Liberty vs. Democracy

[GloryofGreece]

Cannot emphasize the infant development and fragility enough really though. That definitely transformed our nature and influenced it greatly both man and woman. We have to cooperate not just compete.

[Speaker to Animals]

I think you are still looking at it from the higher-order thought processes. We evolved this way. We evolved to have babies that took many years to mature and required enormous paternal investment. It's not because we have these fragile babies that the human family developed. We evolved this way in the same fashion that lions evolved to live in prides dominated by one male and cubs had a short upbringing.

Once you make the leap that I did and just look at us as animals with a unique evolutionary social structure (just like many other social mammals), it just kind of clicks. The ideologies become silly and you see it for what it is: biology, genetics, hormones, and evolutionary psychology.

Evolution doesn't understand democracy or liberty or rights or anything like that. Those are high-level abstractions that one can only figure out through reason.

Yet no matter what form of government or social structures we choose, those forms should somehow rhyme with our true animal nature as homo sapiens. Men secure the territory as gangs. Women maintain the camps and social cohesion. We have completely different evolutionary strategies to accomplish these things. A social structure must be designed or evolved to respect our differences and rhyme with the original human social structure.

[Martin Hash]

Arguing “liberty” with someone who has a different definition of the word is almost impossible. StA denies we are a nation founded on individual liberty even though The Constitution and the rest of our jurisprudence system absolutely reeks of it. Liberty comes first and it takes The Court to overrule, and because it must be overruled, by definition, means liberty comes first.

[Fife]

Cannot emphasize the infant development and fragility enough really though. That definitely transformed our nature and influenced it greatly both man and woman. We have to cooperate not just compete.

30,000 years of evolution tell you that cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive; quite the opposite.

[Martin Hash]

Individual liberty absolutely requires a high level of cooperation and understanding of what it is. Because of that, liberty is incredibly fragile, and can only be maintained in the most enlightened nations; of which, America is the only one.

[GloryofGreece]

I think you are still looking at it from the higher-order thought processes. We evolved this way. We evolved to have babies that took many years to mature and required enormous paternal investment. It's not because we have these fragile babies that the human family developed. We evolved this way in the same fashion that lions evolved to live in prides dominated by one male and cubs had a short upbringing.

Once you make the leap that I did and just look at us as animals with a unique evolutionary social structure (just like many other social mammals), it just kind of clicks. The ideologies become silly and you see it for what it is: biology, genetics, hormones, and evolutionary psychology.

Evolution doesn't understand democracy or liberty or rights or anything like that. Those are high-level abstractions that one can only figure out through reason.

Yet no matter what form of government or social structures we choose, those forms should somehow rhyme with our true animal nature as homo sapiens. Men secure the territory as gangs. Women maintain the camps and social cohesion. We have completely different evolutionary strategies to accomplish these things. A social structure must be designed or evolved to respect our differences and rhyme with the original human social structure.

How do you reconcile your conception of evolution and specifically tribalism with your Catholicism? Shouldn't that be a factor in how we should live and order society?

[Speaker to Animals]

I think you are still looking at it from the higher-order thought processes. We evolved this way. We evolved to have babies that took many years to mature and required enormous paternal investment. It's not because we have these fragile babies that the human family developed. We evolved this way in the same fashion that lions evolved to live in prides dominated by one male and cubs had a short upbringing.

Once you make the leap that I did and just look at us as animals with a unique evolutionary social structure (just like many other social mammals), it just kind of clicks. The ideologies become silly and you see it for what it is: biology, genetics, hormones, and evolutionary psychology.

Evolution doesn't understand democracy or liberty or rights or anything like that. Those are high-level abstractions that one can only figure out through reason.

Yet no matter what form of government or social structures we choose, those forms should somehow rhyme with our true animal nature as homo sapiens. Men secure the territory as gangs. Women maintain the camps and social cohesion. We have completely different evolutionary strategies to accomplish these things. A social structure must be designed or evolved to respect our differences and rhyme with the original human social structure.

How do you reconcile your conception of evolution and specifically tribalism with your Catholicism? Shouldn't that be a factor in how we should live and order society?

They work perfectly together.

[heydaralon]

Speaker: what do you think about EO Wilson and Sociobiology?

[Speaker to Animals]

Speaker: what do you think about EO Wilson and Sociobiology?

Don't know yet. His book is on my reading list, though.

Just finished one audiobook and have this one in the audio library. Might give it a listen.

[Speaker to Animals]

Really, what I am getting at here is that we don't help ourselves when we focus on these ideological explanations for government and social systems. It doesn't even help us explain our current political turmoil at all.

What I see happening to us today makes quite a lot more sense in terms of biology and evolution, especially when you consider cities are environmental variables in human evolution. Change the environmental variables, and you alter evolution. Sexual selection in particular is impacted by urbanization in a big way. This cannot be denied.

Especially when we are talking about this so-called patriarchy, it makes absolutely no sense to speak about things like liberty and democracy. We should look at what we know about the original human group (there were only a few thousand of us in the beginning). We can make inferences about it anthropologically based on observations of hunter-gather societies the world over. We also have genetic evidence that proves homo sapiens were a patrilocal species (tribes were gangs of men and women migrated between them seeking security and resources). Patriarchy stems from this simple fact of human nature: we naturally organize into gangs of men who establish borders in order to maintain a territory, provide security to the females, children, and elders. How do males organize these gangs? That's the patriarchy. It has to be merit-based to some extent. It has to be based around competency.

Matriarchy derives from how women run the camp.


With respect to our current political situation, it's just obvious that this is biological. Weak men like to group up and seek to drastically limit or punish stronger men because that's just their mating strategy. This captain save-a-ho act is a mating strategy. White knighting is a mating strategy. Being a womanz ally is a mating strategy. These men have low testosterone, no muscle development or strength, etc. Just consider what would happen if an EMP took us all out as a technological civilization. What would these liberal men do for society if we were primitive again? If the answer is probably "die in a ditch because they can't help the rest of us", then maybe there is a good reason they are at war with other men, even if it's an insidious kind of war rather than direct confrontation (which they will otherwise lose).

Women want security. They evolved that way. They don't care about how men organize the patriarchy. They care about their social status in the camp. They care about everybody getting along and people not saying mean things. They care about sharing their workloads and resources to the women who have less than them, because it could easily be them if their men die in the hunt or in battle.

A society has to rhyme with how we evolved or it's doomed. Our society is now all mixed up. Women and men are mixed up. The "camp" is everywhere. The workplace is essentially the camp, even though it is supposed to be the frontier where men hunt, defend, and build new things. We have to unravel this or figure out how to blend these two paradigms. We can't just ignore the problem.