Social animals seek power in surprisingly complex ways
scientificamerican.com
scientificamerican.com
So sure, seek out power and sit and appreciate all the routes to get it, but as the world gets more and more complex for our 6 inch chimp brains to handle, ppl in power are all pretty screwed whatever they do.
Why is that? I think that if you’re smarter you would sit and think about what power actually gets you. Outside of some random people trying to bother you every day and some extra mating, that’s it. You’re stuck with the same chimp/monkey mentality you started with only now you have the added bonus of having annoyed/being annoying.
These laws are outrageous! Thanks for sharing. I will keep my eyes open for people acting contrary to these laws.
I guess the people in power prove these laws are realistic, definitely adding it to my to-read book pile.
"Bigger, stronger animals beat up smaller, weaker ones. The vanquished slunk away, and the victor claimed the prize. Or so we thought.
To be sure, there are enough of these sorts of brutish battles going on in nature to make war-of-all-against-all theorist Thomas Hobbes smirk. But we now know the quest for power in the animal kingdom is oh-so-much more subtle, interesting and, dare I say, beautiful than we previously thought."
1. Meritocracy tends to produce superior results to systems based on nepotism — so people who want the best outcome for their tribe should preference merit.
2. Power is the ultimate meritocracy — you have it or you don’t. One of our best strategies to reduce the raw usage of power to settle disputes within society is create a social system that roughly follows meritocracy.
Humans are social animals, but we’re also animals that like prosperity and safety.
The difference is a meritocracy tries not to optimise on looks, heritage and such instead shifting the focus to results. But competition to achieve those results is still fierce.
Now, if we are all uniform fit, it might be interesting to conspire to produce one unfit to feed to tigers, lions and bears. Thus mobbing is the creating of a sacrfice of the social unfit and a filter functionality of old society against the brutes.
Now for the rule of law. The rule of law is the ability control mobbing by majority vote, aka religion. We mob a class of humans into social service, give them power and withold power, if they refuse to uphold basic contract society.
Thus regressive behaviour is a sexual selection criteria and contract religion unavoidable. Human society is nothing form and shapeable, but limited in a special ed way.
Which is why humanity will not go to space today.
Nor tomorrow.
We will spend about 300 years fixing the flaws we inheritted in something close to special ed, with social implants and learning self-control.
No, you can not vote on that.
Neither can the murderous dictator you want to push your agenda.
StarTrek is not djungle creature wheel chair accesible.
Its nice that the whole gathered knowledge of the fqalantir research is slowly leaking outwards though. Humanism is not comfort, humanism is to try to become self aware of the horrible & flawed in us and repair.
Comfortable pandering to the emotions we inherited is regressive.
To punish a car-driver for his rewritten accident memories cause of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade , no matter how just it feels and how much he feels he deserves it, is foolish. Instead force to car to adhere to speed limits, as the creature that drives is always retarded.
There needs to be the ability to have a "grown up" conversation, without the "retarded" interrupting by chanting "marx & evangelical" texts && just preaching a return "to the natural state" which is just "instinct feels good" praising every buffon chanting "for the return to the savannah". Downvote away all you want, you priests and believers, the dead are more interesting conversation anyway.
Are you arguing for eugenics, transhumanism or both?
If I understand you correctly (and I'm not sure I do), you believe that prey animals only don't kill/expell the weak because doing so would attract predators to them and that if we all were genetically superior, we would be "able to" do that and that governments/religion undermines that by giving power to the (presumably inferior) majority and suppress a (presumably superior) underclass and that is stunting our development somehow (presumably only more recently given the massive scientific progress in the past century, so the societal decline would have to have become noticeable only in the recent decades or so)?
I'm trying to steelman your argument as best I can but I'm not even sure I read all of that correctly. If that is what you mean, you're using a lot of words to say "postmodern degeneracy is holding the human race back and we should kill the weak instead of comforting them".
Look at the comment history.
"If the headline was "German bombers drop smart anti-infrastructure water-bombletts into thames \ blitz getting more expensive by the day \ pratchett fans cheer for modern Ankh Morpork" it would describe a similar situation, without the disney googles and nobody would celebrate it.
Ankh Morpork is a Disc World reference that has nothing to do with German bombers or disney or google.