Conference videos

A conference on biological basis of preferences and behavior took place at the University of Chicago May 4–5, 2012. For all of you who like me cannot access the videos through the links provided. Here is a list of links to download the videos. For additional information please refer to the website (http://bfi.uchicago.edu/events/20120504_biologicalbasis/).

 


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Advertisements

Is there a way to reconcile science and religion?

In an attempt to stir up emotions the height valued Journal Nature published a world view article on science and religion Sometimes science must give way to religion. As probably intended this article triggered comments that either support or debunk that idea. Here on this blog page the first and only attempt to reconcile, the fauceir stance:

The big fauceirs science and religion are related. They share a common ancestor, which is the natural religion of the hunter-gatherer society. Then sometimes in the past, they parted, each of them starting its own life and evolutionary path. While religions remained influential for millennia, the world is dominated by science today. That’s simply because evolution favors the more advanced fauceirs. Science is much more flexible and adaptable to interpret and employ natural phenomena. Science is so advanced today that it virtually exclusively guarantees our social progress in technology, economy and culture. That doesn’t mean religion is of no importance any more. On the contrary, but the evolutionary difference between science and religion is so wide and it is widening with increasing pace. To employ an analogy from biology, the difference is about the same as between fungi and mammals.

From those fauceir considerations the following conclusions can be drawn:

  1. Science and religion will coexist for ever.

  2. Science and religion will occupy different sociological (ecological) niches

  3. Competition between science and religion will never end. (Science is tempted to expel religion from their niches, and, on the other hand religion tries to re-occupy lost territory, if even parasitically. The nature article mentioned above mirrors that eternal struggle.)

For my part the fauceir concept is a good way to reconcile both sides. But that will fail, I’m sure, as fauceirs are made to defend its existence, and so the fauceir concept will not be hailed as a solution for reconciliation but rather ignored or attacked from both sides, instead.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Fauceir thoughts on China’s one-child policy

The economist drew my attention to the following story. The article vividly describes a picture that can easily be found on the Internet. The graphic picture and the stirring story behind it offer an opportunity for Western mass media to disparage Chinese one-child policy. I did not replicate it here as I realized that all mass media don’t show the photo and I’m even not sure whether it is a falsification. By clicking the image above you may find it. Also depending on your location you may use the google search string.

I won’t go on to participate in the debate about China’s policy. This is a mere ideological questions, and may the combatants in each camp gain satisfaction in attacking each other. Unfortunately such a squabble over ideology rarely helps the victims.

The question to be looked into here is what are the implications about fauceir theory. Well one point has already touched above, that is the struggle between big social fauceirs (empires) which is mirrored in this ideological struggle. The other point is to illustrate differences in the way that social fauceir (the government in China and the culture in the West) controls the behavior of sub-fauceirs, the families in this case. In European countries as in China we have a low, socially controlled, birth rates. While in China this is rather simply accomplished by governmental pressure in Western countries this as rather fulfilled by economic incentives. This is consistent with the fertility regulation discussed before in this blog.

Next this finding demonstrate the fauceir inheritance rule. While the fauceir evolutionary history in the in West favored a social birth control through economic pressure, luring the population into satisfaction by buying products, Chinas economy at the time when the one-child policy was introduced had not such a developed economy and first of all not such fervent consumers yet to exert birth control through economic incentives. But as China’s economy changes the method of control will change too, so we already witness the effect that Chinese people who inhabit big cities refuse to have children at all even though birth control policy is no more such restrictive there.

Finally social birth control regardless of its method of accomplishment illustrates the reason for the Malthus Paradox. Human birth control was essential to take place otherwise as Malthus predicted famine and social unrest would ensue. We can witness such social instability everywhere on the planet where social birth control is not effective.

What are the projections about the development of social birth control. One may conclude, that according to fauceir evolution rules, social birth control will be fine tuned in the future. So far in all societies that exert such a control there is an off-switch only. The challenge will be to evolve an on-switch too, and to turn on reproduction of specific people. To my knowledge this is only possible by test tube babies. Not a very popular idea at the moment, but sooner or later social leaders will come up with it. I’m sure.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Evolution of (anti-)social behavior by penitentiaries?

This is actually a comment made to this blog entry slightly extended and embellished by pictures and links to the quoted websites. Further, this blog entry refers to a book which offer an interesting discussion at amazon. Probably I will tackle some points made in this discussion later. Probably, I will not buy this book though—you simply cannot buy all interesting books.

Now about the argument and the fallacies involved. The blog article claims that because violent people go into jail where is less opportunity to reproduce, “we are still selecting against antisocial behaviour very strongly in our societies”.

  1. Humans are endowed with natural reflexes not to harm other members of the same species. By the way all mammals are. People who train martial art have to make great efforts to overrule those reflexes, so there is no need to biologically evolve that trait.
  2. The most serious crimes in history have been committed by men in behalf of the society they were a member of. [There are only few examples, and those of course exist, where men or women killed or tortured other people for sheer pleasure. Those instances are so rare that we safely may call them pathologic and not normal human behavior.]

Suicide bombers have no personal benefit from destroying the lives of other, obviously, but the social fauceir that created them obviously has. Suicide bomber are weapons in the fight between societies.
Picture from http://www.waronline.org/en/terror/suicide.htm

Conclusively, cultural and not genetic inheritance is responsible for crime. What isolation of criminals into a penitentiary contributes to cultural evolution is an entirely different question I’m not going to cover here. Some aspects have been discussed already. But now and here other questions concern me.

To solve the question why people commit crimes despite their inborn reflexes, you have to apply fauceir theory: As biological beings humans are slave fauceirs to societies they live with, and those societies in early human history acquired (evolved) the capability to overrun the inborn human reflexes. Social fauceirs evolved that trait because it was beneficial, a selectional advantage. If a primeval group was able to kill members of an other group, their chances to survive on limited resources increased. Later on, societies evolved ideologies to mobilize ever more people to kill ever more other people. The holocaust and WW2 that killed millions of people were initiated in behalf of social interests justified by a specific ideology. But even less serious crimes have had their origin in societies, gangs or murderous families, that taught their members to pursue group interests and not to be too merciful against others.

Now what about the the genetic selection against anti-social behavior. That exists of course since the advent of human societies, so I cannot agree more. That tendency is a typical evolutionary one (the fauceir rule of increasing enslavement), but I disagree that this means reduced crime rates. Josef Mengele for instance, exhibited perfect social behavior in his society, Nazi Germany, whereas an other person from the same period, Claus von Stauffenberg, showed typical anti-social behavior, which would have saved many human lives but regrettably failed.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.