[extropy-chat] Human Machinations

[Russell Wallace]

On 2/17/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Point being that memes are a link between ultimate cause of war and wars
> or
> related social disruptions such as the IRA was engaged in.  Pre existing
> xenophobic memes, particularly "religions" are likely to be the seed
> meme.  But if people feel the need to fight, they can *always* amplify
> some
> kind of meme up to a "reason" to fight.  The *particular* meme the
> attackers are using is an artifact of pre existing memes and a positive
> feedback process.


Oh, I understand what you're saying, and I think the approach of searching
for explanations in evolutionary psychology makes sense. But theories need
to be tested against observed data, and it seems to me that when you look at
history, it just doesn't support that level of determinism.

>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.
>
> That's rational.  The specifically model specifically incorporates
> psychological mechanisms that inhibit rational thinking.  I think Drew
> Westen's fMRI work has demonstrated this mechanism.  The only way this
> mechanism could have been selected is if there are situation where non
> rational thinking leads to better gene survival.  Since non rational thing
> all too often toasts your bacon, you have to invoke Hamilton's inclusive
> fitness for such a trait to evolve.


By "starting a war was only a good idea if you were going to win", I don't
mean our ancestors necessarily made rational calculations along these lines.
I mean getting your tribe wiped out was bad for inclusive fitness, therefore
genes that encouraged imprudent attacks would tend to be eliminated from the
population.

As long as girls were booty enough of the time, the trait of taking insane
> risks  would survive.


Not compared to having the tribe survive!

>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.
>
> Infants were among the most *likely* to be killed if you look at if from
> the gene's view.


Quite so.

>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.
>
> Even from a rational viewpoint a weak tribe is better off
> attacking.  Because if they don't (and the ecological conditions conducive
> to war affect their neighbors) they *will be* attacked.   With the
> advantage of surprise, they might win


Surprise isn't generally a war-winner. If it was, you wouldn't want to wait
for hard times to launch your surprise attack.

>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.
>
> Hmm.  Please look for this study.


It was on paper rather than the Internet, and many years ago, so I've no
idea where to look.

Wait, I think I know where I might have seen the reference: a book called
'Demonic Males: Apes and the Origin of Human Violence'. Don't mind the
tabloid style title, it's written by a pair of serious scholars, one of the
best works on evolutionary psychology I've come across.

>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?
>
> Sort out who started the wars.  Being attacked will always work to get
> into
> a war.


Most of my reading of history was awhile ago, and didn't generally include
graphs of per capita GNP of the belligerents in the years leading up to any
given war, but I definitely don't remember low or declining GNP being
correlated with starting wars. If you have data to the contrary, by all
means show it.

And what about the counterexamples like Mexico and Latin America generally,
poor countries where lots of people have bad economic prospects, and which
by and large haven't been starting wars?

>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_.
>
> I disagree.  You only have to go back to WWII for a war that the ruling
> classes, particularly the president, wanted to get into for some time and
> they just could not do so because of the lack of public support.  Till the
> US was attacked of course.


I'll grant you that's a counterexample to my idea that the decision isn't
usually made by the common people, but it's also a counterexample to your
theory: the US had been through the Depression! By your theory, they should
have been all out to fight someone in the 1930s.

>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.
>
> Gak.  And I thought *my* model was depressing.  It's bad enough to have a
> model where you can at least see a way to stay out of wars even if you
> can't see a way to impose women's lib on a zillion Islamic women.


Well, I don't think there is a single general solution to the problem of
discouraging war - if there was, the job of the Nobel Peace Prize committee,
not to mention life itself, would be easier than it is! I think there are
lots of things that can be done that are helpful, but no guarantees.

There is another theory that too many unattached men (somehow) are the
> cause of wars.  If so, China will start a war right away.  If rising
> income
> per capita keeps war mode shut off, we should see no wars with China
> unless
> some other country starts one.
>

I'm inclined to think we'll see no war with China because their leadership
is calm and rational enough to realize they've more to lose than to gain by
it.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/e93a7372/attachment.html>