[ExI] Origin of ethics and morals

[Natasha Vita-More]

I love you guys.  You are simply delightful :-)


Natasha
Natasha Vita-More
PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK
Chair, Humanity+
Co-Editor, The Transhumanist Reader


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:17 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Origin of ethics and morals

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 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat