<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
On 04/05/2020 09:33, Keith Henson wrote:<br>
<div class="moz-text-plain" wrap="true" graphical-quote="true"
style="font-family: -moz-fixed; font-size: 12px;"
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">John Clark <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:email@example.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><firstname.lastname@example.org></a> wrote:
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">But other than that I can't think of any stone age
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">traits that could be extrapolated to explain why one state was blue and
another was red.
Economics. Every one of the states that went red had a population
that was facing a bleak economic future, unlike the blue states. Not
bleak in absolute terms, but humans respond to relative stimulations.
For a long list of reasons, the average life prospects in those
populations were not as good as they had been for their parents.
People in the stone age facing a resource crisis (or a looming one)
would fight with neighbors. At the individual level, going to war was
irrational, but at the gene level, it was not. So if conditions
called for war, the tribe members have the psychological traits to
find an irrational leader attractive.
You do need to be careful in extrapolating evolved stone age
psychological traits to the present day, though one example.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Capture-bonding" moz-do-not-send="true">http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Capture-bonding</a> is obvious.
I would also say that it is clear from history that people under
stress from falling income per capita switch on the same mechanisms
that stone age peoples did for a resource crisis. These include
spreading xenophobic memes and supporting irrational leaders.
Assuming the above analysis is correct, does anything jump out at you
as to how to prevent what happened in the red states?</pre>
I certainly hope you're right, Keith.<br>
If so, and we do manage to fumble our way to an abundance economy,
it will have an enormous impact on the political spectrum, shifting
it towards one colour or another (I get confused with american
concepts of right/left/blue/red. Over here, red is the colour of
Labour/Socialist tendencies, and blue is Conservatives. Not that
these labels are all that significant anyway, these days).<br>
But an abundance economy (or just 'more stuff, and less economic
uncertainty for everyone', if you don't like the term 'abundance
economy') would lead to more tolerance, less authoritarianism, more
general sanity, and a safer world, is the message I'm getting.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--