[ExI] Origin of ethics and morals

[Anders Sandberg]

spike wrote:
>
> *>… Behalf Of *Stefano Vaj
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Origin of ethics and morals
>
> 2011/12/12 John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>>
>
> >…The Swede of today (Anders being a prime example) is known for their 
> civility and friendliness, and not so much for "burning down your 
> town, killing you, and taking your valuables."
>
>
> So it would seem, but beware never to come between gentle Anders and 
> sushi. A most dangerous place is this. That kind and civil soul will 
> race through your burning town, roughly hurl you out of his way, 
> trample over your valuables and devour the hapless beasts to the very 
> brink of extinction. It is truly a wonderful sight to behold.
>
> Once the sushi is gone, he is back to his gentle and scholarly self.
>

LOL! I am reading this post while I am eating... guess what? You are all 
safe now.

The wildness of Swedes is an interesting thing. While Stefano is right 
that most stories about Viking depredations came from their (surviving) 
enemies, it is clear they were not that peaceful. You could call them 
opportunistic traders, willing to use force if it looked profitable 
enough. Just a few kilometers away lies the ruins of king Æthelred the 
Unready's castle. He got his name (from old English 'unraed', 'bad 
counsel') because he tried to pay off the viking raiders. It worked... 
for a while. Then they came back for more. And more. And then king Sweyn 
Forkbeard ended up king of Britain.

A few centuries later my ancestors were at it again, conquering big 
parts of northern Europe all the way down to Prague during the 30-years 
war. Then the empire got overextended and imploded in 1721, followed by 
peace and prosperity (more or less).

I don't think this is great evidence for any particular national 
character or any sensible thesis about the genetic basis of aggression. 
Rather, it suggests that the same genetic stock can produce rather 
different behaviors under different culture, management and motivation. 
Which is probably good news.

There are presumably genes that affect politics and national character - 
I recently read a paper showing that the MAOA gene was involved in 
voting behavior. It is also known to (in some individuals) be involved 
in aggressivity. There are other genes for oxytocine, dopamine and 
serotonine receptors that do seem to correlate with some political 
behavior, group cohesion and risk-taking, so it is not too implausible 
to think that a population with a certain allele distribution might on 
average be different in their behavior. However, it all gets modulated 
by culture: who are the acceptable targets of aggression, how may it be 
expressed, what institutions exist and how do they mesh with different 
types of people, and so on. Very complex and fun, but it probably makes 
national character so holistic that it is hard to make any useful 
predictions (and then individuals go and react to it in an individual 
way, producing even trickier outcomes).

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University