Anthropological Motivation For Not Fighting About Politics

For context, look up popular American news articles for March 12th, 2016.

Raja Yoga (the Hindu philosophy of using physical movement to achieve a higher spiritual state–called simply “yoga” by most westerners) seems to have arisen out of a collection of movements and postures practiced as part of human life. From bowing to a king, to taking a wide stance in preparation for delivering a sword blow, to stretching in the morning and evening to alleviate muscle and joint pain, to picking up a baby–this is a system of kinetic learning intended to explain and teach the human condition and how to function within it.

Humans are loving. Humans are powerful. Humans fight for survival, spend their days gathering resources; humans follow leaders; humans battle for control over the followers and means of acquisition. (Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably seeing you as their follower…) This method of teaching translates literally to “royal yoga”. As profound as it once was, it fails to teach apt governance or understanding in the absence of the cultural understanding that could only be truly had in the more revered and wealthy circles of the ancient world.

What would such a system look like, if it were created out of the successful strategies of governing and being governed within our own society? Are there any motions that we can still use to universally increase our usefulness and success as a part of the human meta-organism? Today, we crave a method that works for almost everyone, and mourn the absence of any such thing that can make us happy. There is currently no “one size fits most” method for anyone born after 1980, or, perhaps, before.

In politics and religion, alike, we are bereft of truly effective guidance. We celebrate the death of “storge” love while complaining about lack of agreement in public matters. (This is a contradiction.) We seek ancient wisdom that hardly translates to how to make a real living, today. We are amply taught, in school, church, home, and in casual society everything but what is known to be truly, universally effective–because nobody knows of any universally “human” means of survival that has, itself, survived the test of time.

In the last decade, much of the world has awoken to this predicament, and we are fighting each other because nobody can figure out how to make things work, again. The information age arose out from Pandora’s box, and our greatest minds have yet to tame it in a way that lets everyone live happily, who is willing to keep trying.

Or maybe that is the nature of the human condition: as the Buddhists say, “suffering exists”, and it’s up to us to figure out how to deal with that.

It is a part of human nature to fight. We committed genocide against every human species that came before us, until only Homo sapiens remained. (A chilling thought, but true, according to archeologists, evolutionary biologists, and anthropologists.) A new way of living will one day emerge out of the ashes of analog society and the minds of those who, like Homo erectus, failed to adapt (despite having a larger brain). In the mean time, let’s limit our battles to the ones that actually matter.

If an idiot or a fool gets elected president, let them show us how not to do things.

Some arguments can only be won by letting your opponent win, and then realize, on his own, that he should have been wiling to compromise (A.K.A. “adapt”). We decided in the late 40s that killing all the stupid people is wrong, so if such people end up running things, and we don’t crash and burn because of it, we will have proven that the antiquated morals of centuries past–survival of the fittest, when you boil it down enough–are truly not as good as the softer ones we revere, today.

And if letting stupid people self-actualize turns out to be a problem, we can always decide that Hitler had the right of things and commit genocide until all the stupid people are extinct, and we evolve into a species that’s better than Homo sapiens. (Personally, I don’t advocate this method.)

Seriously, folks, don’t get into physical fights over political beliefs unless you think we should silence, cage, and eventually extinct all the imbuciles–including, possibly, you.

Trump and Sanders fans, I’m looking at you.

The Effects of Sociability Genetics on Nations

I recently read an article linked on about a sociability gene discovered in fireants–the first such gene to be found.  I’ve long suspected that such genes exist (or more precisely, huge bundles of related genes, as the article states), and seeing the inklings of my suspicions confirmed with modern science has given me cause to voice some of the things I’ve been considering relative to why various nations and peoples behave as they do–and why other nations and peoples have difficulty understanding why.  These, below, are my thoughts.  Please read the linked article for a better understanding of how I use the term, “sociability.”

If, indeed, other creatures than fireants–such as humans–inherit personality traits (such as sociability or the lack thereof) genetically–in addition to learning skills in these matters (through experience and “nurture”)–then this leads to a potentially very fairly impactful syllogism:

1. The sociability (or lack thereof) of a human being is largely determined by genetics.
2. The social structure of a society is largely determined by the values and traits of its comprising members.
3. Those who are highly-sociable tend to thrive in societies where social interaction is closely related to power structure.
4. Highly-sociable individuals who live in societies where the power structure is traditionally more monolithic (such a theocracy, monarchy, dictatorship, fanatical regime, harsh regime, etc.) tend to become marginalized because they’re seen as a potential threat to the traditional power structure (by way of gathering followers, potentially questioning authority, etc.).  This occurs both on the governmental level and in business, etc.
5. Sexual selection (that is, natural selection by way of how mates are chosen) is highly sensitive to how a society sees a given individual’s value and long-term viability (that is, perceived “potential” and “success”).
6. Sexual selection leads to genetic traits being favored or not favored, such that desirable ones (including those chosen by societal “momentum,” as above) are emphasized, and undesirable ones are made less common.
7. Because of #6, the genes for high sociability will be largely “bred out” of societies wherein such a trait is not valued.
8. Populations tend to reject and marginalize those who are of a minority genetic makeup (i.e. foreigners, “ethnics,” etc.)

Conclusion: Sexual selection among humans–largely driven by societal determinations–will cause, and has caused certain parts of the world to become genetically predisposed AGAINST all societal structures and customs that require a high degree of sociability and a distributed power structure in order to function properly. This included democratic government (in its various forms), free religion (i.e. not strictly governed by monolithic or oligarchic authority), freedom to demonstrate, freedom of speech, and so forth. This hereby calls into question whether it’s valid to impress or force such structures and customs upon a given population unless/until these populations see themselves as being ready for, and desirous of these things.

Notably, what a society desires changes dramatically over time. “Public consciousness” shifts, and thereby changes what is seen as “desirable” in mates (as well as what is a survivable/unsurvivable genetic trait). Therefore, it’s not only possible but likely that societies which are not ready for such social structures/customs now will be ready in the future–and likewise, that those which were unready for them only a few years ago are ready for them now. I believe we’re seeing this in what has been dubbed the “Arab Spring.” Likewise, much of the world seems to be “awakening” from the state of accepting monolithic authority/power structures, and bucking long-standing traditions which prevent individuals from flourishing independent of such structures. Could it be that for the last generation or two (or several), those who were more willing to freely join with one another, and to question authority and customs became more desirable as mates than they were previously? The “hippy”/”baby boomer” generation of the United States certainly seems to support this theory. (Sadly, our cultural apathy is yet extremely powerful.)  Perhaps in yet another generation–if things continue to go this way–the world will be largely or wholly unrecognizable–on a social, economic, and political level–from the one that those born around the 1920s knew.  I, for one, greatly look forward to this change, and have high hopes for the generation born just a couple of decades after me!  (I was born in 1982.)

I don’t know if my theories are correct, but I think the syllogism is good (in the logical sense). If my conclusion truly follows from the premises, perhaps it’s worth asking whether those premises are, indeed, as correct as I suspect they are.  If so, then does the world gasp in anticipation for the great change that’s, perhaps, shortly to come?