic or dehumanizing memes, which synchronizes attacks on
> neighboring tribes.  Hamilton's criterion of inclusive fitness is invoked
> to account for the evolution of this species typical behavior.  War as a
> species typical behavior in the EEA for humans is discussed, first as an
> attack response and second as unprovoked attacks.  Unprovoked attacks are
> proposed to require the build up of xenophobic or dehumanizing
> memes.  Evolved brain mechanisms are proposed to cause these memes to
> become more common when the subject population anticipates "looming
> privation."  The well-known reduction in the ability of humans to think
> rationally in war situations is explained in evolutionary terms as a
> divergence in interest between the individual and his genes.  The problem
> of avoiding wars is examined in terms of these mechanisms.  Population
> growth at a higher rate than economic growth is proposed as the causal
> factor for wars in the modern world.  This model and the "excess males"
> model make different predictions about where future wars will start.  The
> model is then applied to analyze current events.
>
> I would be *delighted* if you can find holes in the model.  Most
> depressing
> work I have ever done.
>

I know that feeling! Okay, let's see...

1) Population growth only results in economic decline in a hunter-gatherer
economy where wealth is gathered from the environment; in an industrial
economy, where wealth is produced by people, higher population results in
higher GNP. (I'm repeating this because I think the error is contributing to
the lack of effective action to address Europe's current population crash -
but it isn't central to your model, which is really about economics rather
than population, so I'll move on.)

2) The evolutionary effect you postulate is somewhat doubtful. Remember the
idea that noncombatants are sacrosanct is a modern one. In the ancestral
environment, starting a war was only a good idea if you were going to win;
losing could mean your entire tribe was wiped out. Yes, sometimes the
winners would keep the women, but not always. There's an example in the Old
Testament where the Israelites were ordered to keep only the virgin girls of
a conquered people and exterminate the rest; that's not a large percentage
of genes surviving. There are plenty of other cases where the losing tribe
was wiped out to the last infant. It looks to me like a tribe faced with a
food shortage, say because the rain failed this year or whatever, would be
better off just taking some losses from starvation rather than starting a
war it wasn't going to win.

I've even seen one study that found in some primitive culture - might have
been the Yanomamo, not sure - there was a _positive_ correlation between
wealth and aggressive raiding. The author's suggested explanation was that
if a tribe is sufficiently well off that a man's wife and children can
survive without him, that reduces the risk to his genes of raiding the
neighbors to try to capture more women, eliminate competitors or whatever.

3) In historical times it doesn't seem to me that there are a lot of
examples supporting your theory. Rome was one of the wealthiest
civilizations around when it wiped out Carthage and invaded Gaul. The
Spanish weren't exactly short of a few bob when they launched the Armada.
Germany's economy was going gangbusters in 1914. Conversely, Mexico for
example is a lot poorer than the US; when was the last time Mexico went to
war?

In fact, the Weimar Republic is the only positive example I can think of
offhand, and even that one's not as simple as it looks.

4) There is some empirical basis for the idea that bad economic prospects
encourage urban violence, but that doesn't mean they lead to war. Consider
that once you're past the Stone Age, the decision to go to war _is not made
by the common people_. It's made by the ruling classes, who are exactly the
group that will _not_ be affected by an economic downturn. Therefore, _even
if your theory is correct up to this point_ we should still expect to see
wars actually start for reasons unrelated to economics - and that is just
what we do observe when we look at history.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/6fa27210/attachment.html>