The Eusocialization of Humanity

Political acts sometimes reveal more about evolution than intended, so did the recently enacted laws by the Canadian government. They actually prove two laws of evolution:

  1. The evolution of eusociality entails the generation of an asexual class of workers and soldiers.
  2. With evolutionary progress the adaptation of behavior accelerates.

To those who have no background information about the gender related laws, this video can be recommended or for those who better like to read.

Eusociality is a term that has its origin in biology and ecology. It is the most extreme form of division of labor among social animals such as ants and bees. Only a few members of a colony are involved in reproduction while the vast majority carries out day-to-day chores. While the former are called queen and drones the latter are workers and soldiers and they are usually sterile.

Honeybees, for instance, have several ways to secure that reproduction remains a privilege of but a few. They decide by nutrition which one of the female larvae can become a queen. The so called royal jelly fed to a larva allows her to become a queen. Also pheromones, odors secreted by the queen, prevent larvae from becoming sexual. If this were not enough, worker policing completes the job. Worker policing describes the killing of eggs that were laid by worker bees that accidentally are not completely sterile.

Generating asexual workers and soldiers is an evolutionary advantage, of course. Getting rid of mating behavior and all those emotions and feelings attached to it keeps them focused on their chores, so no wonder that natural selection helped this trait to evolve and prevail.

It took several hundred million years for these traits to evolve though. First insects were seen about 400 million years ago, but sex determination and sterile workers evolved at the same time when Dinosaurs roamed the world. That is 250 million years ago.

Humans are much faster in that respect. They only exist for a million years on this planet and already make big steps to generate eusocial asexual workers and soldiers. The lever of control used by humans, social pressure, is much more effective than mere biological mechanisms of control. How this works, the Canadian government recently demonstrated.

Conclusively evolutionary theory is so helpful to analyze politics that’s why politicians notoriously deny it. Forgive the politicians they never understand what they are actually doing. They just act out of instinct which is evolution.

Advertisements

The Ronfeld-(TIMN)-Chain

timn-chain

In order to avoid confusion in my previous post, I’m going to provide some explanation for the term of Ronfeld Chain. The name is derived from a comment made by some David Ronfeldt (maybe it’s him working for the RAND institute on a Social Evolution Forum webpage.

He summarizes his TIMN-theory as follows:

EXPLANATION: In brief, TIMN theory finds that, over the ages, people have come up with four cardinal forms of organization for constructing their societies: tribes (or the T form), hierarchical institutions (the I form), markets (M), and information-age networks (N). Each form of organization has different purposes and uses, along with different philosophical and strategic implications. Each form also has both bright and dark sides, and can be used for good or ill; societies can get them wrong as well as right, in ways that affect their usage of the other forms.

Concerning evolution he further explains:

In notational terms, this means that societies have evolved across the centuries in a preferred historical progression: from monoform (T-only), to biform (T+I), to triform (T+I+M), and now potentially to quadriform (T+I+M+N) types of societies.

This theory is consistent with the fauceir theory and quite handy to explain a lot of social phenomena, so I will translate it in more detail in faucier terms.

T: The tribal form is the most ancient way to organize human social groups based on biological needs such as provision of food and propagation and it involves some elementary types of division of labor in child care, hunting, and protection.

I: I’d better call it the imperatorial or ideological form. It is the way to control larger social groups which includes institutional hierarchies and ideologies and was made possible with increased agricultural production.

M: The market form. It is the way to control different social groups across countries (imperial states). This form became dominant with the industrial revolution.

N: The network. Though the network is not the hallmark of this form, markets form networks too for instance, the cardinal sign of this networks is rationality. All human brains contribute to this network one way or the other, and though it already can be felt everywhere, soon the contribution of artificial intelligence (AI) will increase substantially.

As we are talking about fauceir evolution all the forms are control units which control other fauceirs and may come under control themselves in evolutionary history. Eventually, a hierarchy is build. A hierarchy is not a divine order. On the contrary, it is the product of fierce competition, and as the element fauceirs keep evolving themselves it is like an arms race between host and parasite to keep the subdued fauceir under firm control.

The control that had been established by human social evolution is the chain of control, the Ronfeld Chain.

T < I < M < N

In summarizing human social evolutionary history, we have to recognize that most of the hunter gatherer societies up to about 30.000 years ago were dominated by tribal fauceirs. With the advent of agriculture, tribes were overruled by imperatorial fauceirs. The most ingenious innovation to keep tribal fauceirs in check was creating the family that is private tribes. But not only in families. Tribal fauceirs survived in some rare cultures and fringe groups that most often are called asocial or even criminal indicating that these fauceirs are under heavy control now.

The prime time of imperatorial fauceirs was about 10.000 years ago and since about 2.000 years we observe a steady decline of its influence. The imperatorial style of governance already existed in hunter gatherer societies which does not come as a surprise because the system of alpha males we inherited from our primate ancestors. But is was not before ideology was invented that tribal behavior could be effectively controlled across tribes. The only thing that was necessary was that a tribe accepted an ideology. We known from history how bloody business it was to spread ideology throughout several tribes.

Next step on the ladder was control by market fauceirs. Though archeological evidence proves that people traded some 60.000 years ago ( see here and and here and the references listed there) and the many activities of merchants is known from history, it was not before recently and after the industrial revolution in particular that economic fauceirs gained significant control on both imperatorial and tribal fauceirs. An insightful anecdotal evidence how this takeover took place over the centuries of industrial revolution on British Island is the history of freemasonry. Aside of secret societies, today numerous ways exist by which market fauceirs control the imperatorial ones: lobbying, the monitary system, and by corporates sponsored think tanks and NGOs to influence policy makers. Market fauceirs also force tribal ones under control. The most prominent example is the disbandment of families by economic means of coercion. Women had to work to also provide for the family and childcare was handed over to the government. According to a report by Aaron Russo it was thoroughly planned by Rockefeller. Maybe that’s true in the US, but it happened everywhere even in countries like the Soviet Union where Rockefeller had rather negligible influence, I guess. It is just what economy demands.

Next and so far final step is the takeover by the rational network fauceirs. Rational fauceirs also exist for long, but there influence on economy and ideology was rather limited. It was only with the advent of the internet and the spread of new ways of communication that the influcence of the rational network became obvious. Brexit and the Trump election are symptoms of the control shift from market to network fauceirs.

For us ordinary humans two things remain difficult to understand:

1. We are just witnessing a competition between market and network fauceirs. The market by far is not under full control yet and it will never be. The fight between these two fauceir units is fierce and will become fiercer the next years. The two fighting fauceir parties take what they can get control of as weapons, including us, the people. We people contribute in several ways to this combat. We participate as members of the imperatorial or tribal fauceirs.

2. But, we also contribute to the network simply by developing rational arguments. Any rational endeavor and exchange of opinions contributes to the network in a way that is not foreseeable. A single human individual contributing to the network has no control of the network. The network controls itself and the people contributing.

Let’s give an example. Now many people write articles like this one. In this article the authors try to explain what happened when Trump was elected, and although the authors did not find a point that I can agree with, they made a valuable contribution on how tribal fauceir control is exerted by both imperatorial and market fauceirs that can be used by the network to tap the control mechanism in the future. Therefore keep in mind that a single person’s contribution to the network might not be visible and conscious instead it might be accidental and work in a not intended direction.

Conclusively, while ready this article you were making your contribution to human social too. Thank You.


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.

On the inability of pundits to explain Trumpism

This is actually a response to an article “Darwin Applied to Trump: Can Evolutionary Theory Help Us Understand the Appeal of Donald Trump?” and the ensuing discussion published on Social Evolution Forum.

screen-shot-2017-01-18-at-3-21-56-pm-812x442

Though I agree with Bryan Malone’s point that evolution is random at times, this is not true all the time. To propose the term development for a directed process is not a perfect solution either as we observe different degrees and mechanisms among those directed processes. Instead of such a black and white picture of evolution and development, Fauceir Theory’s relatedness allows for a gradual scale between an individual’s development and the evolution at large.

David Ronfeldt has an excellent point too. His TIMN classification exactly reflects the Fauceir approach of different levels of social evolution.

EXPLANATION: In brief, TIMN theory finds that, over the ages, people have come up with four cardinal forms of organization for constructing their societies: tribes (or the T form), hierarchical institutions (the I form), markets (M), and information-age networks (N). Each form of organization has different purposes and uses, along with different philosophical and strategic implications. Each form also has both bright and dark sides, and can be used for good or ill; societies can get them wrong as well as right, in ways that affect their usage of the other forms.

And it is that these levels determine the direction of success in evolutionary adaptation. What Lesley Newson and Peter J. Richerson described in their main article is just a snapshot of that top-down control of evolution M->I->T. Economic changes (M), the concentration of production in particular, led to political changes (I), which are hailed as democracy and social security measures, eventually resulted in destruction of traditional family values (T).

Though I agree with David’s theoretical view, I fervently disagree with his opinion about Russia being just TI. This is outrageously ignorant and merely mirrors the propaganda he consumed.

Such propaganda and personal involvement, my dear colleagues, constitute the main hindrance of your comprehending the whole picture of social evolution. Given the Ronfeld Chain most of you are working for institutions that are placed either between M and I (that is your institutions receives money from economic “sponsors” and you “convince” policy makers) or you are placed between I and T (receiving governmental “grants” to “educate” the public), or both. Both of these positions render you actors in the ongoing evolutionary process, and both of these positions make you blind to understand social evolution in its complexity.

Aside of some close observations of the transformation of families praised above already, the article retreats into ideology and propaganda as soon as mechanisms at the M and I level are concerned. At this point ontological fallacies are committed repeatedly when using such vague terms such as Western/non-Western populations, democracy, modernism and so on. What the article misses out entirely is the N level. Which comes a little bit as a surprise. Scientists in all fields increasingly rely on networks to develop their ideas, on the other hand they are nearly unable to apply these practical experiences to society as a whole. And herein consists my major critique on this article as it completely blinds out the network of rational thinkers behind Trump’s success.

This is BTW is in accordance with the fauceir rule of blindness which states that fauceirs cannot perceive what is outside their scope of control. For that reason all institutions heavily involved in the Ronfeld Chain between M and T (including academics, mainstream media outlets, and intelligent agencies) miscalculated Trump’s trumps victory. And it is also typical of these institutions that they invent explanations that are limited to the scope of their own activity, so intelligence agencies blame Russians interference as they interfere in almost all elections worldwide, the mainstream media blame fake news as they produce lies perpetually, and academics blame tribal behavior as this is what they are allowed to study and to control. By contrast among those who anticipated Trump’s victory was Peter Thiel who as data analyst was closer to N than all the others.

vertebrate-brain-regions

The evolution of the brain from fish to modern humans is characterized by growth of the cortex (Telencephalon) while the other parts remained almost the same size.

The others simply cannot see the body of N controlling M-T much the same way as brainstem neurons cannot see that they are controlled by the cerebral cortex neurons. As with the evolution of vertebrates in societies, the body of N will grow, and this is how evolution makes me optimistic about the future.

PS.: Don’t take me wrong. I never said that Trump is the incarnation of N. Far from that. N is a fauceir, and this in Fauceir Theory means a rational control network, a system, that has no physical representation. While reading this article your brain, for instance, also belonged to it. Thank you for this valuable contribution.


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.

Why Academics Love to Publish Their Ideas in Books

book-pile

Because by all their narrative they try to prepare the ground for an irrational case. But, rationality, on the contrary, strips all superfluous words.

Narrated stories promote subconscious judgments. Sometimes such stories hardly bear reference to the case in question, so they hardly support the case in a rational way. They do so irrationally, though. The mechanism is like hypnosis. In hypnosis, critical thinking is turned off, which allows to fill the memory with “facts” that never were seriously scrutinized. These so infused facts on a subconscious level influence judgment, promote irrationally.

Narrated stories stray from the main case. Stories in the way the authors put them seem to support the case. However, all these little stories can be rationalized in different ways that support the opposite case. In fact, one is tempted to counter the narratives, to put the facts straight, and to make the explanation more succinct. As those stories raise additional points of contention, they work like red herrings. They provide topics a discussion can be easily locked in while keeping the main argument safe and untouched.

Examples.

Ian Morris [1] narrates stories about war. His point is always that war is terrible but the time after it is more peaceful and progressive. The question that he didn’t touch is do exist other reasons for peace and prosperity after a war? Unfortunately, after a couple of pages of lulling details only few people raise that question.

Andy McNab and Kevin Dutton [2] start their case with a story about a goatherd, an innocent young boy, who has to be killed because he accidentally watched a secret operation in order to not jeopardize the entire mission. The questions that remain unanswered in this book are was it really necessary or existed other ways to save the mission, and was the mission really worth it.

Though I admit that not all scientific novelty can be put on twitter, and some elaborate scientific theories need books to be understood, this is not true for books that support a single argument, in particular if coupled with extensive story telling.

[1] Morris, Ian. 2014. War! What Is It Good For?: Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

[2] McNab, Andy, and Kevin Dutton. 2014. The Good Psychopath’s Guide to Success. Bantam Press.


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.

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters

Source: Wikipedia

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos.

Applied to this article [https://evolution-institute.org/article/evolving-organizations/]: The lack of conceptual clarity creates a thicket of wordiness to disguise that deficiency. No offense intended, I just want to mention that fauceir theory that is around for years and does provide that clear concept.

For instance: social evolution as every evolution entails the co-evolution of parasites and defense mechanism. One of these parasites and the most hideous is war. But there are many of them. An other not so harmful but still quite annoying is resources wasted for meaningless research.

Being involved in a social parasite distorts the view on parasitism, so no proper ideas of fighting social parasites can be expected from parasitic research which rather puts asleep reason.


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.

The Rules of Religious Conversion and Adaptation

If we analyze adaptation and conversion two important attributes of a religion have to be distinguished. The type of religion and the ideology. The ideology describes the set of rules while type defines how these rules come into existance. Consequently, type is the more abstract term. It is the common denominator. Several quite contradictory religious ideologies can be hosted by the same type.

There are the following rules.

1. Rule

The most fierce competition is among different ideologies of the same type. While different ideologies of different type can easily tolerate each other.

For example: Judaism and Islam are of the same type, so they hate each other while both can easily accept or being accepted by Christianity that is of a different type.

2. Rule

While ideologies of the same type of religion have a fierce competition. The members of such a religion, actually the people, have not such a problem to switch to an other ideology if it is of the same type.

Example: (1) The well established religions know this quite well. Therefore they use perpetual indoctrination to prevent such conversions. (2) After WW2 German Nazis, all of them devoted stateists, had a few problems to assume a new stateist ideology both in the Western and the Eastern part.

3. Rule

For a member to change the type of religion even if the ideology resembles is difficult, as the way how rules come into existence is deeply engrained in a human’s behavior and social traditions. It either takes several generations or a genius to perform this step up the evolutionary ladder. It is easier to drop down.

Example: It is a well known fact that before changing the type of religion people rather adapt the new ideology the type already assumed. This was why so many Christian missionaries failed. This is also why in African countries, even with dominating Christian religion, satanism and other forms of superstition thrive. Finally, this also explains why the exclusively black American evangelical believer adhere to stateism.

These rules can be easily deduced from Fauceir Theory because of its analogy to biological evolution.


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.

Religious Evolution and Political Preferences

A study that analyzes political leanings of religious groups confirms the Fauceir Theory of religious evolution. The study that was conducted by the PEW Institute found mainly the following trends.

source: PewResearchCenter

  1. Protestants are the groups that most tend to vote for republicans.
  2. All Christians taken together are more pro republican than all other groups including atheistic groups.
  3. The atheistic groups do not differ very much from other monotheistic groups.

Admittedly, there are some religious groups that I have no particular knowledge about, so I cannot explain their actual place in the diagram, but I will discuss the above mentioned trends.

In order to correlate these trends, two questions have to be answered:

  1. What are the trends in religious evolution.
  2. What is the ideological basis of a political leanings towards a party?

We start with the first question. In every evolutionary process there exists a simple rule, the time rule. This rule states that the latest innovation is the most advanced, the heighestly evolved. Or the other way around, the older the more archaic and primitive. This rule is generally true in biological, economical, scientific, technical (you name it) branches of evolution. And of course, it’s true in religious evolution too.

There are well known exceptions to that rule of course, but these exceptions follow an other rule. They are adaptations of archaic entities to recently opened ecological niches. This for instance happens with viruses and other pathogens. But nobody would argue that a recently originated virus is more evolutionary advanced than a vertebrate.

Thus there is a third rule of evolution. The more advanced an entity the more complex and the better adaptable it is. This third rule, admittedly, is difficult to prove sometimes. Some scientists therefore argue that this rule doesn’t exist at all. But the people who argue that way are mostly those that ideologically cluster with non-humanistic religions, which will be discussed later.

Of course, all these rules apply to religious evolution too. The general path of religious evolutionary advancement can be described in four steps.

  1. Shamanism or religious believes that we use to call superstition today.
  2. Stateistic religions that are centered on the ruler. Depending on the time in history we may call this type of religion pharaoism, kingism, or stateism.
  3. Theistic are religions that are centered on many Gods (polytheistic) or a single God (monotheistic). Theistic religions put the ruler under control of an even more important authority, which reduced a ruler’s capriciousness. While capriciousness was still an issue in polytheistic religions—the various Gods did rarely agree—this room for interpretation was further narrowed by monotheism.
  4. Humanistic religions are clearly human centered, which to my knowledge is only Christianity to these days.

Some people may want to add Mormons as the most recent innovation, but I’m not sure, as I don’t know exactly how this religion works. I’m sure, though, that atheism not exactly is an advancement. As Larken Rose famously elaborates in his book “The Most Dangerous Superstition”, most atheist are not really non-religious they just believe in the state instead of God which borders to superstitions and is at best characterized as stateism. Some atheists might be humanists, but most atheists just stepped back to stateism.

What is it that makes Christianity to stand out against other religions. It is that by Christianity for the first time in history human interests became the ultimate measure of ethical rules. We know that with pharaoism the ruler was the undisputed maker of rules. The Pharao was the only authority to make the rules if it please him he changed them all the time. With monotheism the measure of rules switched to an eternal authority. However this eternal authority could never be asked in person, so some clergy had the authority to interpret the will of God, and often enough it ended up as a pharaoism or stateism. By Christianity for the first time in history the authority to create ethical rules switched to the people. Of course Christianity was also abused, first by the Romans and later by feudalistic kings. As a rule of history all states enforce stateism. It is in a state’s nature. But in Europe the abuse of Christianity for stateism came to an abrupt end with reformation which brought back Christianity to is humanistic rules.

Therefore it comes as no surprise that countries dominated by evangelical religion were the most progressive in history. These countries simply possessed the best tools to quickly adapt the way of ruling a country to the needs of economical end scientific needs. In other words, evangelical Christianity enhanced the adaptability of nation and therefore has to be considered as an evolutionary advancement.

Now that the evolution of religion is understood, we may come back to the second question. The point what ideology determines a political party. First of all we have to issue a warning ideologies are only loosely related to parties. Parties are entitled to actively choose an ideology that best suites them to get and maintain power. Therefore all parties favor stateism, but they cover it up more or less effectively with respect to their constituency.

So the correlation explains as follows the more openly a party promotes stateism the more it is supported by non humanistic religions. The more secretively a party supports stateism the more it is supported by humanistic religions. In the United States currently the democrats are the strongest proponents of stateism, so they have the strongest support from those religions that are more theistic instead of humanistic.

BTW. This piece of theory also explains why Western governments currently try to replace their population by believers of theistic instead of humanistic religions.


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.