MartyrMade

[Speaker to Animals]

For instance, who do you think sustains the enormous population boom in Africa? It's not the Africans. They can't get out of the Malthusian trap on their own. Their entire population depends upon white farmers there and abroad. No whites and no food.

You want Latin Americans to replace white people in North America? How many Latin American nations do you suppose are able to stave off the inevitable famine in Africa? None. That's the United States, Canada, Europe, and a few other nations. Replace whites in those countries, and they just become part of Latin America, which is to say: no more food aid because they won't be able to produce a surplus.

[DrYouth]

I think anybody who speaks of some ideology as an "end of history" is probably full of poop. It's pungent enough without having to read the book. If he's not full of shit, you can elaborate and fill us in on what he is really trying to say.

The idea that globalist capitalism is the end of history is laughable, to say the least. Automation is set to end capitalism possibly in our own lifetimes.

I've already expanded on his book plenty of times...
It's basically a very good explanation of how societies moved beyond tribalism and how the various institutions within society held each other in check or failed to do so. Religious institutions of various kinds, Political authorities, burocracies... He goes in detail through the dawn of Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern and European societies and further as to how various European societies differed from one another... It's stellar work...

In this book he doesn't refer to the end of history or global capitalism...

[Speaker to Animals]

I think anybody who speaks of some ideology as an "end of history" is probably full of poop. It's pungent enough without having to read the book. If he's not full of shit, you can elaborate and fill us in on what he is really trying to say.

The idea that globalist capitalism is the end of history is laughable, to say the least. Automation is set to end capitalism possibly in our own lifetimes.

I've already expanded on his book plenty of times...
It's basically a very good explanation of how societies moved beyond tribalism and how the various institutions within society held each other in check or failed to do so. Religious institutions of various kinds, Political authorities, burocracies... He goes in detail through the dawn of Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern and European societies and further as to how various European societies differed from one another... It's stellar work...

In this book he doesn't refer to the end of history or global capitalism...

Have you read A Troublesome Inheritance or any of Turchin's works? Geneticists make a good case that it's just a genetic adaptation, dude. Ideologies don't get you out of the dark ages into technological societies. Specific genetic adaptations made that possible for only two races of humans. Everybody else is just going for the ride.

[GloryofGreece]

I think part of that *potential* maybe possible , maybe even plausible, but who knows really, is that with those so called adaptations , some outliers inherited bullshit like Autism/Asperger / myopic views of the world. No balance. Technological innovations can be positive in general or in a vacuum, but they are also not useful if they end up destroying us. One thing that can be called a technology is are financial systems and built in socio-economic incentives vis a vie carrots and sticks. That is a non genetic thing and those things are all potentially why we are where we are so to speak. Hence me saying only Whites would adopt philosophies/policies such as political correctness, social justice, quotas for hiring, positivism, scientific management for all occupations and aspects of life. Europeans are immensely myopic in their approaches to life.

Yes it can create wonderful art like Bach, Mozart, Caravaggio, Michelangelo, Monet etc. and engineering like Ford, Wright Brothers, Vaccines, and Pharmacological medicines, and Microsoft etc. but it can also lead to things that lead to our own destruction. Take the birth control pill and post poning having children. We can do those things because of the creations of science. It is having unintended consequences now. Social, psychological, and everything else.

[Speaker to Animals]

The root of what DrY is saying really comes down to civic nationalism: the belief that social structures and culture are independent of genetics, and anybody can simply adopt cultural forms and socio-economic structures and practices to duplicate western civilization.

I used to believe this pretty strongly at one time. Reality does not bear this out, however. Our cultural values, social and economic structures, western scientific method, laws, and everything else that goes into making western civilization are hardly some closely-guarded secret. Africans have access to the Internet. They have access to all this information. They still cannot duplicate it because it is not in their nature to behave in a similar fashion as us or form social structures in the same way that we do.

Western civilization, in my opinion, has two variants: before and after the Malthusian trap was breached. Before the Malthusian trap was defeated, we constantly had population booms followed by declines and semi-collapse. It was like natural process of expansion and contraction. Then we suddenly developed a middling class and we broke out.

The true secret to Western Civilization's rise is what we now call the middle class. Most of the scientists, technological innovators, cultural producers, etc. are middle class westerners. You won't have the same level of development in a society where there are a few elites and lots of plebs.

The middle class is a genetic phenomenon. It was the result of genetic adaptations gained in the aristocracy over the course of a thousand years of internecine warfare, and then those genetic adaptations dispersing into the cities and countryside each time collapse occurred and part of the aristocracy was demoted to merchant class or worse. Future planning, putting your children's welfare before your own, etc. is middle class behavior. It's genetic. The rest of humans do not naturally do this. It's just not normal for them. That's not to say they don't love their children. They obviously do. But you are not going to to find many Africans living their lives as if their children's future are the entire purpose of their labor. They have different adaptations entirely. They are tribal. They put their tribe first.

[heydaralon]

Have not read origins of political order. Found some excerpts online. It looks to me like a fancy dressed up version of End of History. Back to his old tricks...

Again, this guy is not even original. This is an old game since Darwinism to take the idea of natural selection and say that society is also evolving toward whatever is fashionable and trendy. Whatever values at the moment is considered ideal is what we are all moving towards and these values are what will become the norm. Been done many times by people as diverse as Fascists, Communists, and F A Hayek. These theories are a fundamental misreading of Darwin. Natural selection is directionless. Doesn't have some endpoint. Neither does society. If you are a Christian or religious, you can say we are following God's plan, but as a secular person (I'm guessing based on your posts) you are ascribing meaning and development (a Marxist idea) to a process that is by definition meaningless and random. Fukuyama admits he was inspired by Kojeve and Hegel. His ideas very strongly resemble Marx's. When Marxist thinkers and leaders were confronted with incredible failures they would always say that it was a temporary set back and that ultimately a global communism would still occur, even if it was not going to happen in the immediate present, which is exactly what Francis did when his idea was disproved by events in the post cold war world. Not scientific at all, pure religion dressed up in historical
and economic garments.

So I see you haven't read it but are prepared to dismiss it outright because Darwin and Hegel are all talking out of their ass...
and Marx... of course these thinkers are all the same... best to dismiss them all without consideration...
All of it is just religion.

I smell intellectual laziness in your argument.

It is pungent.

Would you read a 600 page book on Creationism? Is it intellectually lazy to not spend time with an historically and currently disproven non scientific idea that is presented as such?

What's really funny is right before Fukuyama got (rightfully) mocked, he actually became more cocky too. His original article that End of History book was based on had a question mark. It was titled, the End of History? By the time that book came around, he dropped the question mark for the book publication of End of History. Ironically, decades ago, some Marxists did the same thing. Sidney and Beatrice Webb of the British Fabian society were so enamoured with Stalin and the USSR that they argued that global society is evolving toward Stalinism. The first edition of the their book was called the Soviet Union: A New Civilization? The 2nd edition in the 30's, dropped the question mark as they were certain that the Soviet way was inevitable and ideal. They are birds of a feather.

[heydaralon]

Only White People are as completely self destructive to adapt such masochistic bullshit.

And lets face it, white people were the ones who advanced civilization past previous civilizational benchmarks...
The positives and the negatives are two sides of the same coin.

Really moving beyond tribalism required a brutal breakdown of social relatedness.
Individualism was both how we progressed and how we lost our connection to community, kin and soul/spirit/God.
We are reaping the harvest of all this social disruption for better and for worse.
The harvest is rich in consumer goods, longer lifespans, profits but harsh in addiction, depression, hostile dependence etc.
And non-white people want in on the spoils and sadly get dragged into the downside along with us, quite voluntarily I might add...

We might be nostalgic for the old ways... but the genie won't go back in the bottle...
And as Pinker likes to remind us... the old ways weren't exactly all they were cracked up to be either,
unless you were particularly into dying young or in combat or from starvation/disease.
But it was perhaps more authentic and less dubious as to what it all meant.

I'm not trying to start some shit with you DrY I promise, but Pinker now too...? Come on man. That guy is also a thinker that I am not too fond of. Carry on...

[GloryofGreece]

The root of what DrY is saying really comes down to civic nationalism: the belief that social structures and culture are independent of genetics, and anybody can simply adopt cultural forms and socio-economic structures and practices to duplicate western civilization.

I used to believe this pretty strongly at one time. Reality does not bear this out, however. Our cultural values, social and economic structures, western scientific method, laws, and everything else that goes into making western civilization are hardly some closely-guarded secret. Africans have access to the Internet. They have access to all this information. They still cannot duplicate it because it is not in their nature to behave in a similar fashion as us or form social structures in the same way that we do.

Western civilization, in my opinion, has two variants: before and after the Malthusian trap was breached. Before the Malthusian trap was defeated, we constantly had population booms followed by declines and semi-collapse. It was like natural process of expansion and contraction. Then we suddenly developed a middling class and we broke out.

The true secret to Western Civilization's rise is what we now call the middle class. Most of the scientists, technological innovators, cultural producers, etc. are middle class westerners. You won't have the same level of development in a society where there are a few elites and lots of plebs.

The middle class is a genetic phenomenon. It was the result of genetic adaptations gained in the aristocracy over the course of a thousand years of internecine warfare, and then those genetic adaptations dispersing into the cities and countryside each time collapse occurred and part of the aristocracy was demoted to merchant class or worse. Future planning, putting your children's welfare before your own, etc. is middle class behavior. It's genetic. The rest of humans do not naturally do this. It's just not normal for them. That's not to say they don't love their children. They obviously do. But you are not going to to find many Africans living their lives as if their children's future are the entire purpose of their labor. They have different adaptations entirely. They are tribal. They put their tribe first.

There is a ton of information and persuasion packed in here. But break it down some more please.
Firstly, lets agree that there is a constant nurture/nature dynamic at play with any people, right? Sometimes you can't even really quantify the degree as to which is more and what percentage and so on, and sometimes you maybe able to reasonably be sure of the degree. In any case, this shit changes by the year and new scientific "studies, stats, and idk archaeological evidence" etc.

Explain the role of the Malthusian trap (im aware of what it is) and how and why it affected Europeans more without factoring into the equation the geography/climate/other things besides genetics. Also, and this is important , tell me how 1000 years is enough time to make a so called evolutionary adaptation with meaningful/measurable differences...and can you link some legit intelligible to a lay person science on that claim...it could be about something else besides what you are arguing. Essentially I didn't think genes worked that way and I know a lot of stuff is up in the air now b/c of the narrow understanding we have of epigenetics so...

Lastly, i think its a bold claim to say a father and mother in South America, Africa, or the islands would care about their infants less than their tribe. Based off what evidence are you making that claim? Just draw things out a bit more if you will. I think most women would sacrifice everything for the infant including their tribe. IF we are painting with broad strokes here...which we obviously are.

[GloryofGreece]

I like how they alluded to Nietzsche thinking Euripides eroded the Greek culture by suggesting conscious doubt into the subject matter of his plays. and hence he thought that was a decline that even started with Sophocles in a lot of ways. Nietzsche lamented cognition itself then. I do to but I don't play someone writing about their ruminations, angst, or thoughts as part of the decline. Its food surplus societies and complex culture that does it just as much as any non spontaneous artistic rendition.

[DrYouth]

The middle class is a genetic phenomenon. It was the result of genetic adaptations gained in the aristocracy over the course of a thousand years of internecine warfare, and then those genetic adaptations dispersing into the cities and countryside each time collapse occurred and part of the aristocracy was demoted to merchant class or worse. Future planning, putting your children's welfare before your own, etc. is middle class behavior. It's genetic. The rest of humans do not naturally do this. It's just not normal for them. That's not to say they don't love their children. They obviously do. But you are not going to to find many Africans living their lives as if their children's future are the entire purpose of their labor. They have different adaptations entirely. They are tribal. They put their tribe first.

The move from tribalism to non tribal social organization happened in multiple ethnic locations - China, India, the Middle East and Europe roughly in parallel... European civilization achieved a balance of political organization that allowed checks on executive power, institutions that allowed free markets and free speech and effective rule of law... this in and of itself broke the tribal nobility and allowed the rise of the middle class... in fits and starts...

What genetic mechanism out of the 100 or so odd genes that account for human genetic variation are you proposing to explain this dude?

It's a crazy theory you are tossing out there.

Africa never developed the factors to break from tribalism for a bunch of reasons... much to do with jungles and deserts and lack of interconnectedness... for whatever reason it didn't happen... they are cribbing from western success and will take some time to get there... and then reap the harvest and the burden of what comes along...