Misconceptions in Social Evolution Theory

This is actually a reply to a post on the Social Evolution Forum website which regrettably is closed.

The author reports an incident at Newark airport’s terminal that he terribly felt an insufficiency and that he asks for social evolution to improve and wonders why it never happens.

It is a typical mistake made by many when studying evolution. I did it myself when I was a boy. I tried a mouse to evolve gills by adapting it to underwater living. After I drowned a bunch of them, I finally realized that it is impossible. Actually I was more successful with insects. They survived significantly longer, but also died eventually.

At that time, I found myself in good, even academic, company. Only a few decades before a Russian academic claimed to evolve temperature resistant corn by simply exposing it to the cold. He also failed eventually.

Well, what I learned from that is embodied in Fauceir Theory. The rule simply states that a fauceir doesn’t evolve by itself but in a context of a master fauceir, a container that embraces it. Applying that rule one can easily conclude that Newark Airport will never evolve by itself. It is just an individual of the species airport.

Thus improvement can be expected by (1) natural selection in the population of airports and (2) horizontal gene (information) transfer.

Interestingly enough in the comments both these ways are illustrated.

  1. (ad 1) The monopoly prevents natural selection at the moment. That’s unfortunately how states often act on social evolution.
  2. (ad 2) Still improvement is possible by an other technology. An app, in particular, is mentioned that circumvents failure in the airport’s departure display.

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.


Dualism of Control and Information

The crucial point in fauceir theory is the abstraction of control and information into one entity namely the term fauceir.

How the terms information and control are rather subjective criteria depending on the point of view can be neatly demonstrated by recent political events.

The extend of the PRISM project. This picture is from guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 June 2013 14.00 BST.

  1. The first incidence to analyze in that respect is the plane of the Bolivian president Morales was forced to land in Vienna. From the American site it looked as if American intelligence received INFORMATION and CONTROLLED the European airspace. From the other side it looks the other way around. By some false rumor the Americans were CONTROLLED to behave silly, and closing the European airspace for Morales’s airplane is just an other piece of INFORMATION how America behaves hegemonistically.
  2. The PRISM project itself is an other instance that shows such dualism. From the American perspective, this huge collection of data is meant to CONTROL the world. From the other side’s perspective this exuberant data collection is INFORMATION to dismiss American politics.

The dualism of information and control entails that the same instance from a receiver perceived as information is delivered by the sender to control. The fauceir term allows abstraction from that subjectivism which is essential to scientifically and dispassionately describe evolutionary processes.

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.

Eugenics of intelligence

Eugenics became a verbal battleground recently. It has been a battleground since humans became aware of the possibility. Even the involvement of genetics to control hereditary diseases is reality in most countries. The recent flare is about intelligence coming into the reach of eugenics. The prospect to control an offspring’s intelligence re-ignited the human-history-long battle, and we will analyze the battleground as it allows to fauceirize the combatants.

Nazi Euthanasia and Jewish Holocaus Victims Compared

The graphic shows that by the German Nazis about 30-times more Jewish than disabled people were killed.

First, we start characterizing the participants in respect to their goals.

  1. The lowest level fauceir are the human individuals as biological beings. I imagine—and there is plenty evidence for that—that parents and mothers in particular cling to their offspring no matter how intelligent. The biological reflexes drive a mother to breast feed her child even if malformed. Among other mechanisms, oxytocin excretion s stimulated by the baby sucking on her nipples, and that alone provides satisfaction.
  2. The next level is a social one. It is the lowest social level at all. The family. A family has to make decisions on other grounds. They have to feed more children and the resources have to be distributed among them wisely. From a family’s perspective, it would be stupid to waist resources on children that have only a poor chance to survive. Here a first fauceir conflict arises between family interest and a mother’s emotional interest. Some mothers tend to cling to her helpless and disabled children even more than to her healthy ones, which puts the family under stress and not seldom such families break apart.
  3. At the next level up the social hierarchy the controversies become fiercer. That is where the real battleground unfolds, and nothing is so as it seems to be. The interest of the state—or to put it more general, the local security provider—is again in favor of helpless, disabled, unintelligent children. Some reader might argue this is bold assertion against all evidence, as euthanasia was introduced by governments—the Nazi German fascist government being a prominent example. But is that really true. I will give two arguments in support of my claim one is logical reasoning the other is empirical data.
    1. First the logical argument. All government act as local security provider, and all security providers tend to monopolize their ‘service’. Still it is a service. People have to pay for it. People receive security service in exchange for a salary that is generally called taxes. As the government holds the monopoly of violence it would suppress other potential security providers and they would even use their power to enforce salary payments and they would increase their honorarium arbitrarily. This monopolized security business goes the better the more unassuming and stupid the customers. Intelligent slaves are a perpetual source of trouble. Either they want to become security providers themselves or they press to negotiate better conditions. Conclusively each government in history has been interested to reduce people’s intelligence.
    2. There is enough empirical evidence in support. Throughout history intelligent people were eliminated on a regular basis. The first documented historical evidence I’m aware of is Jesus who was killed not because he was stupid but because he was superior. Thousands of people followed him killed throughout Europe by inquisition. Many of them we would call natural scientists today, so the inquisition was after the bright ones.While intelligent people were openly attacked before, in the 20th century, governments became hypocritical. The German Nazis declared to eradicate unworthy human life, and in fact, some people with severe mental disabilities were killed by the fascist euthanasia program, as the graphic shows that number was rather negligible compared to the huge number of Jews killed thru the holocaust. And Jewish people on average were more intelligent, than average Germans. For that reason the IQ test in Nazi Germany was forbidden and discredited as a Jew test. Besides it is worth mentioning that not only Jews but also intelligent German people died in concentration camps, as they were most likely to oppose the regime. The extent of that Nazi policy to eradicate human intelligence becomes even more obvious if considering that intelligent Jews and Germans were killed in their prime reproductive age (see second picture) while the people killed by the euthanasia program were not likely to propagate, at all.Governmental hypocrisy was elevated to a next level by post-war governments in the Western and in socialist countries alike. They declared not to follow the Nazi policy of euthanasia but to press in the opposite direction. They vowed to support all human life forms as disabled they may be. By that, however, they followed the Nazi policy of eradicating the most intelligent people even on a greater, a population based, scale. Not only did the governments drained a lot of resources to support mentally disabled people, a developed society can cope with that, but much more damaging from the point of population genetics was the fact that resources were drained from intelligent people to such an extend that it became more and more unattractive for them to raise children. Statistics throughout developed countries show that the more qualifies the less children per mother. That problem is growing for decades and known to everybody, but politicians meet it with neglect pointing out that disabled and socially lower classes need their attention most. The intelligent can help themselves though they obviously cannot as the data demonstrate.
  4. The forth level of fauceir hierarchy is international competition. Here again as at the family level higher intelligence is more desirable as it puts a nation at a more advantageous position.
Jews waiting for extermination by the Nazi regime

This picture from Wikipedia shows Jews in a line waiting for their extermination. At that time Jews were more intelligent than average German folks. Their killing was an reduction of the g factor of the overall German population.

Second, from these considerations, what can be predicted in behalf of future eugenics.

  1. The country that first employs eugenics of intelligence will have an advantage in international competition (follows from point 4).
  2. As we have seen with the Arab spring the augmentation of a peoples intelligence would destabilize a countries ruling structure (follows from point 3).
  3. Families will be the first that secretly in some places will press forward eugenics of intelligence (follows from point 2).
  4. Local security providers will abuse the fate of desperate mothers who love their disabled children to push forward ideologies that oppose eugenetics of intelligence (follows from points 1 and 3).
  5. Local security providers will press for scientific research that allows to augment a population’s intelligence and submissiveness at the same rate.
  6. If not a global security provider develops, eugenics of intelligence will become feasible and popular.

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.

Fallacies employed against Social Darwinism

The term social darwinism is an execration. Its connotions are so bad you may as well call a Social Darwinist an ass hole. (Besides, an ass hole is a very important part of a body. Closing it is irreconcilable with life going on.) The same holds true for natural social selection (that’s what most people understand by Darwinism), if absent the society is doomed.

Still it makes sense to develop an aversion to feces as the often carry disease causing germs. Disgust was the first principle of hygiene before soap and water came into action. One may find the same is true with Social Darwinism. I don’t dare to judge. I’d rather point to an other analogy.

Our disgust for excrement is well indoctrinated by our parent’s upbringing. While weaning off diapers parents repeatedly remind their children how disgusting it is to wear wet pants. The same is true with Social Darwinism. We would probably soon forget about its danger if there were not so many scholars that do not tire to maintain that it is terribly noxious. All this resembles an argumentum ad nauseam, as all authors seem to copy each other. I found one blog entry that immediately pops up when searching ‘Social Darwinism’ archetypal of that kind of literature as it contains most of the fallacies usually involved.

its central ideas owe more to the thought of a luminary of that time, Herbert Spencer, whose writings are (to understate) no longer widely read.

Discrediting the source.

Besides the work by Spencer is downloadable from the Online Library of Liberty for free, and I strongly recommend reading it, …

… and go on with my next quote.

ruthless process, “red in tooth and claw” — he viewed human culture and human societies as progressing through fierce competition. Provided that policymakers do not take foolish steps to protect the weak,


I read a lot of his work and did not find the phrase “red in tooth and claw”, even my search engine does not bring it up. Treating the weak badly eliminating them is not the subject of his writings. On the contrary he describes evolution as a process by which prosperity rises and heterogeneity and division of labor increases offering even the weak and disabled oportunities to contribute and participate.

Although social Darwinism has often been closely connected with ideas in eugenics …
…some racial groups are intrinsically better than others…
these are not central to the position.

Inconsistent comparison

This special kind of straw man may be called hypocritical straw-man or partially knocked down straw-man. Although the author knows it is not true, he still mentions it and only partially refutes it leaving everybody with the impression that some truth is in it.

Late 19th-century dynastic capitalists, especially the American “robber barons,” found this vision profoundly congenial.

Appeal to spite

It is combined with some attempt to taste of an Argumentum ad populum.

Finally, by using rationality we probably get a better hygiene of really bad ideas associated with social evolution. To develop rationally requires studying, and studying the original sources and sorting out irrational ideological treatise is what is most recommended.

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.

Never ask a parasite

Never ask a parasite how to fight parasitism. You certainly would get the wrong answer.

The interpretation of advantage, advancement, and even progress is relative. It depends on the observer’s position. The same is true for social parasites.

  • Ask a mafiosi and he will probably suggest that he should take over police control to reduce crime.
  • Ask a beggar and he would probably suggest giving more to charity.
  • Ask an academic and she would probably suggest raising taxes.
  • Ask a politician and she would probably suggest a reduction in people’s freedom.
  • Ask a bureaucrat and she would probably disapprove bureaucracy in other departments.

Therefore, never judge a political opinion without analyzing the social background it derives from.

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.org reloaded

While the publication on this website were suspended, we feverishly worked to improve the main fauceir website available at fauceir.org. We finally succeeded in building an entirely new web envionment based on django.

The environment includes several strategies to sort and search content. Besides a Wiki and hierarchical structure, called cladogram, even a blog is included. The former content is still available at fauceir-evolution.org till all the content is shuffled to the main website. Even some content presented in this blog will be edited and re-published there.