No announcement yet.

Consanguinity as a major predictor of levels of democracy: A study of 70 nations

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Cataract surgery has left me with a temporary vision deficit but I will respond briefly.

    Ahhh…. the old bug-bear of blaming 'Marxist leaning' universities for producing "the dominant intelligentsia" which has so bedeviled 'true' critical thinking for so long​.
    The popularity of Marx may lie in a kind of underlying cultural miasma in which Christianity and a preference for a distorted slow life history plays a part. I'm not sure anyone knows. In any case Marx is a convenient stand it for egalitarian strains of thought in Western Civilization. In reality Marx was not all that original. The ideas of which Marx wrote were already widely circulated by the time of the French Revolution. I think he even saw himself as the prophet who would tie them all together.

    As this is at least in part a biology thread Marx also serves as a stand in for "spiteful mutant" as seen in the "mouse utopia" experiments.

    This new diagnosis has the importance of and beyond historical correctitude: the skin is an organ of communication12and its disorders produce much psychological distress; it produces loathing and disgust, depression of self-image, mood and well-being. These adversive effects have been found to be particularly severe in patients with hidradenitis suppura-tiva,
    The nature and consequence of Karl Marx’s skin disease

    Marx is in this sense is a stand in for the accumulation in the population of mutations due to the relaxing of selection in the 18th and 19th century. Especially among the middle class that Marx belonged to. This is a historical pattern not unrelated to luxus in other earlier cultures.

    It is even possible that the insanity of equity, diversity and inclusion that has overtaken our world of late is tied to this accumulation of mutations. It is interesting that the insanity seems to be resisted by the "working class" which could be explained by that group being under selection until more recently.

    You may see the above as highly speculative but common sense dictates that there is always a cost for relaxed selection. Culture and biology has a complex relationship that will be difficult to unravel.

    The point of the OP was not to imply that biology is an ultimate explanation but to simply include it in historical analysis. It is a part of the puzzle that has been ignored for reasons I have outlined.

    Until yesterday everyone knew that biology played a rule in social interactions. Perhaps it was the Nazis that drove a nail in the coffin in which discussions of biology's impact on culture have been buried. I certainly take the possible misuses of biological determination seriously. That said with the emergence of genetic data that is easy to access and is of considerable breath and scope it is time to reopen the discussion. The very simplistic explanations offered by progressives as to the nature of cultural evolution are in need of being challenged at all levels not just biological but biological evolution is of interest to me personally.

    While works such as the Blank Slate by Steven Pinker are a start and some aspects of evolution have been popularized by individuals such as Richard Dawkins I feel their work as been distorted by political correctness in the case of Pinker and the rejection of group selection by Dawkins. It's time to take the next step and abandon a lot of 20th century misconceptions.

    We hunt the hunters


    Latest Topics