[extropy-chat] Human Machinations

[Keith Henson]

At 07:27 AM 2/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>> >The model of economic productivity as "cargo" - something delivered from
>> >outside, with a fixed supply to be divided among a population - works well
>> >for a hunter-gatherer economy where wealth is collected largely as-is from
>> >the environment, but not for an industrial one where wealth is largely
>> >produced by people.
>>
>>Jeeze, guys, you would think am asking a trick question.  The income per
>>capital goes UP.
>
>(When the population starts dying out, I assume you mean.)

No.

You cut too much.  My question was:

 >>places. But in any case, with population growth below economic growth,
 >>what happens?

>In the "cargo" economic model which is approximately true of 
>hunter-gatherer societies, that's approximately correct. In an industrial 
>society, half the capita means half the minds and hands available to 
>produce the income in the first place, so the total income also drops by 
>half - no increase per capita. (Unfortunately, we evolved in 
>hunter-gatherer societies, so the "cargo" economic model is more 
>attractive than the industrial one, irrespective of the data.)

You put your finger on the critical point, "we evolved in hunter-gatherer 
societies."  Populations (bands) killed each other when their population 
growth overtaxed the ecosystem.  We are still set up to react that way to 
falling population wide income per capita and/or the prospects that it will 
get worse in the future.

>(If the population falls too far, you start losing economies of scale, so 
>the per capita income will go down. I suspect other factors will come into 
>play before that happens, though long beforehand the increased ratio of 
>old age pensioners to workers will cause a drop in per capita income - 
>that's starting to be observed in some countries already.)

This would be interesting to extrapolate, but I have not tried to apply the 
model beyond the deep past and the immediate future.

Unlike hunter-gatherer societies (and largely due to technological 
innovation) within broad limits we can have economic growth.  But if you 
want to keep the gain setting on xenophobic memes turned down so you don't 
get wars or related social disruptions, then the population growth has to 
stay below the economic growth.

The paper and the model makes the case that--because economic growth got 
ahead of population growth in Ireland--the average gain on the mechanism in 
the population was turned down.  (I.e., a behavior switch was 
flipped.)  With a gain of less than one, the circulating memes encouraging 
the warriors to fight were damped till they lost motivational force and the 
IRA went out of business.

>>Well, do you know of a population that supported war with a rising income
>>per capita and bright looking future prospects?  (One that was not attacked
>>of course.)  Examples will refute the model.
>>
>>This maps back to the stone age where such conditions shut off war.
>
>If you want me to shoot holes in your model, I'll be happy to oblige :) So 
>that everyone (including those list subscribers who haven't read it) are 
>clear what target I'm shooting at, why don't you post a brief summary of 
>it here?

Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War
By H. Keith Henson

Abstract:   Evolutionary psychology and memetics are used to propose a 
model of war.  Population growth leads to a resource crisis.  An impending 
resource crisis activates a behavioral switch in humans allowing the build 
up of xenophobic or dehumanizing memes, which synchronizes attacks on 
neighboring tribes.  Hamilton's criterion of inclusive fitness is invoked 
to account for the evolution of this species typical behavior.  War as a 
species typical behavior in the EEA for humans is discussed, first as an 
attack response and second as unprovoked attacks.  Unprovoked attacks are 
proposed to require the build up of xenophobic or dehumanizing 
memes.  Evolved brain mechanisms are proposed to cause these memes to 
become more common when the subject population anticipates "looming 
privation."  The well-known reduction in the ability of humans to think 
rationally in war situations is explained in evolutionary terms as a 
divergence in interest between the individual and his genes.  The problem 
of avoiding wars is examined in terms of these mechanisms.  Population 
growth at a higher rate than economic growth is proposed as the causal 
factor for wars in the modern world.  This model and the "excess males" 
model make different predictions about where future wars will start.  The 
model is then applied to analyze current events.

I would be *delighted* if you can find holes in the model.  Most depressing 
work I have ever done.

And if anyone wants a copy of the paper, just ask.

Keith Henson