[ExI] [Extropolis] trump

[Keith Henson]

On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 11:45 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 1:05 PM Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> > There is evidence that, at least some of the time, nice guys do finish first because it's a fact that humans have fewer virulent warlike genes than any other primate.
>>
>>
>> > I don't think you can make such a case.  The big difference is that war mode is not on all the time as it is in the chimpanzees.
>
>
> I think you just made my case for me. If chimpanzees are always in the war mode and humans are not then chimpanzees are more warlike than humans.

I am not sure how one would even measure this, but I note that humans
in war mode can be ferocious on a scale that I don't think chimps can
match.

>> > It does not help your genes one bit to fight unless the alternative is worse for the genes.
>
> True but irrelevant, genes have no foresight.

No, but they can be selected to build brains with foresight.  Not that
I think the runup to wars in the EEA involved much if any rational
thought.  Based on rational self-interest, going to war (in the model)
was as bad as starving.

That was the bizarre thing that came out of the selection model.  In
the context of wars, the interest of humans and their genes diverge.
The reason this happens is that gene copies are absorbed into the
winner's tribe through the young women of the losers.  It turns out
that from the gene's viewpoint, going to war is about 40% better than
starving in place.

> If in times of stress your genes give you a personality such that your tendency to cooperate with your fellow beings increases then you may very well end up with more descendants than somebody who becomes more aggressive in such a situation.

The model does not show this.

>> > Maximum group size is limited by the availability of food.
>
> No. The maximum population is limited by the food supply but the maximum size that a social group can have before internal civic stresses cause it to split is not.

There is a lot of data on group splitting.  I contend that the group
size before splitting was largely set by food.  If you could not
collect enough food within a day's walk, it was time to split.  YMMV.

>> >> If you put 4 million chimpanzees on an island as small as Manhattan they would tear each other apart in a matter of hours, but during the entire year of 2022 only 78 humans out of the 4 million on Manhattan killed one of their fellow Homo sapiens.
>>
>> > If the food supply was cut off, what do you think the toll would be?
>
> About 4 million but there is a difference. If you put 4 million chimpanzees on Manhattan Island they would start killing each other even if the food supply was infinite, but humans would not.

Neither would bonobos who are closely related to chimps.  The
difference is chimps are intensely territorial, every bit of suitable
territory is occupied and defended.

Bonobos evolved in an environment with a huge difference.  They can
easily spread out into resource-rich adjacent territories, but
sleeping sickness kills them when they go much beyond the core area.
Thus they have never seen a situation where defending territory is
cost-effective.

>> > The point I have tried to make is that a bleak reality of even the anticipation of a bleak future will shift humans into war mode.
>
> From an evolutionary point of view it's very clear that increased aggression is not always, or even usually, the best strategy to take in times of increased stress.

Going to war is a widespread, almost universal, trait.  All I did was
model how the trait was selected.  If you want to make a different
model showing how this or some other trait became common, be my guest.

I might note that the San people do not seem selected for wars.  They
also have the lowest known human fertility rate.

> I suggest you read Robert Axelrod's wonderful book "The Evolution Of Cooperation".
>
> The Evolution of Cooperation

Cited it many times over the decades.

> Or read evolutionarily biologist Richard Dawkins masterpiece "The Extended Phenotype".
>
> The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene

I have an autographed copy.  Not only have I cited Dawkins's work a
lot, but Dawkins also acknowledged my work in the second ed of "The
selfish gene."

Keith

> Both books talk about something called an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS), if an individual in a population has genes for a ESS then after a few generations it will become the most popular strategy in that population and it can't be upset by a mutant that follows a different strategy. The simplest and also one of the most effective ESS is called "Tit For Tat", the idea is to start off friendly but if somebody does something mean to you then do something mean to them, but don't hold a grudge, after you have retaliated go back to being friendly.
>
>  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> itt
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv1vWfhZYFMPg9p5FADLUTiWH_XurPnT4%2BxRE2zvh9S-_Q%40mail.gmail.com.