Curt Doolittle

Theme: Predation

  • WHAT IF YOU JUST BEAT LIARS? (testimonialism) Would you stop interpersonal harm?

    WHAT IF YOU JUST BEAT LIARS?

    (testimonialism)

    Would you stop interpersonal harm? Would you stop harm against a monument? Would you stop someone polluting the water? They why won’t you stop liars from polluting the informational commons?

    The problem is in knowing a lie – claim of common good – from statement of preference. And knowing advocacy of parasitism from one that is not.

    Is the individual promoting a productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality? Or is he arguing in favor of ‘takings’ for the common good – or some other act of parasitism?

    ( I kind of wish bamboo was native to europe….. 😉 I guess we use oak instead. )

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-26 04:24:00 UTC

  • Q&A: IS INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR LAW? –“I’ve

    Q&A: IS INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR LAW?

    –“I’ve read your articles on incremental suppression of parasitism. Is that the only way law evolves in your formulation? “—

    I cannot think of any other reason for LAW to evolve, even though I can think of many reasons why alternative CONTRACTS would evolve.

    So when you are referring to the term ‘law’, I suspect you use the common convention of conflating discovered law, legislative command, legislative contract, and regulatory law into a single category of ‘that which must be obeyed’.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC

  • On Ethics: praxeological and empirical: cooperation’s either beneficial or preda

    On Ethics: praxeological and empirical: cooperation’s either beneficial or predation is rationally preferable.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-09 06:24:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641497299307339776

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez @wolfe_fan

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641487346425139200

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641487346425139200

  • We are super predators. It is only logical, in retrospect, that we would succeed

    We are super predators.

    It is only logical, in retrospect, that we would succeed in genetic pacification of not only ourselves but the world. And the the apex of our genetic pacification is achievable through cooperation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-06 19:18:00 UTC

  • Once you realize they’re just gossiping in order to steal from you it’s simple

    Once you realize they’re just gossiping in order to steal from you it’s simple.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-31 11:58:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/638319901145440256

    Reply addressees: @johann_theron @Outsideness @amerika_blog @AlbertBrenner1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/638273501913333760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @johann_theron

    The cause of SJW behaviour? @Outsideness @amerika_blog @curtdoolittle @AlbertBrenner1 http://t.co/wmxwizk6EY

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/638273501913333760

  • Full Spectrum Incremental Pacification

    Full Spectrum of Pacification: 1 – Reproductive limitation. 2 – Incremental Suppression. 3 – Physical Removal. 4 – Genetic Pacification (Hanging). 5 – Culling (Casualties).

  • Full Spectrum Incremental Pacification

    Full Spectrum of Pacification: 1 – Reproductive limitation. 2 – Incremental Suppression. 3 – Physical Removal. 4 – Genetic Pacification (Hanging). 5 – Culling (Casualties).

  • Aristocracy A Better Evolutionary Strategy for Whom?

    [A]RISTOCRACY IS A BETTER EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY FOR EVERYONE WHO IS *NOT* A FREE RIDER OR PARASITE. Aristocracy suppresses free riding, opportunistic profiting from free riders, and conquest by free riders.

  • Aristocracy A Better Evolutionary Strategy for Whom?

    [A]RISTOCRACY IS A BETTER EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY FOR EVERYONE WHO IS *NOT* A FREE RIDER OR PARASITE. Aristocracy suppresses free riding, opportunistic profiting from free riders, and conquest by free riders.

  • Ethnocentrism Is Superior to Humanitarianism at Suppressing Free Riders

    —“Ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because ethnocentrics do a better job at suppressing selfish free riders. If an ethnocentric group comes across a group riddled with selfish individuals, they’ll refuse to cooperate. Over time, thanks to the ethnos’ mutual cooperation and the selfish group’s total refusal to even help themselves out, ethnos will reproduce faster than the non-cooperators and thus expand at the selfish group’s expense.

    Meanwhile those nice humanitarian fellows blissfully waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders, who are all to happy to receive their favor, giving nothing in return. We call this idea, that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because it is better at suppressing free-riders, the “mediation hypothesis,” and it is the mechanism favored by Hammond and Axelrod in their original paper. Another possibility is that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism outright. Imagine an ethno group next to a humanitarian group. Individuals on the group boundary benefit from the cooperation of their own group-mates behind them. But the ethnocentrics at the front doubly benefit from the cooperation of those hapless humanitarians. Might this give the ethnos the edge they need? We call this the “direct hypothesis”.—-