Theme: Cooperation

Well, politics like economics is counter intuitive, and in some sense wrong: humans flock to opportunities; humans defect when it’s in their interests, and the central problem is limiting the opportunities that they can flock and defect to, to those that are productive rather than parasitic – which preserves cooperation, at least among others than the underclasses that have no choice. And the only means of protecting against parasitism is competition. And the only means of mediating that competition is the common law of tort – meaning, the common law of non-parasitism. In most of history, we lacked control of birth, had high infant mortality, required an entire multi-generational family, if not a clan, to provide sufficient productivity to survive, and as such offspring, despite high mortality, were both a necessity and relatively uncontrollable consequence of sex between people for whom sex, food and other people were the most available forms of entertainment (And release from toil). Agrarians work far harder than pastoralists, who work harder than hunter gatherers. We work less hard but we also lack the benefits of socialization, (sex), and intergenerational protection. In other words, socialization and mindfulness decrease with rates of production. The very idea that competition creates harmony at the expense of the underclass is not novel. However, we are no longer producing only malthusian surpluses, we no longer require intergenerational families for insurance, we are no longer prisoners of accidental reproduction, and no longer face high child mortality. So, it’s actually pretty simple to pay the unproductive not to reproduce. And this continuously eliminates the unproductive, those who lack ability, and those who lack agency, from the population. Now, I do not know why anyone would object to this particular issue other than some sort of status signaling. but then, I don’t understand why status signaling, should not be limited to truthful expression any less than all other forms of truthful express, if in fact, the individual is economically supported by the community. The real reason for opposition is the female basalt intuition that sees the world as equal rather than a distribution, and as such fears she lacks the merit to reproduce, and that if she does reproduce this might expose her to conflict with other females, or subject her children to risk because of reproductive inequality. The other reason is the priesthood and intellectual salesman’s loss of market share. Since without an underclass the priesthood eventually disappears and turns into public intellectuals. And public intellectuals again lose market share, because the suppression of moral hazard, fictionalism, falsehood, deprives them of the ability to advocate for underclass parasitism. At present levels of human ability a distribution around 125, with 2/3 of the is probably the maximum, and probably desirable. I really don’t see any reason that number can’t move higher, but it can’t probably move without direct manipulation of the genome. That said, the benefits are LOGARITHMIC above 105. The future will be determined, like the present, by the size of our underclasses. The only competitive advantage any society possesses other than territorial resource, is SMALLER UNDERCLASSES.

Well, politics like economics is counter intuitive, and in some sense wrong: humans flock to opportunities; humans defect when it’s in their interests, and the central problem is limiting the opportunities that they can flock and defect to, to those that are productive rather than parasitic – which preserves cooperation, at least among others than the underclasses that have no choice. And the only means of protecting against parasitism is competition. And the only means of mediating that competition is the common law of tort – meaning, the common law of non-parasitism. In most of history, we lacked control of birth, had high infant mortality, required an entire multi-generational family, if not a clan, to provide sufficient productivity to survive, and as such offspring, despite high mortality, were both a necessity and relatively uncontrollable consequence of sex between people for whom sex, food and other people were the most available forms of entertainment (And release from toil). Agrarians work far harder than pastoralists, who work harder than hunter gatherers. We work less hard but we also lack the benefits of socialization, (sex), and intergenerational protection. In other words, socialization and mindfulness decrease with rates of production. The very idea that competition creates harmony at the expense of the underclass is not novel. However, we are no longer producing only malthusian surpluses, we no longer require intergenerational families for insurance, we are no longer prisoners of accidental reproduction, and no longer face high child mortality. So, it’s actually pretty simple to pay the unproductive not to reproduce. And this continuously eliminates the unproductive, those who lack ability, and those who lack agency, from the population. Now, I do not know why anyone would object to this particular issue other than some sort of status signaling. but then, I don’t understand why status signaling, should not be limited to truthful expression any less than all other forms of truthful express, if in fact, the individual is economically supported by the community. The real reason for opposition is the female basalt intuition that sees the world as equal rather than a distribution, and as such fears she lacks the merit to reproduce, and that if she does reproduce this might expose her to conflict with other females, or subject her children to risk because of reproductive inequality. The other reason is the priesthood and intellectual salesman’s loss of market share. Since without an underclass the priesthood eventually disappears and turns into public intellectuals. And public intellectuals again lose market share, because the suppression of moral hazard, fictionalism, falsehood, deprives them of the ability to advocate for underclass parasitism. At present levels of human ability a distribution around 125, with 2/3 of the is probably the maximum, and probably desirable. I really don’t see any reason that number can’t move higher, but it can’t probably move without direct manipulation of the genome. That said, the benefits are LOGARITHMIC above 105. The future will be determined, like the present, by the size of our underclasses. The only competitive advantage any society possesses other than territorial resource, is SMALLER UNDERCLASSES.