<html>
<body>
At 08:20 AM 1/7/2008, Dagon wrote:<br><br>
snip<br>
(Keith wrote)<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>The fact that the politicians *can* exploit the issue indicates
that<br>
<dd>there is some degree of underlying social issue. It would be
worth<br>
<dd>considering what conditions create this situation. It would
also be <br>
<dd>interesting to consider what conditions would allow a small fringe
of<br>
<dd>Islam to gain a lot of influence. In an evolutionary
psychology<br>
<dd>context of course.</blockquote>
</dl><br>
snip<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Islam is associated with arabic
people and languages. Arabic cultures have different<br>
looks and ideas of esthetics. I don't call arabs or arabic people by
default ugly; they <br>
just play less into the hyperinflated ideals of sexualization and
commercial aesthetics<br>
as we have come to do in the west. Compared with indonesian immigrants we
had in the<br>
netherlands, this makes it objectively easier to "just don't like
muslims". That is a <br>
developmental reason that largely plays into xenophobia. Burqa's are
hideous fashion<br>
accessories and instill universal resentment. The dutch will quickly
imagine muslims<br>
breeding on and on, retaining their own values and not mixing with dutch
values. People <br>
on both sides regard each other with consistent revulsion. Absolutely,
when I walk into a <br>
tram over here and there is a scattering of muslim women seated here and
there (all with<br>
headscarves) I am sure to have absolutely zero contact with them - and I
am clearly <br>
a progressive individual. The only contact I have with muslims is a
casual friendly chat<br>
in the supermarket. </blockquote><br>
Not long ago there was a study that claimed that ethnic strife could be
predicted on the basis of geometry along with larger contact parameters
being more conducive to conflict. I think this is only one factor,
the more important factor being that the groups or at least one of the
groups in contact be under "bleak future" stress.<br><br>
snip<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>In this regard it is worth considering the selection trajectory of
<br>
<dd>different ethnic groups in the last 20 generations. While there
are<br>
<dd>certainly overlaps, the distribution of psychological traits
leading<br>
<dd>to economic success is almost certainly different for different<br>
<dd>ethnic groups and likely reflects the strong genetic selection that
<br>
<dd>went on when there was a fairly stable population and the wealthy
had<br>
<dd>the lion's share of the surviving children in Western<br>
<dd>Europe. Whatever the psychological traits are for becoming
economic<br>
<dd>winners, if they were heritable, then 20 generations of this kind of
<br>
<dd>selective survival should certainly make them a lot more
common.<br><br>
</dl><br>
Can I add a consideration? I personally have this hypothesis that humans,
homo<br>
sapiens in general, as compared with strains of earlier hominids, is an
innately <br>
genocidal species. </blockquote><br>
Azar Gat would agree with you. The obvious reason is that humans
have no predators and a high reproductive potential in the human
environment of evolutionary adaptiveness (EEA/Stone Age). It's one
of the things we share with chimps, so I am not so sure about
"compared with strains of earlier hominids". I highly
recommend his book <i>War in Human Civilization</i> (Oxford UP,
2006). Much of the information relevant to this discussion can be
found here.<br><br>
<a href="http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf</a><br>
<a href="http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1a.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1a.pdf<br><br>
</a><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Humans are geneticly racist.
Add that assumption to the mix<br>
and you can see a genetic predisposition quickly being led into a vicious
cycle<br>
by cultural memes. </blockquote><br>
Being one of the earliest writers on memetics I certainly don't want to
downplay the effects memes have. That said, I do not think memes
are *causal* in conflicts between human groups. I make the case
that xenophobic memes arise in groups where the bulk of the group
foresees a bleak future. While this is often the result of current
conditions of privation, it often results from the powerful abilities of
humans to predict the future.<br><br>
(In trying to generate a model for wars that included this rise of
xenophobic memes as a result of privation, the American Civil War would
not fit. However, there was a correct understanding at the time of
the future economic problems freeing the slaves would have and indeed,
the South took a hundred years to recover.)<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">If there indeed is a genetic
basis for easier accrueing wealth - some human <br>
demographics are predisposed towards poverty - then we are in trouble.
</blockquote><br>
We will be in more trouble if it is true and we don't understand
it. " . . . discusses the divide between rich and poor nations
that came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution in terms of an
evolution in behavior originating in
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom">Britain</a>. Prior
to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790">1790</a>, Clark asserts,
man faced a
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_trap">Malthusian
trap</a>: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but
was quickly gobbled up by higher populations. In Britain, however, as
disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions
in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy, who were less
violent, more literate, and more productive. This process of
"downward social mobility" eventually enabled Britain to attain
a rate of productivity that allowed it to break out of the Malthusian
trap."<br><br>
I highly recommend this research paper. It is all the more
impressive when an economist (who see things most often in purely
economic terms) proposes a genetic reason for the industrial
"takeoff."<br><br>
<a href="http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf<br>
<br>
</a><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The winners<br>
in such a competition will never concede parting with their winnings -
they will think<br>
they won fair and squarely - </blockquote><br>
This knowledge won't change *that* attitude one bit.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">whereas the losers will never
accept having lost for <br>
being innately "less" - they will resort to mean tactics to get
even. Wouldn't you?</blockquote><br>
Not all that likely under low to moderate stress, but then I am the
product of the genetic selection of my ancestors and thus according to
Dr. Clark likely to be "less violent." In the historical
times studied by Dr. Clark the "losers," were genetic
losers. Those who were the least well off in wealth had far fewer
surviving children. <br><br>
In modern times this has reversed and the children of even the poorest
usually survive to adulthood. I used to worry about this. I
don't so much now because if *any* humans exist in the physical state 1-4
generations from now, they will have long had complete control over the
genes of their children.<br><br>
snip<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>It has happened. It can happen again. What you need to be
<br>
<dd>considering is what are the conditions that trip such events and
what<br>
<dd>can be done at a deep level to keep such conditions from<br>
<dd>happening. If you have been following my efforts, I claim to
know<br>
<dd>what the underlying problem is and even how it can be solved.
(Short <br>
<dd>term, that is pre singularity, one thing that would do it is a<br>
<dd>project to solve the carbon and energy problems. Longer term it
is<br>
<dd>not likely to matter since physical state humans will most likely
be<br>
<dd>entirely gone by the end of this century.) <br>
</dl><br>
That's what worries me. We inhabit a culture of overconsumption, largely
<br>
immoral modes of resource aquisition, an infrastructure of military
exploitation<br>
and downright corrupt governmental styles. </blockquote><br>
A lot of these problems, except corrupt governments go away with low cost
energy.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">In the foreseeable future I
anticipate <br>
severe disruptions when oil (and other resources) become depleted or
steadily<br>
more expensive. In the longer run these problems will be aggravated
by<br>
the bizarre population densities in some parts of the world - causing
immigration, <br>
meme/culture shock, disparities in wealth, crime... </blockquote><br>
Short term, no argument. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I am neither fully
convinced<br>
the onset of cheap nanotech, biomedical treatments, longevity, space
exploration,<br>
cheapening solar, robotics, or artificial intelligence will instantly
contribute to <br>
solving the issues, or solving them very fast. In the long run it may
very well<br>
be an ultra rich upper class will attain an unchallengeable elite status
and then<br>
proceed to reserve posthuman devices exclusively for the ruling class.
</blockquote><br>
I find that unlikely. Nanotech is like software, once you have the
ability to make stuff, it becomes almost impossible to turn it
off.<br><br>
Take a look here
<a href="http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html</a> for a fictional
treatment. In all the months that's been up, nobody has ever cogged
to the (fictional) fact that in this story the well-off caused human life
on an *entire continent* to vanish into a state where they hardly
interact with the physical environment. I hate to say so, but I
think that's the most likely fate of the entire species, probably a good
chunk of those alive today (excepting those who die in the epidemics
and/or resource wars before that point).<br><br>
snip<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>Given an economy rising faster than the population I agree with
you,<br>
<dd>this would probably work. But given a contracting economy, like
what<br>
<dd>happened prior to last big mess in Europe, I would not be the least
<br>
<dd>surprised to see a replay.<br>
</dl><br>
I agree there is indeed potential that fundamentally immoral groups
may<br>
exploit the actions of a small minority of sociopathic/nihilist extremes
in the <br>
immigrant (marginalized) population </blockquote><br>
I think you are using the wrong model. By our standards most if not
all hunter gatherer groups are "fundamentally immoral." As high
as 60% of the adults in such cultures die from inter group violence with
perhaps 40% being the norm. The above Azar Gat papers have examples
and lots of pointers into the literature. What keeps this normal
tendency of humans in the "off mode" is a general perception of
a bright future, or at least one no worse than the current
situation.<br><br>
If that perception goes away, especially if combined with a serious
economic downturn--say from an energy crunch--then activation of traits
leading to the wide propagation of xenophobic memes (religions being
typical xenophobic memes) will just be expected. Read up on the
history of what led up to the Nazi takeover of Germany with this model in
mind. You might also read here:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum" eudora="autourl">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum</a><br><br>
I have with this understanding of the problems. Neither of the
solutions it suggests, slow to negative population growth, and massive
efforts to develop space elevators and solar power satellites seem to
have a path to implementation. Some of the other solutions I hint
at in the story are politically incorrect.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">(and do not discount non muslims
in that <br>
equasion - crime may grow to be worse than terror) and proceed to
take<br>
steps to forcibly emigrate them, or actually try and exterminate them.
<br>
Concentration camps would be a lot easier to implement now than in
the<br>
1940s. </blockquote><br>
That's an intriguing statement. I presume you really mean
extermination camps since that was their function. But why would
they be easier to do now? Cambodia and Rwanda accomplished massive
exterminations without them.<br><br>
snip<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I'll do the google.
</blockquote><br>
The printed version is in _Mankind Quarterly_ Summer 2006. I can
send you a .pdf. The online is here
<a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296" eudora="autourl">
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296</a><br><br>
Keith</body>
</html>