<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 3:45 AM Ben Zaiboc <<a href="mailto:benzaiboc@proton.me">benzaiboc@proton.me</a>> wrote:</div></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
</span><div><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
</span></div><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal"></span><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">On Thursday, 15 October 2026 at 04:58, Keith Henson <<a href="mailto:hkeithhenson@gmail.com" target="_blank">hkeithhenson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
</span><div><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
</span><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal"> T</span><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 5:19 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <</span><a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</span></a><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">> wrote:</span></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">On 13/10/2026 22:41, </span><a href="mailto:extropy-chat-request@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">extropy-chat-request@lists.extropy.org</span></a><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal"> wrote:</span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 5:10 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <</span><a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</span></a><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">> wrote:</span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
></span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
> Keith Henson wrote:</span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
></span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
> > I am sorry to say, but slaughtering each other is functional and rational from the viewpoint of genes ...</span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
> Yes, of course, but do we want to remain at the level of beasts that serve their genes?</span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
></span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
> That is very tricky. Traits like starting on the path to war when there is a perceived resource crisis, or capture-bonding is wired into our brains due to evolutionary selection. Removing these traits, even identifying where they are in the genome. would be a herculean task. And who knows what other psychological traits they contribute to.</span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
></span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
> Better, I think to keep them turned off by environmental cues. Between falling birth rates and rising wealth, keeping the psychological traits that lead to wars and related social disruption turned off looks like an easier way than changing human nature. At least given current technology.</span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
Do you mean that it's a tricky question? Because I don't think it is. I think the answer must be a definite 'No'.</span><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-size:small"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">It is a difficult problem, perhaps I used the wrong word.</span></div><div style="font-size:small"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
How do we rise above that level, and take control of our selves, that is certainly a tricky issue.</span><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-size:small"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">Do we even want to do that? I don't know. For example, nothing switches a human group into "war mode" faster than being attacked. Do we want to edit out this part of our psychology? If it is connected to the slower "perception of bleak future" can we sort them out?<br></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:small"><br>I'd say, yes, get rid of it. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Consider what life would be like if most people no longer responded to attack either at the individual level or group. How much does fear of retaliation contribute to nice social interaction? But unless you imposed this on everyone, bullies would (I suspect) abuse the nice guys to death.<br></div></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><div><div style="font-size:small">And replace it with something that's not such a knee-jerk response but <span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"></span>equally effective when it's actually needed. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">I have called this the "Pearl Harbor" reaction after what that attack did to change the public view of going to war. I am hard put to imagine how events could have unfolded "
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"></span>equally effective.," but I am open to discussion.</div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><div><div style="font-size:small">Eliminating a gut-response to something doesn't mean that a rational response can't exist, and be at least as effective (not to mention safer. Rational responses are much less likely to go disastrously wrong or be triggered inappropriately).<br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal"></span></div><div style="font-size:small"><span><br></span><span style="font-size:16.5pt;line-height:normal">You're talking as if we were making decisions for all people, and all cases.</span><div></div><span style="font-size:16.5pt;line-height:normal">That's not what I'm suggesting.</span><span style="font-size:16.5pt;line-height:normal"> I'm talking about having choices vs. not having them. If we understand these psychological mechanisms and have developed a range of ways to change them, then we have more choices.</span><span></span><div><br></div><span style="font-size:16.5pt;line-height:normal">Your example of BDSM tendencies is relevant. You ask "Would you remove this source of pleasure from these people?" Of course not, that would be me imposing my will on them. That would be a good argument for changing my psychology, not theirs, because I would be no better than people like Putin, Xi or Trump.</span><span><br><br><span></span><div><span>I have to admit, I'm not quite sure what your argument is. On one hand, you're bemoaning the fact that not many people seem to understand, or accept, the Evolutionary Psychology viewpoint, and suggest that there may be a strong evolved bias against doing so.</span></div><div><span>On the other hand, you are questioning the idea of combating this, and saying that finding ways to do so might not be a good idea.</span></div><div><br></div><span>Do you think that things are as they should be, and we should just accept that our genes rule our psychology (at least in certain aspects)?</span><br><br></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">I am not sure what my argument should be. In any case, it probably does not matter because people, even those exposed for over a decade, don't seem to grasp EP. And, near as I can see, there is a wired in bias against understanding.</span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">"</span>
<span style="font-size:17.5425px;font-family:serif">Simple as this model is, humans seem to have a </span><span style="font-size:17.5425px;font-family:serif">(possibly evolved) bias against the understanding that they </span><span style="font-size:17.5425px;font-family:serif">have or are influenced by evolved internal psychological </span><span style="font-size:17.5425px;font-family:serif">mechanisms. In other words, too much insight may not be </span><span style="font-size:17.5425px;font-family:serif">good for your ge<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">nes"</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size:17.5425px;font-family:serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size:17.5425px;font-family:serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Keith<br></span></span>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><div><div style="font-size:small"><span></span><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal"></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div style="font-size:small"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
I'm not suggesting any specific routes, I'm just saying that we do need to transcend these tendencies, one way or another, and pointing out that we've already started to do so. This suggests that there are ways of achieving it that don't have to involve genetic engineering or mental editing. Control of our environment is one possibility (seems a poor solution, though, except maybe as a stopgap), and individual education might be another (people often do start to behave differently when they learn the basis of their behaviours).</span><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-size:small"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">I don't know. From what I have observed over a long time, I suspect there is a strong evolved mental bias against having a lot of insight. Read the last line of the Genetic Selection for War paper.<br></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote"><br><br><span style="font-size:16.5pt;line-height:normal">Well, you quoted Cosmides in that paper: "</span><span style="font-size:16.5pt;line-height:normal">If you understand how a mechanism works, you know how to intervene in some way.”, so presumably you favour understanding, and thus being able to intervene. But you seem to be questioning the wisdom of intervening, or having the ability to, for those who want it.<br><br>My take on it is, let's try to understand it, in a way that will enable us to do something about it if we want. The immediate problem is how to get started, if the majority of people don't even want to think about it.<br><br></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
Ben</span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." - Pablo Casals, via Albert Einstein</span><br><span style="font-size:15pt;line-height:normal">
</span></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div>