egalitarianism   231

« earlier    

Camilla Power: Did Gender Egalitarianism Make us Human? or, if Graeber and Wengrow won’t talk about sex … 15 March 2018 on Vimeo
"Camilla Power: Did gender egalitarianism make us human? or, if David Graeber and David Wengrow won't talk about sex and gender, it's not surprising they have almost nothing to say about equality or what drives change. Talk given on the picket line in the lobby of the Anthropology Building, 14 Taviton Street, London WC1H 0BW on 13 March 2018, organised by Anthrostrike: students supporting UCU lecturers' dispute.

Responding to Graeber and Wengrow's recent article 'How to change the course of human history (at least, the part that's already happened)' (Eurozine, 2018) and their earlier piece in JRAI 'Farewell to the "childhood of man": ritual, seasonality, and the origins of inequality' (2015), Camilla Power assesses their confusing claims about human 'origins' (or is that rather: some examples of upper palaeolithic archaeology in Europe and some old suppositions about where we come from), and highlights the question of equality as the crucial preliminary for a serious examination of the spread of social inequality. Power shows how, for evolutionary anthropology in this century, the recognition of female strategies and perspectives has become central to the understanding of how humans became what they are. A balance of power between the sexes was critical to the origin of symbolic culture and gender as our species emerged in Africa.

Camilla recommends for further reading:

'Introduction' to Human Origins: Contributions from Social Anthropology, edited by Camilla Power, Morna Finnegan and Hilary Callan, Berghahn, New York/Oxford, 2016

'Egalitarianism and Machiavellian Intelligence in Human Evolution' by David Erdal and Andrew Whiten, in Modelling the Early Human Mind, edited by Paul Mellars and Kathleen Gibson, McDonald Institute, Cambridge, 1996, 139–150

'Egalitarianism, Evolution of' by Cathryn Townsend in The International Encyclopaedia of Anthropology, edited by Hilary Callan Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, 2018 "
camillapower  egalitarianism  davidgraeber  davidwengrow  inequality  hunter-gatherers  equality  gender  humans  sex  archaeology  power  anthropology  mornafinnegan  hilarycallan  paulmellars  communism  mutualaid  evolution  kathleengibson  cathryntownsend  autonomy  independence  women  feminism  hierarchy  horizontality 
6 weeks ago by robertogreco
Aeon Essays -- Envy’s hidden hand by James Suzman
'...research conducted among the Ju/’hoansi in the 1950s and ’60s when they could still hunt and gather freely turned established views of social evolution on their head. Up until then, it was widely believed that hunter-gatherers endured a near-constant battle against starvation, and that it was only with the advent of agriculture that we began to free ourselves from the capricious tyranny of nature. When in 1964 a young Canadian anthropologist, Richard Borshay Lee, conducted a series of simple economic input/output analyses of the Ju/’hoansi as they went about their daily lives, he revealed that not only did they make a good living from hunting and gathering, but that they were also well-nourished and content. Most remarkably, his research revealed that the Ju/’hoansi managed this on the basis of little more than 15 hours’ work per week. On the strength of this finding, the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins in Stone Age Economics (1972) renamed hunter-gatherers ‘the original affluent society’. -- ... ...understanding envy’s cohesive role in band societies is analytically useful. It offers some insights into why this apparently corrosive vice has survived the mill of natural selection, and it reminds us that our sense of fairness almost certainly has a strong genetic component. Perhaps most importantly, it helps us to understand why inequality has proved time and time again to be a far more potent spur for political action than absolute poverty; why gaudy displays of wealth are capable of persuading nominally content middle classes to froth with rage, and why demagogues do so well when they position themselves as the enemies of ‘elites’ – both real and imagined. -- A recurring theme in the ever-proliferating analyses of the febrile mood that has recently consumed established democracies in Europe and the United States is inequality. The trend towards increasing inequality – despite incrementally improving baseline living standards... -- But even if the gap between rich and poor (and more importantly, the super-rich and everyone else) had not expanded to the extent it has since the 1980s, inequality is now very much more in our faces than it used to be. We are confronted by a near-neverending stream of gold-plated ostentation in both broadcast and social media. And while this provides inspiration to some and cheerful gossip for others, it also generates the kind of resentments that, historically, inspired revolutions. And while the large-scale ‘communist’ experiment in egalitarianism was a failure, it is possible that technology might well provide an organic spur to creating the kind of envy-attuned self-awareness that sustained the fierce egalitarianism typical of hunter-gatherer societies, and that in turn ensured that they thrived for such an extraordinarily long period of time.'
rkselectiontheory  economics  egalitarianism  envy  faggotry 
11 weeks ago by adamcrowe
YouTube -- Big Think: Jordan Peterson: The fatal flaw in leftist American politics
'What is political extremism? Professor of psychology Jordan Peterson points out that America knows what right-wing radicalism looks like: The doctrine of racial superiority is where conservatives have drawn the line. "What’s interesting is that on the conservative side of the spectrum we’ve figured out how to box-in the radicals and say, 'No, you’re outside the domain of acceptable opinion,'" says Peterson. But where's that line for the Left? There is no universal marker of what extreme liberalism looks like, which is devastating to the ideology itself but also to political discourse as a whole. Fortunately, Peterson is happy to suggest such a marker: "The doctrine of equality of outcome. It seems to me that that’s where people who are thoughtful on the Left should draw the line, and say no. Equality of opportunity? [That's] not only fair enough, but laudable. But equality of outcome…? It’s like: 'No, you’ve crossed the line. We’re not going there with you.'" Peterson argues that it's the ethical responsibility of left-leaning people to identify liberal extremism and distinguish themselves from it the same way conservatives distance themselves from the doctrine of racial superiority. Failing to recognize such extremism may be liberalism's fatal flaw.'
rkselectiontheory  ideology  egalitarianism 
april 2018 by adamcrowe
Rebecca Solnit on a Childhood of Reading and Wandering | Literary Hub
"In the most egalitarian of European—and New Mexican—traditions, forests were public commons in which common people could roam, graze flocks, hunt and gather, and this is another way that forests when they are public land and public libraries are alike: as spaces in which everyone is welcome, as places in which we can wander and collect, get lost and find what we’re looking for.

The United States’s public libraries sometimes seem to me the last refuges of a democratic vision of equality, places in which everyone is welcome, which serve the goal of an informed public, offering services far beyond the already heady gift of free books you can take home, everything from voter registration to computer access. I’ve joked for a long time that if you walked up to people in the street and asked them whether we could own our greatest treasures collectively and trust people to walk away with them and bring them back, a lot of people would say that’s impossibly idealistic and some would say it’s socialist, but libraries have been making books free for all for a very long time. They are temples of books, fountains of narrative pleasure, and toolboxes of crucial information. My own writing has depended on public libraries and then university libraries and archives and does to this day. I last used a public library the day before yesterday."

"So let’s begin by recognizing that all this was—and in many moral ways still is—Coast Miwok land, before the Spanish came, before Spanish claims became Mexican claims, before this was considered to be part of Mexico, before it was part of the United States."

"Browsing, woolgathering, meandering, wandering, drifting, that state when exploring, when looking to find what it might be possible to find rather than seeking one particular goal, is the means of locomotion. I often think that hunter-gatherers must move a lot like this, seeking game or plant foods, flexible about what might show up on any given day. I was lucky that children were weeds, not hothouse flowers, in those days, left to our own devices, and my own devices led in two directions: north to the hills and the horses, south to the library."

"These linked paths and roads form a circuit of about six miles that I began hiking ten years ago to walk off my angst during a difficult year. I kept coming back to this route for respite from my work and for my work too, because thinking is generally thought of as doing nothing in a production-oriented culture, and doing nothing is hard to do. It’s best done by disguising it as doing something, and the something closest to doing nothing is walking. Walking itself is the intentional act closest to the unwilled rhythms of the body, to breathing and the beating of the heart. It strikes a delicate balance between working and idling, being and doing. It is a bodily labor that produces nothing but thoughts, experiences, arrivals. After all those years of walking to work out other things, it made sense to come back to work close to home, in Thoreau’s sense, and to think about walking.

Walking, ideally, is a state in which the mind, the body, and the world are aligned, as though they were three characters finally in conversation together, three notes suddenly making a chord. Walking allows us to be in our bodies and in the world without being made busy by them. It leaves us free to think without being wholly lost in our thoughts."

"Moving on foot seems to make it easier to move in time; the mind wanders from plans to recollections to observations."

"Leave the door open for the unknown, the door into the dark. That’s where the most important things come from, where you yourself came from, and where you will go…"

"Like many others who turned into writers, I disappeared into books when I was very young, disappeared into them like someone running into the woods. What surprised and still surprises me is that there was another side to the forest of stories and the solitude, that I came out that other side and met people there. Writers are solitaries by vocation and necessity. I sometimes think the test is not so much talent, which is not as rare as people think, but purpose or vocation, which manifests in part as the ability to endure a lot of solitude and keep working. Before writers are writers they are readers, living in books, through books, in the lives of others that are also the heads of others, in that act that is so intimate and yet so alone."

"Libraries are sanctuaries from the world and command centers onto it: here in quiet rooms are the lives of Crazy Horse and Aung San Suu Kyi, the Hundred Years War and the Opium Wars and the Dirty War, the ideas of Simone Weil and Lao Tsu, information on building your sailboat or dissolving your marriage, fictional worlds and books to equip the reader to reenter the real world. They are, ideally, places where nothing happens and where everything that has happened is stored up to be remembered and relived, the place where the world is folded up into boxes of paper. Every book is a door that opens into another world, which might be the magic that all those children’s books were alluding to, and a library is a Milky Way of worlds. All readers are Wu Daozi; all imaginative, engrossing books are landscapes into which readers vanish."
rebeccasolnit  2017  children  unschooling  deschooling  parenting  education  libraries  wandering  howwelearn  freedom  autonomy  forests  childhood  novato  california  learning  canon  publicgood  us  egalitarianism  democracy  socialism  thoreau  walking  cv  unknowing  uncertainty  woods  writing  howwewrite  books  literature  stories  storytelling  listening  reading  sanctuary  vanishing  nature  plants  wildlife  multispecies  morethanhuman  society 
april 2018 by robertogreco
Admit Everybody | Current Affairs
"There are two conclusions here, one of which I agree with and one of which I find objectionable. The conclusion I agree with is that the SAT may be the “least bad” of three options for competitive admissions, when compared with using grades or Mushy Holistic Factors, and that therefore eliminating the SAT alone won’t in and of itself produce greater equality and could backfire. (I even have a certain soft spot for the SAT because it enabled me, a person who didn’t know any of the weird upper-class “holistic” signals that impress colleges, to go to a good college.) But the conclusion I disagree with is that this somehow makes a “progressive case for the SAT,” or that we should “defend the SAT.” This is the same logic that causes people like Nicholas Kristof to argue that because sweatshops are supposedly better than farm labor, there is a progressive case for sweatshops and we should defend them. This is one of the differences between liberalism and leftism: liberalism argues for the least bad of several bad options, while leftism insists on having a better set of options.

It’s the talk about “powerful ways” to “distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack” that troubles me. My concern is about what happens to the rest of the pack! As my acquaintance Patrick Conner put it, the difference between meritocracy and socialism is “I don’t want everyone to have a fair shot at the 15% of non-shitty lives, I want everyone to have a decent life.” Instead of arguing for the least-unfair version of the brutally competitive war of all-against-all that is the contemporary college admissions system, the progressive case should be that we ought to have an actual fair admissions system.

In other words: just admit everybody. The whole “competitive” nature of undergraduate admissions is absurd to begin with, and the very fact that students are sorted according to “merit” is socially corrosive. Let’s face it: college isn’t like brain surgery or social work. People’s lives aren’t in your hands. Instead of finding the “top ten best people” we should be selecting “anyone who has proved they are capable of doing the expected work.” Competitive admissions are as irrational as grading curves. With a grading curve, only X percent of the class will get As on their papers, even if every single person in the class wrote an excellent paper, which forces you to start making silly and arbitrary distinctions in a contrived effort to pit the students against each other. The better way to grade is by developing a standard independently and giving students a qualification if they meet the standard. Here’s the admissions parallel: everyone who shows themselves capable of doing the work required of a Harvard undergrad is marked “qualified” for Harvard and allowed to apply. There are a limited number of places, of course, but those places will be filled by selecting a random group of students from among all of those marked “qualified.” You might still get a very low percentage of applicants admitted because space is limited, but it won’t be because those applicants have been deemed worthier, it will be because the lottery happened to favor them.

My vision of universities is as a place where anybody can come and learn, so long as they can do the work. Now, you could argue that at elite schools, the work is so hard that only a few people would be qualified to do it. That’s false, though. I have been a TF at Harvard, so I am acquainted with the level of rigor in the undergraduate curriculum, and it’s obvious that vastly more students than the 4.8% they actually admit are capable of passing the courses. In fact, possibly the majority of the applicants could do fine. We know that college admissions are a crapshoot. But let’s just make them an actual crapshoot, so that nobody would be deluded into thinking that merit was involved, beyond the merit of basic literacy and numeracy.

We might have a different system at the graduate level, where higher levels of specialized skill are required. But I think the same principle should be followed: set a clear standard for the minimum a student needs to be able to do. Make that standard public, so that everybody knows that if they can do X they will have the same shot at being admitted to a program as anybody else. Then choose at random from among those who have met the basic standard.

Alright, so you can probably come up with half a dozen criticisms of this system, the way you can criticize the idea of a randomly-selected congress or a jury trial. Colleges will raise the “basic standard” to unrealistic levels and thus recreate a highly-competitive admissions system, and Harvard will start pretending that you need to be able to do calculus in order to muddle your way to a Bachelor of Arts there. (You don’t.) As long as you still have underlying social and economic inequalities, you can’t actually have an equal system, because everything will reflect those inequalities until we get rid of them. Rich parents will always find ways to make sure their children get more than other children. This is part of Freddie’s point, and he is right: instead of fixing the admissions system you have to fix the economic system, because you can’t isolate the one from the other. It’s an important point, but it doesn’t amount to a defense of the “meritocracy” illusion or the concept of “distinguishing from the rest of the pack.” And the left’s education experts should be devising practical alternatives to meritocracy rather than slightly-less-awful versions of it.

We should always be clear on what the goal is: a world in which we don’t all have to fight each other all the time, where we can work together in solidarity rather than having to wage war against our friends for the privilege of having a good job. There is no reason why everyone shouldn’t have equal access to the highest-quality education, and in a properly organized society it would be perfectly simple to provide it. We don’t need “best” and “worst” universities, ranked from top to bottom, we just need “universities,” places where people go to explore human knowledge and acquire the skills that enable them to do things that need doing. Progressive education means an end to the illusion of meritocratic competition, an end to the SAT, and the realization of a vision of equal education for all."
sat  standardizedtesting  testing  nathanrobinson  2018  freddiedeboer  bias  elitism  inequality  meritocracy  liberalism  leftism  progressive  patrickconner  socialism  competition  selectivity  colleges  universities  highered  highereducation  admissions  education  ranking  society  merit  fairness  egalitarianism 
april 2018 by robertogreco
YouTube -- Freedomain Radio: Why People Hate Donald Trump
"Gene Wars | r/K Selection Theory" Series 'Different reproduction strategies have emerged over time and this is explained through r/K Selection Theory. When you look at humanity through the lens of reproduction strategies – it's something you can never, and will never, be able to unsee!'
rkselectiontheory  ideology  envy  egalitarianism  marxism  socialism  welfare  debt  collapse  StefanMolyneux 
march 2018 by adamcrowe
The mystery of ‘populism’ finally unveiled | openDemocracy
Let’s call things by their rightful names. Giving in to racism and xenophobia instead of dealing with the seemingly intractable problem of millions becoming ‘superfluous populations’ because of technological development (digitalization, robotization, automation) and of financial crisis and of the retrenchment of global demand; putting up fences to stop these millions trying to escape starvation and war instead of spreading the benefits universally; making deals with tyrants such as Erdogan, Modi or al-Sisi; being silent about the predicament of groups like the Rohingya; becoming more and more similar to the enemy – this is what the official Left are doing, and the name for this is treason.

It isn’t true that there is no difference between Left and Right, but it is true that the Left is disappearing fast, like it did in 1914.
Hungary  politics  OrbanViktor  populism  protectionism  TrumpDonald  immigration  anti-elitism  egalitarianism  politicalCorrectness  racism  xenophobia  fascism  dctagged  dc:creator=TamasGM 
march 2018 by petej
Breitbart -- Official New Guidance Tells Judges That 'Real Equality' Means Favouring Minorities
'...Official new guidance on “equal treatment” instructs judges to favour non-white defendants in order to “redress inequality”, despite recent research having found young white men to be the most derided group in Britain. -- Produced by the Judicial College, the organisation responsible for training judges in Britain, the Equal Treatment Guide’s latest edition says: “True equal treatment may not … always mean treating everyone in the same way.”' -- All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals.
UK  illiberalism  racism  egalitarianism  pathologicalaltruism  politicalcorrectness  newspeak  GeorgeOrwell 
march 2018 by adamcrowe
YouTube -- The Rubin Report: Stefan Molyneux on Race and IQ (Pt. 2)
"If we don't even acknowledge the problem, how are we going to solve anything? The plight of communities around the world and in the Western countries is dire. And we're currently tearing ourselves apart as a society looking for the scapegoats for these group differences. And the science is very clear about what the problem is...We are going to self-destruct as a society if we continue to have this incredible witch hunt for racism and sexism – we're just looking in the wrong place...if it's wrong, we are destroying ourselves through ignorance, and that, for the society that we have and the information technology that we have and the communications ability that we have – for us to self-destruct through ignorance of scientific facts is unprecedented in human history."
philosophy  sociology  civilization  race  intelligence  denial  reactionformation  egalitarianism  threatnarrative  racism  sexism  scapegoating  StefanMolyneux 
november 2017 by adamcrowe
How Civilization Started | The New Yorker
"In “Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States,” James C. Scott, a professor of political science at Yale, presents a plausible contender for the most important piece of technology in the history of man. It is a technology so old that it predates Homo sapiens and instead should be credited to our ancestor Homo erectus. That technology is fire. We have used it in two crucial, defining ways. The first and the most obvious of these is cooking. As Richard Wrangham has argued in his book “Catching Fire,” our ability to cook allows us to extract more energy from the food we eat, and also to eat a far wider range of foods. Our closest animal relative, the chimpanzee, has a colon three times as large as ours, because its diet of raw food is so much harder to digest. The extra caloric value we get from cooked food allowed us to develop our big brains, which absorb roughly a fifth of the energy we consume, as opposed to less than a tenth for most mammals’ brains. That difference is what has made us the dominant species on the planet.

The other reason fire was central to our history is less obvious to contemporary eyes: we used it to adapt the landscape around us to our purposes. Hunter-gatherers would set fires as they moved, to clear terrain and make it ready for fast-growing, prey-attracting new plants. They would also drive animals with fire. They used this technology so much that, Scott thinks, we should date the human-dominated phase of earth, the so-called Anthropocene, from the time our forebears mastered this new tool.

We don’t give the technology of fire enough credit, Scott suggests, because we don’t give our ancestors much credit for their ingenuity over the long period—ninety-five per cent of human history—during which most of our species were hunter-gatherers. “Why human fire as landscape architecture doesn’t register as it ought to in our historical accounts is perhaps that its effects were spread over hundreds of millennia and were accomplished by ‘precivilized’ peoples also known as ‘savages,’ ” Scott writes. To demonstrate the significance of fire, he points to what we’ve found in certain caves in southern Africa. The earliest, oldest strata of the caves contain whole skeletons of carnivores and many chewed-up bone fragments of the things they were eating, including us. Then comes the layer from when we discovered fire, and ownership of the caves switches: the human skeletons are whole, and the carnivores are bone fragments. Fire is the difference between eating lunch and being lunch."

"It was the ability to tax and to extract a surplus from the produce of agriculture that, in Scott’s account, led to the birth of the state, and also to the creation of complex societies with hierarchies, division of labor, specialist jobs (soldier, priest, servant, administrator), and an élite presiding over them. Because the new states required huge amounts of manual work to irrigate the cereal crops, they also required forms of forced labor, including slavery; because the easiest way to find slaves was to capture them, the states had a new propensity for waging war. Some of the earliest images in human history, from the first Mesopotamian states, are of slaves being marched along in neck shackles. Add this to the frequent epidemics and the general ill health of early settled communities and it is not hard to see why the latest consensus is that the Neolithic Revolution was a disaster for most of the people who lived through it.

War, slavery, rule by élites—all were made easier by another new technology of control: writing. “It is virtually impossible to conceive of even the earliest states without a systematic technology of numerical record keeping,” Scott maintains. All the good things we associate with writing—its use for culture and entertainment and communication and collective memory—were some distance in the future. For half a thousand years after its invention, in Mesopotamia, writing was used exclusively for bookkeeping: “the massive effort through a system of notation to make a society, its manpower, and its production legible to its rulers and temple officials, and to extract grain and labor from it.” Early tablets consist of “lists, lists and lists,” Scott says, and the subjects of that record-keeping are, in order of frequency, “barley (as rations and taxes), war captives, male and female slaves.” Walter Benjamin, the great German Jewish cultural critic, who committed suicide while trying to escape Nazi-controlled Europe, said that “there is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism.” He meant that every complicated and beautiful thing humanity ever made has, if you look at it long enough, a shadow, a history of oppression. As a matter of plain historical fact, that seems right. It was a long and traumatic journey from the invention of writing to your book club’s discussion of Jodi Picoult’s latest."

"The news here is that the lives of most of our progenitors were better than we think. We’re flattering ourselves by believing that their existence was so grim and that our modern, civilized one is, by comparison, so great. Still, we are where we are, and we live the way we live, and it’s possible to wonder whether any of this illuminating knowledge about our hunter-gatherer ancestors can be useful to us. Suzman wonders the same thing. He discusses John Maynard Keynes’s famous 1930 essay “The Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren.” Keynes speculated that if the world continued to get richer we would naturally end up enjoying a high standard of living while doing much less work. He thought that “the economic problem” of having enough to live on would be solved, and “the struggle for subsistence” would be over:
When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession—as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life—will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.

The world has indeed got richer, but any such shift in morals and values is hard to detect. Money and the value system around its acquisition are fully intact. Greed is still good.

The study of hunter-gatherers, who live for the day and do not accumulate surpluses, shows that humanity can live more or less as Keynes suggests. It’s just that we’re choosing not to. A key to that lost or forsworn ability, Suzman suggests, lies in the ferocious egalitarianism of hunter-gatherers. For example, the most valuable thing a hunter can do is come back with meat. Unlike gathered plants, whose proceeds are “not subject to any strict conventions on sharing,” hunted meat is very carefully distributed according to protocol, and the people who eat the meat that is given to them go to great trouble to be rude about it. This ritual is called “insulting the meat,” and it is designed to make sure the hunter doesn’t get above himself and start thinking that he’s better than anyone else. “When a young man kills much meat,” a Bushman told the anthropologist Richard B. Lee, “he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. . . . We can’t accept this.” The insults are designed to “cool his heart and make him gentle.” For these hunter-gatherers, Suzman writes, “the sum of individual self-interest and the jealousy that policed it was a fiercely egalitarian society where profitable exchange, hierarchy, and significant material inequality were not tolerated.”

This egalitarian impulse, Suzman suggests, is central to the hunter-gatherer’s ability to live a life that is, on its own terms, affluent, but without abundance, without excess, and without competitive acquisition. The secret ingredient seems to be the positive harnessing of the general human impulse to envy. As he says, “If this kind of egalitarianism is a precondition for us to embrace a post-labor world, then I suspect it may prove a very hard nut to crack.” There’s a lot that we could learn from the oldest extant branch of humanity, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to put the knowledge into effect. A socially positive use of envy—now, that would be a technology almost as useful as fire."
jamescscott  fire  technology  hunter-gatherers  2017  anthropology  johnlanchester  anthropocene  sedentism  agriculture  nomads  nomadism  archaeology  writing  legibility  illegibility  state  civilization  affluence  abundance  jamessuzman  bushmen  kalahari  namibia  khoisan  mesopotamia  egalitarianism  humans  self-interest  jealousy  greed  inequality  accumulation  motivation  society  happiness  money 
october 2017 by robertogreco
The Rational Male -- The Lie of Equality
'Reader KFG dropped this insight in last week’s post and I thought it was very relevant to something I’ve been contemplating for a while now: "As a general principle genetic fitness is always relative to the environment. A spread of genetic traits makes a species more robust, because it will have individuals better suited for survival in a greater range of environments. -- There’s more than one breed of working dog because no one is “better.” Each has its specific strengths, paid for with corresponding weaknesses. A terrier is to small to hunt wolves, but you’re not going to stuff a wolfhound down a badger hole." -- ... There is no such thing as ‘equality’ because life doesn’t happen in a vacuum. -- The tests that a chaotic world throws at human beings is never equal or balanced in measure to our strengths to pass them. Equality, in the terms that egalitarian equalists are comfortable in defining it, implies that that every individual is equally matched in both value and utility within a totality of random challenges. Aside from this being patently false, it also demerits both strengths and weaknesses when that individual succeeds or fails at a particular challenge as a result of their individual character. -- This is ironic in the sense that it provides easy, repeatable, excuses for a person’s successes or failures. If someone wins, well, we’re all equal so that person’s strengths which led to the success can be passed off as a result of assumed or circumstantial ‘privileges’ that made them better suited to their challenges – rarely is their hard work recognized, and even then, it’s colored by the overcoming of a presumed-unequal adversity that grants them ‘privilege’. If they fail, again, we’re all equal, so the failure is proof of a deficit, or a handicap, or a presumed repression of an equal person in a state of baseline equal challenge. -- As KFG was stating, “each dog has it’s strengths for a given task”. One dog is not as valuable as another depending on what determines a positive outcome. What equalism attempts do to – what it has the ludicrous audacity to presume – is to alter reality to fit the needs of the individual in order to make all individuals equally valuable agents. This is the ‘participation trophy’ mentality, but it is also a glaring disregard for existential reality. Which, again, contradicts the idea of individual exceptionalism; reality must be made to be equal to accommodate the existence of the equally valuable individual. -- To say you don’t believe in equality is only outrageous because it offends the predominant social narrative of today. It seemingly denies the inherent value of the individual, but what is conveniently never addressed is how an environment, condition and state defines what is functionally valued for any given instance. Like the dog bred to hunt ferrets out of their warrens is not the functional equal of a dog bred to run down prey at 45 MPH. The value of the individual is only relevant to the function demanded of it. -- The default misunderstanding (actually deliberate) most equalists believe is that functional worth is personal worth. -- ...for the equalist mindset...It seems dehumanizing to even consider an individuals functional value. Human’s capacity to learn and train and practice to become proficient or excel in various functions is truly a marvel of our evolution. Brain plasticity being what it is, makes our potential for learning and overcoming our environments what separates us from other animals. We all have the potential to be more than we are in functional value, and this is the root of the emotional appeal of equalists. It’s seems so negative to presume we aren’t functional equals because we have the capacity and potential to become more functionally valuable. The appeal is one of optimism. -- What this appeal ignores is the functional value of an individual in the now; the two dogs bred for different purposes. What this appeal also ignores is the ever-changing nature of reality and the challenges it presents to an individual in the now and how this defines value. What equalism cannot do is separate functional value from potential value. -- Adopting a mindset that accepts complementarity between the sexes and between individuals, one that celebrates and utilizes innate strengths and talents, yet also embraces the weaknesses and compensates for them is a far healthier one that presuming baseline equivalency. Understanding the efficacy of applying strengths to weaknesses cooperatively while acknowledging we all aren’t the same damn dog will be a key to dissolving the fantasy of egalitarian equalism and create a more balanced and healthier relations between the sexes. Embracing the fact that condition, environment, reality and the challenges they pose defines our usefulness is far better than to assume any single individual could ever be a self-contained, self-sufficient island unto themselves – that is what equalism would have us believe.'
evolution  rkselectiontheory  faggotry  egalitarianism  delusion 
september 2017 by adamcrowe
Anonymous Conservative -- Duke Recruits Men To Fight Toxic Masculinity
'The trigger is the sight of competitive inequality. Something deep within r-strategists, probably an insecurity and fear, sets them off when they see someone or some group, strong and competitive. They are designed for a world where everyone is designed and programmed to flee from conflict and competition. When they see the opposite, it sets them off. When they see those who brazenly compete, and even just those who would be successful in competition, they need to take measures to prevent them from succeeding, and eradicate their competitive nature. -- The goal is to try and condition everyone who would succeed in competition to flee from it, and to instill in everyone, including themselves, the idea that those who would compete are wrong, and society will rise together to suppress them and forestall their inevitable victory. “Masculinity,” “Capitalism,” “Supremacism,” even just being “Big” like big oil, bug business, or big pharma, are all triggers that will ignite the leftist’s drive to turn the crowd on the successful. -- You can see how if given free reign, they will destroy a great society, filled with successful competitors. Every single case of the successful will be identified, set upon, and the masses will be turned upon them, destroying the very engine which provided for the greatness of the society. -- It is tough to fight this if r is ascendant. As incapable r-strategists multiply, and the rest of the population finds it easier to remain quiet than stand up and fight due to the r-environment, it is almost preordained greatness will fall everywhere it stands. Greatness becomes Gulliver, tied down by millions of little leftist lilliputians, while everyone else in society avoids the scene to escape into their own lives peacefully. -- But that will bring back K, and as it returns, the normals will rise and begin to demand the leftists accept their natural place in the order, and greatness be allowed to rise. In our case, we have so leveraged the future that even as we rise, there will be no stopping the collapse to come. And when that hits, the K-selected will not be content to go their own way anymore.'
rkselectiontheory  ideology  faggotry  envy  subversion  threatnarrative  illiberalism  egalitarianism  socialism  communism 
september 2017 by adamcrowe

« earlier    

related tags

****  2008  2012  2013  2014  2015  2017  2018  500  abundance  abuse  accessibility  accumulation  actoninstitute  adaptation  admissions  adventuresinmissingthepoint  advertising  affluence  agencyvspatiency  agriculture  altright  altruism  americandream  anarchism  anarchy  anthropocene  anthropology  anti-elitism  apocalypse  archaeology  architecture  art-of-living  art  article  astronomy  audio  australia  authoritarianism  automation  autonomy  banking  barrylord  bias  biodiversity  biology  blog  blogging  book  bookreview  books  bushmen  business  c.k.  california  camillapower  canon  capitalism  care  caring  catholicism  cathryntownsend  censorship  change  changemaking  childhood  children  christianmackauer  citizenship  civics  civilization  class  cli-fi  climate  climatechange  coal  collaboration  collapse  collectivism  colleges  communication  communism  community  competition  complementarianism  computing  conclusion07  conquest  consciouscapitalism  conservatism  consumerism  consumption  content  control  criticaltheory  criticalthinking  criticism  critique  culture  cv  danish  davidgraeber  davidwengrow  dc:contributor=butlerjames  dc:contributor=frasepeter  dc:creator=tamasgm  dctagged  debate  debt  decentralization  delusion  democracy  denial  deschooling  design  designfiction  determinism  directaction  directdemocracy  disagreement  discourse  discoverability  discussion  distributive  diy  domestic  dominance  dup  dynamism  ease  echr  ecj  eco-fascism  eco-socialism  ecology  economic-history  economics  editorial  education-policy  education  eea-efta  efficiency  egalitarian  electoral-fraud  eliascanetti  elitism  embodiment  emissions  emotionalism  employment-policy  encyclopedia  energy-security  energy  entrepreneurship  environment  environmentalism  envy  equal  equality-issues  equality  españa  ethics  eu-budget  eu-holdingback  eu-parliament  eu-propaganda  eu-referendum  eu-taxes  eu-ttip  eugenics  euro  europe  european-union  euroscepticism  eurozone  evel  evolution  experimentaljetset  exterminism  extremism  fabianism  faggotry  fairness-issues  fairness  falklands  fascism  fdr  fear  feminism  fiction  financial-regulation  fire  firearms-policy  foi  food-security  food  football  foreign-aid  foreign-policy  forests  formality  fossil-fuels  fossilfuels  fracking  france-economy  france-politics  frasepeter  freddiedeboer  free-markets  free-schools  free-speech  free-trade  freedom  freespeech  futbol  future  gay-rights  gender-balance  gender-politics  gender  generalists  generosity  genocide  georgeorwell  germany-politics  global-warming  globalisation  globalism  glvo  google  government-debt  government  grabbing  gramscian-project  graphicdesign  gratitude  greatdepression  greatrecession  greece  greed  green-authoritarian  green-party  green-religion  green-taxes  groupsize  growth  gun-control  gynocentrism  hannaharendt  hansweil  happiness  harvardbusinessschool  heinrichblücher  heliocentrism  hierarchies  hierarchy  highered  highereducation  hilarycallan  history  honesty  hope  horizontality  howwelearn  howweteach  howwework  howwewrite  humans  hungary  hunter-gatherers  huntergatherer  ianmorris  ideology  illegibility  illiberalism  immigration  income  independence  individualism  individualusm  industrialization  inequality  informality  information  integrity  intelligence  interdependence  internet  internetmonk  internships  interview  isms  isolation  jacobinmag  jacobklein  jamescscott  jamessuzman  jealousy  jennarmbrust  joanretallack  jobs  johankruyf  john_cochrane  john_stossel  johndewey  johnlanchester  johnpiper  judgement  justice  kalahari  kathleengibson  khoisan  kurtwolff  labor  labour  language  law  lcproject  leadership  learning  left  leftism  legibility  leonbostein  leostrauss  lewrockwell  liberal  liberalism  libertarianism  liberty  libraries  list  listening  literature  louis  lrc  luck  luckegalitarianism  makers  making  management  margaretatwood  marriage  marxism  masculinity  materialism  media  medium  men  merit  meritocracy  mesopotamia  methodology  migration  military  mindfulness  mobrule  mondragon  money  moralenhancementdrugs  morality  morethanhuman  mornafinnegan  motivation  multispecies  murraybookchin  murrayrothbard  mutualaid  myth  name  namibia  nathanrobinson  nature  neoliberalism  neolithic  nepotism  newcalvinism  newdeal  newspeak  nomadism  nomads  novara  novato  nytimes  openstudioproject  opportunity  optimism  orbanviktor  organizaedlabor  organzations  ownership  parasitism  parenting  participation  partnership  pathologicalaltruism  patrickconner  paulmason  paulmellars  pedagogy  peterthiel  philosophy  piketty  plants  platforms  pocketsofutopia  poliiticaleconomy  political  politicalcorrectness  politicaleconomy  politics  popularassemblies  populism  pornography  postfordism  poverty  power  predation  privateschools  privatization  privilege  process  production  profit  progress  progressive  progressivism  protectionism  psychology  publicdiscourse  publicgood  publicschools  purpose  race  racism  radicalgeography  radicalism  ranking  rawls  reactionary  reactionformation  read  reading  realism  rebeccasolnit  recessions  reddit  redistribution  reference  religion  renewableenergy  rentiership  rentism  rents  research  resilience  resourcefulness  review  revolution  richardwolff  rkselectiontheory  rob-pike  robertmaynardhutchins  robin_hanson  role-models  rothbard  safety  sanctuary  sat  scandinavia  scapegoating  scarcity  schooliness  schooling  sciefi  science  sedentism  selectivity  self-care  self-interest  selfishness  sented  sex  sex_differences  sexism  sexuality  shame  shamingtactics  simonspringer  slavery  small  soccer  social-justice  social  socialchange  socialengineering  socialism  socialresearch  socialsafetynet  socialscience  society  sociology  software  sojourners  spain  specialization  speculativefiction  speed  spinozaquestion  sports  sputnik  standardization  standardizedtesting  standards  stanford  state  statism  statistics  stefanmolyneux  stewardship  stories  storytelling  stringfellowbarr  studioculture  subversion  sustainability  sweden  taxation  taxes  tcsnmy  teaching  technology  testing  thedailybeast  thefederalist  theology  therapy  thesunmagazine  thoreau  threatnarrative  timothy_taylor  title9  totaalvoetbal  totalfootball  transcontextualism  transitions  treatment  trumpdonald  truth  tumblr  tyrants  uk  un  uncertainty  unemployment  unions  universities  unknowing  unschooling  ursulaleguin  us  utopia  values  vanguardism  vanishing  viatwitter  victimhood  voluntaryassociation  vulnerability  walking  wandering  wealth  welfare  well-being  wernerjaeger  wikipedia  wildlife  women  woods  work  wp  writing  xenophobia  zapatistas 

Copy this bookmark: