Human Nature changes much faster than natural selection

 I never regret listening to Richard Dawkins and tonight is no exception. I can't imagine why this has not occurred to me earlier but many deep thinkers believe that the slow change due to natural selection does not apply to our moral progress which takes place relatively quickly. For example, only a couple of hundred years ago most people accepted slavery as normal. And just a little earlier practically no one would criticize the conquistadors. Truly it is as Oscar Wilde stated it: Human nature is changing constantly. Earlier I stated that morality was related to convenience. Apparently, what is convenient is changing too. This is very important and will be repeated on my homepage. It is the final argument for dematerialism, as it refutes the objection that dematerialism is contrary to human nature.  It  remains only to explain the effect of morality upon human nature. Put another way, morality dominates human nature.

The Open Conspiracy

I see that we do have a difference of opinion as to the permanence or long-time stability of human nature. We know by now that morality is principally a matter of convenience. We would be doing very well if morality were congruent with legality. How quickly can we alter human nature if we recognize the dire necessity of "mutual restraint mutually agreed upon."

Now, perhaps, is the time to raise H.G. Wells' idea of an open conspiracy to seize power (yes, I know what I said) in the chaos that is likely to follow the collapse. There will be a window of opportunity for a group of people with a plan. It would be interesting if we - now - were discussing the plan - not secretly but openly. 

Adaptive and Maladaptive Traits

My own take on procreative advantage is that sexual attractiveness is adaptive and resource dominance is maladaptive. In fact, we have a pejorative term for attraction to resource dominance, namely, golddigger. Maladaptive tendencies can be overcome in much less than evolutionary time. Let us suppose that only a few wife beaters are left and that cigarette smoking is nearly extinct among our youth, although it's a little hard to tell just what maladaptive tendency cigarette smoking represents if not the death wish.

That said, we know from experience that we can drive out some maladaptive tendencies. Does the absence of a maladaptive trait from some individuals in our species indicate that it can be overcome by everyone? I have run across that idea in my reading lately and it gave me hope. It's resource dominance I had in mind of course; and, the big question is "Is it really absent from myself?" This is no time for fooling. I am betting that it's gone or nearly gone and whatever is left can be suppressed.

Tom Wayburn

"Human nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put here to rise above." - Kathryn Hepburn's character in The African Queen

I like the line but the philosophy won't do.

Dematerialism explained briefly to ResearchGate

Barry Turner has made some excellent observations; however, I need to adjust one or two of his points. Nowadays, we would not expect physical ration books; nevertheless, a computer-based rationing system for each eligible citizen is 'fraught with peril' and lots of problems that would have to be solved. The important safeguard in egalitarian economics is that significant deviations from equality are noticeable to friends and neighbors, not all of whom will tolerate such deviations.

The second thing is the determination of freedom and rights. From my perspective, no political system protects individual freedom and reasonable rights so well as Dematerialism - not even close. Also, it is important to note that, because of sortition and fractal government, all political power is retained by the people and natural leaders and demagogues cannot arise, except in ways that have not occurred to me yet and will have to be defended by others.

Oh yes, there has to be a trade-off. Somehow the ability to acquire an excess of the sustainable dividend (explained elsewhere) and an unfair share of posterity must be thwarted. This conflict with my general rejection of punishment as a response to disorderly conduct should occasion a great deal of thought by people who are likely to be much closer to the problem than am I.

But, think of all the coercion and forced responses that are avoided. One doesn't even have to go to work at anything that is not interesting or enjoyable. Work assumes its correct role as a privilege and a pleasure. The present system is practically all tyranny. People think that it's a pleasure to own a Ford 150. They have been forced to own that or another with which to compete with ownership of the Ford 150.

According to Dematerialism, rights are based on three principles that can be rendered in slang thusly: (i) Live and let live; (ii) Tell the truth to those who have a right to know it (Hemingway - who might be able to tell us who has a right to know it); (iii) Protect the environment.

Isn't the harm done by competition for wealth and power obvious? A man with a wife and children will do anything for money. By now we should be ready to cut all of that out of our lives. Moreover, the Earth can't stand it.

Don't waste time thinking up reasons why this won't work. Think of solutions to problems that are bound to arise.

Introduction to Ration Book Points

I am thinking of something a little different reminescent of World War II in the US. We all had ration books aided and abetted by agressive propaganda that kept most people out of the black market. That is, the house was kept at no warmer than 60 degrees Fahrenheit. The bathtub was filled no higher than 4 inches.

Now, suppose there were ration books but no money. One could "spend" land-use points, human-labor points, fresh-water points, and most important of all eMergy points. If I want a new towel, there may not be any fresh water in the towel but there was fresh water used to irrigate cotton of which I must use no more than my fair and equal share.

This is a subtle way of establishing equality and relieving the super rich of their excessive wealth since US dollars may no longer be used. [snip]

More from ResearchGate

This is a very old idea that came from someone on Energy Resources or Running on Empty 2: Suppose the leaders of the world continue to advocate economic growth and do very little to reduce population, then conservation and other green gestures are not only futile but positively harmful inasmuch as the additional lifespan of the world will be used to increase the population and worsen the catastrophic Die-Off when it comes.

 

*********************************************

 

I see the definition of sustainability and the establishment of enough renewable energy technology and the reduction of recycle losses and pollution below agreed upon limits as easily understood. Implementation is unlikely before a catastrophic collapse and die-off. Afterward the survivors must be prepared to act quickly and suddenly if they want a sustainable social system like the natural economy toward which dematerialism is directed. Perhaps, by that time, something like dematerialism will be widely accepted and whatever battles must be fought will have ended. We need an open conspiracy now.

 

Of course it matters what people like us think sustainability should look like and how it will be achieved; but, according to what I just said, what we think won't matter very much. I hope our offspring are all on the right side.

The open conspiracy and the seizing of power after the collapse need elucidation.

ResearchGate

 Just because it can be shown scientifically (or not depending upon how you define science) that capitalism cannot be sustainable or even nearly sustainable, I am unwilling to say that sustainability is political. The question of whether or not sustainability is political or BS or something else is a waste of time and best left to experienced timewasters like Phil.

I, for my part, have been trying to include in the definition the case where the inevitable deficits in the steady-state storehouses of vital materials are made up from the repositories of such materials found on Earth in such a way that the occurrence analogous to Peak Oil does not occur for 1000 years. I am ready to change my tune and call that circumstance "near-sustainability" while admitting the impossibility of perfect sustainability even though I don't believe the scatter of small amounts of vital materials over the Earth and beyond will ever become a major problem.

It now becomes necessary to outline the method I will use to determine ERoEI* from the outside in, thus avoiding the enumeration and evaluation of indirect energy investments. I do not expect this work to be interrupted, but I am unwilling to leave that to chance. [snip]