Saturday, March 18, 2017

... But Then Greg Cochran's Kind of Dim

In The Third Sex Greg Cochran says:
Are humans eusocial? They do cooperate, sometimes – but in truth they’re not at all like the social insects. E. O. Wilson thought so, but then he’s kind of dim. No castes, no reproductive division of labor, while most cooperation is with non-relatives. 
Not to pick on Cochran, since the 150 authors of "Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality" published in a political petition style "scientific" paper in Nature, got the paper "The evolution of eusociality", by M. Nowak, C. E. Tarnita and E. O. Wilson, wrong as well.  But Cochran is exemplary as in many areas he is quite insightful, as are the 150 scientists and, by the way, as is E. O. Wilson.  Even the insightful among us have their bad days when their reach exceeds their grasp leading, through good intentions, not to Heaven but to Hell on Earth.  Also, Cochran seems to have it in for Wilson for some reason.  Take, for example, Cochran's on-going assertions (with occasional supporting critique) of Wilson's innumeracy.

So I'm not "picking on" Cochran, but rather picking Cochran as an exemplar of the general attack on E. O. Wilson's position in "The Social Conquest of Earth":  That that the primate line leading to humans exhibits clear signs of evolving eusocial phenotypes.

Note I said "eusocial phenotypes" rather than "eusocial genotypes".  Wilson does make a "eusocial genotype" case with respect to human evolution (which I believe is overstated), but because of the confusion surrounding Nowak's mathematics, people aren't understanding his real point about "individual" vs "group" selection in eusocial organisms.

Now, I'm not claiming that Wilson grasps the full mathematical nuance of the argument made by Nowak in the paper he coauthored -- neither do I, by the way.  However innumerate Wilson may be, he did have the sense to take a professional mathematician seriously in the face of reality presented by Wilson's primary discipline:

The phenomenology of eusocial insects.

Wilson's phenomena confronted him, after a lifetime of field work, with a number of eusocial insect species in which eusociality could not be explained by Hamilton's inequality.  He knew he needed a new theoretic framework and knew, also, he needed the mathematics to be developed by someone like Nowak.

The real point of Nowak's math is best not phrased as "group selection" since he, himself summarizes:
This circumstance lends credence to the view that the colony can be viewed as an individual, or ‘superorganism’.  Further, insofar as social behaviour is concerned, descent is from queen to queen, with the worker force generated as an extension of the queen (or cooperating queens) in each generation. Selection acts on the traits of the queen and the extrasomatic projection of her personal genome.
extrasomatic. : of, relating to, or being something that exists external to and distinct from the individual organism.

Hmmm... where have we encountered projection of "traits" "external" to the individual's "genome"?

OH!  That's right!  It was Richard Dawkins's notion of the 'The Extended Phenotype'!"

Look, "Greg", you have to forget about eusociality being anything other than parasitic castration with the "queen" insect being the parasite and her non-reproductive offspring being her victims.  It's not entirely that, but to escape your current social paradigm, you have to set Hamilton aside until you get used to the parasitic castration paradigm of eusociality.

The fact that Richard Dawkins, himself, doesn't get this in his attacks on Wilson is simply Dawkins being "kind of dim".  Like I said -- it happens.  Moreover, as I have often observed since Dawkins wrote "The Extended Phenotype": Something very bad happened to Dawkins upon writing "The Extended Phenotype.  He derailed into the 19th century controversy between fundamentalist religion and evolutionary theory -- abandoning anything resembling original thinking.  Why did he anticipate, at least implicitly, a revolution in sociobiology by 25 years, and then promptly become effectively so brain-dead that he couldn't even recognize when that revolution had come to fruition?  It's almost as though he had become possessed by some external interest that didn't want that line of thought to develop -- at least not when Boomers were just reaching reproductive (marriage) age.  And what a reproductive catastrophe that turned out to be!

Now to get to the reason I use the phrase "eusocial phenotype" rather than "eusocial genotype".  Human eusociality is parasitic castration in which the behavior is manipulated not by developmental pheromones from one's mother -- but by developmental memes from one's authorities in media and academia.  "College educated" is a virtual dead giveaway adjective for someone who will have low fertility -- particularly among "whites".  As with any castrato, their resources can be diverted to the parasite, and whatever group's reproduction is thereby enhanced, rather than their own children.

As these memes can be considered "mind pathogens" one needn't even posit a parasitic genotype that is specifically selected to generate them.  All that is needed is differential immunity to them by the parasite -- an immunity that would be built up over The 10,000 Year Explosion, in highly theocratic societies where parasitic memes flourish.  But this is not full-blown eusociality.  At least E. O. Wilson admits as much about humans -- however overblown his position may have been about human cognitive capacity arising specifically in response to eusocial pressures of the campfire.

What is most curious, however, is that someone like Cochran, who co-authored "The 10,000 Year Explosion" and is, otherwise, frequently quite heterodox and incisive, would become suddenly "dim" about such a clearly important revolution in sociobiology.  It is so reminiscent of Dawkins...

Monday, November 07, 2016

An End to Politics (The Continuation of War by Other Means)

Votes are a club good, allocated equally to all citizens (members of the club).
Casting votes is a proxy for the voters’ participation in group force: Politics.
Political mobilization originates in war mobilization.
This is the reason votes were originally cast by men.
Fiat money, such as the dollar, is backed by sovereign force.
Just as do votes, dollars direct government force by proxy.


Newly created dollars are a club good not currently allocated equally to all citizens.


Government force protects property rights.
Property tax is properly treated as a service fee for protection of property rights.
Sound government money is backed by the property rights so protected.
Sound money is created and destroyed to reflect its backing.
The sound assessment of a property’s value as monetary backing is its liquid value.
Liquid value is established by escrowed bids for respective properties.
Demurrage is the term used for the cost of storing a backing commodity such as gold.
In money backed by property right, “demurrage” is its cost of protection.
Taxes can be replaced by charging demurrage for protected properties.
A reasonable public demurrage rate is the interest rate paid on public debt.
Escrowed bids establishing liquid value should not be charged demurrage.


When a crisis hits of such magnitude that it calls into question the ability of the government to effectively protect property rights, begin a local monetary system that pays a citizen’s dividend to all able bodied men, equally, an amount that, in sum total, is equal to the demurrage for protected property rights plus the change in total property rights during that period.

Let free enterprise do the rest. The "rest" will include a military organized after the successful Swiss model in which the able bodied men are required, by peer pressure, to prepare themselves to respond to threats to civil society. This peer pressure would take the form of exclusion of able-bodied men deemed to be a drag on society, from the club's territory. The responses would be not just emergent (as first responders) but strategic. Since able bodied young men, but not young women, will receive this dividend, they will tend to mate early with young women and start families. The strongest coefficient of determination found in the social sciences may well be the 0.88 discovered by Steve Sailer's analysis of election results in his study of "The Marriage Gap". Sailer's money quote:
"The r-squared when years married and fertility are combined in a multiple regression model improves to 88 percent." You will be hard pressed to find a stronger coefficient of determination in the social sciences between variables whose relationship is non-trivial.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

"Diversity" vs Human Development

What was the justification when immigration policy preferences of less than 10% of the electorate dominated 90% of the electorate for decades from the early 1960s to the late 1990s, and even today, dominates with more than 75% opposing increased immigration?

Source:  US Department of Homeland Security
It must have been an overwhelmingly obvious justification for that 10% -- so obvious that the 90% could be discounted as ignorant if not xenophobic rubes, unworthy of anything remotely resembling consent of the governed, normally considered the overriding human right in any significant dispute.  That human right was tossed out the window for some reason.

What was that reason?

The reason most frequently trotted out during this era was that "diversity is our greatest strength" and that the "greatness" attributed to the United States was "diverse" because it was a "nation of immigrants".

OK, that sounds good, but what was the support for this assertion -- support that must have been so overwhelmingly intense and urgent, even if obvious to only an "educated" elite, as to justify throwing out the most fundamental of all human rights for decades in, not just the US, but in all of European derived governments -- in a policy that most believe to cause irreversible changes?

Whatever that support might have been, the most comprehensive academic study of the actual results of that massive violation of human rights supported the opposite conclusion:

For the vast majority of people social capital is their primary form of wealth.  For these people, already deprived of financial capital diversity is also socially impoverishing even though it is financially enriching for the top echelons of society for whom social capital is of little interest.  After all, the wealthy can afford private social goods like private schools, gated communities with guards, etc.  However, this elite will become very interested in social capital when their attack on the foundation of civilization -- implied by massive violation of human rights, not to mention victimization of the less fortunate 90% of society by this violation -- comes home to roost.  This is now happening with the derisively-termed "populist" movements.

The author of that academic study, Robert Putnam of Harvard University,  delayed its publication despite the urgent relevance of his discovery to public policy.  It was urgent as, at that time during the 1990s and 2000s, immigration volume and diversity was undergoing catastrophic increases.  These increases were so great as to alter the electorate hence decrease the majority opposition to immigration increase from more than 90% to between 75% and 80%.  The reason he delayed publication is that he feared it would be "misunderstood" as providing arguments against this massive violation of the primary human right -- violation that required arguments for this massive and irreversible gambit -- a gambit that put civilization itself at risk.  And that is if any amount of theoretic support, no matter how empirically justified, can then justify non-consensual treatment of human subjects.  In all scientific disciplines, apparently except the social sciences, even if a treatment has gone through double-blind control studies to establish safety and efficacy, it is still unethical to subject humans to those treatments without their fully informed consent.

Putnam wanted time to come up with justifications for the "short term" (already decades long) human suffering imposed by "diversity" with its social impoverishment of the vast majority of the electorate.  Ultimately, Putnam offered little beyond the tradition of anecdotal polemics that so-characterized 1960s discourse about "the nation of immigrants" used to radically alter and socially impoverish the electorate in the first place.

The essence of Putnam's polemic was that "in the long term" society would benefit.



So let's look at the long term.

Let's look at the long term, not in terms of anecdotal polemics, but in terms of statistics:  A large number of operationally defined data points comparing "diversity" and "human development" in the world maps (see below), of these.  Superficially, what we see is that in areas with the highest "diversity" we find the lowest "human development".  At the other extreme, such as Scandinavia with its very low "diversity", we see the highest "human development" (Norway was ranked #1 in "human development" by the UN).

But this is a relatively superficial view of these maps.  With a closer reading for what might be called "long term" effects, we see that in the places with the longest history of "diversity", such as sub-Saharan Africa, there is not only the highest "diversity" but the lowest "human development".  Moreover, the apparent exceptions in places like the US and Canada were, until recently, so lacking in "diversity" that the attitudes of men in those prior eras, by today's standards, are considered "white nationalist" if not "white supremacist" or even "Nazi".

Such maps have little effect when reality is twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools but is of great value for the "deplorable" rest of us who demand self-determination.  They help expose the moral, ethical, scientific and political bankruptcy of even the strongest argument yet set forth by those who claim their attack on civilization's foundation -- the consent of the governed -- is justified.

The top map is "human development" measured by the United Nations.
The middle map is "ethnic diversity" measured by the Harvard Institute for Economic Research.
The bottom map is "cultural diversity" measured by the University of Bremen Center for Transnational Studies.

Spin these however you like, massive violation of the most fundamental human right has attacked the foundation of civilization for speculative long term gains for the vast majority, a risk imposed by an elite with a clear conflict of interest in short term centralization of wealth and power by immigration.

Thursday, September 01, 2016


A few weeks ago, when my mother, in her 90's, asked me to please take a couple of boxes "of yours." I was curious as to what they could be.  Tonight, I finally got around to looking through them.  They included everything from a teddy bear to high school newspapers for which I written articles.   When I ran across this very short story written for my high school English class, I have to admit:  I was a little spooked.  Those familiar with me and my rather unique world view will recognize its major themes:  
  • The evolution of virulence in horizontal transmission
  • The evolution of eusociality as anathema to sexual individualism
  • The absurdity of unlimited exponential reproduction
  • Birth control abuse as auto-genocide, and 
  • The illusion of "communism" as "the enemy" when there is something far more virulent and world-threatening operating at a biological level.

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

Replacing "Human Rights" With The Right to Vote With Your Feet

Capitalism is in a political deadlock with liberal democracy's tyranny of the majority limited only by vague laundry list of selectively enforced "human rights".

Breaking this deadlock requires empirically grounding the social sciences by sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them: Sortocracy.

This means that the current model of "human rights" must be replaced with a single, well defined, right to vote with your feet. This right to vote with your feet necessarily implies three material rights:

  1. The material right to land. 
  2. The material right to transportation. 
  3. The material right to border enforcement.

#1 is obvious since you can't put your social theory into practice without land. #2 is also obvious as people who cannot practically relocate cannot vote with their feet.

#3 _should_ be obvious but, due to the moral zeitgeist, it is not. Incarceration rates, particularly in the US, show us that there are two, fundamentally opposed, kinds of borders: Those that keep people out and those that keep people in. Of the two, the kind that keeps people in is least compatible with the right to vote with your feet,  Even the US's 13th Amendment to the Constitution has provision for involuntary servitude: Slavery for those imprisoned.  Legalized slavery is increasing.  We see a prison-industrial complex arising at the interface of government and capitalism to exploit this loophole in the 13th Amendment.  The moral zeitgeist's mandate is "let people in".  What is not admitted is this necessarily entails walls that keep people from leaving who are found to be "criminal" by the admitting society.

The moral zeitgeist has to reconcile its moral outrage at imprisonment with its moral outrage at border controls. The only realistic answer to this is absolute enforcement of free emigration combined with absolute tolerance of restrictive immigration.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

The Definition of the Word "Conspiracy" As a "Conspiracy"

The original definition of "conspiracy" circa 1300s, was simply "acting as one" derived from the Latin root "breath together" or to be "acting in the same spirit" depending on the sense of "spire" (which was also the origin of "spire" in the sense of a cathedral's architectural "spire").

Therefore the original definition does not denote conscious intent to act in coordination with others of the same "spirit", as does the modern definition. Somewhere along the line, the connotation of deliberately coordinated action became denotative.

I am going to argue below that this more restrictive denotation of "conspiracy" was a result of a "conspiracy" in the original sense of the word -- a "conspiracy" which did not require any deliberate, consciously intended coordination of action but was, nevertheless, the work of a group (or groups) for whom that restriction of definition was an evolutionary advantage to their selfish genes.

Group selection produces unconscious coordinated action between members of the group -- and humans have been under group selection since our common ancestor to chimpanzees (see E. O. Wilson's "The Social Conquest of Earth"). This has the same quality of coordinated action that occurs in the eusocial organisms -- organisms that also engage in group, as opposed to individual, combat aka "war". Indeed, the world's foremost authority on eusocial organisms, E. O. Wilson, argues persuasively that human society -- particularly "civilization" -- is evolving in that direction, which ends in the reification of the group, itself, as meta-organism -- a group of organisms "acting as one" on behalf of selfish genes expressing in the group's behavior patterns.

Now here's the key:

Because of the great diaspora of the human genotype out of Africa into a wide variety of environments, there has arisen biodiversity in the human genome adapting to a wide variety of population densities. In the areas with higher population density, there has been stronger group selection than in areas with lower population density. Over the tens of millenia, and in particular over the last ten millenia with the rise of agriculture, this has led to a substantial increase in the gradient of genetically adapted group cohesion between groups. Because these groups were not mixing, due to limitations in transport and barriers of language, natural adaptation to climate, as well as "xenophobia", this didn't immediately result in the destruction of the more individualistic populations.

However, with the rise of empires and resulting mixing of widely dispersed populations, it became a decisive factor in human evolution.

The original definition of "conspire" allowed more individualistic populations to talk about perceived patterns of behavior that were of vital interest to them, without taking on the burden of proof that there was some sort of conscious, secret Cabal behind the pattern. This burden of proof was advantageous to the unconsciously coordinated group organisms since it was, of course, impossible for the individualistic populations to bear in their attempts to come to grips with what was happening to them.

The most recent and stark example of this is in the mass rapes occurring in Germany where there is a "conspiracy theory" that the refugees acted in a conspiratorial manner to have some of them creating diversions while others engaged in rape of German women. There is no need to posit conscious intent on the part of the "rapefugees" and there is reason to believe they may be from populations more adept at group conflict -- unconscious warfare -- than others.

Sunday, October 05, 2014

The Ebola Epidemiology They Won't Talk About

Remember the AIDS epidemic?  I mean back when AIDS was Big News in part because it was New and in part because it was actually rapidly spreading during the late 1980s.  Well there was this rumor going around the midwest that "the AIDS epidemic is over".  It was more than a rumor, though; It made it into newspapers -- in particular college newspapers where the rumor's optimism could potentially do the most damage by encouraging sexually active young adults to let down their guard so to speak.

Guess where that rumor started?

The world's most prestigious science magazine:  Nature.

Guess where that rumor ended?


No, really; I ended it.

I won't go through all the details of this bit of history here.  I will, however, focus on the correct arithmetic formulas describing the AIDS epidemic and then proceed to describe a way current "authorities" may be underestimating the dangers of the current, unprecedented, Ebola outbreak.

One of the errors the general public made in thinking about the AIDS epidemic was corrected by May RM, Anderson RM in Transmission dynamics of HIV infection*, Nature. 1987 Mar 12;326(6109):137–142.  That error is to over-simplify the transmission dynamics of the virus.  The oversimplification is to assume that the number of people an infected person will infect is proportional simply to the average number of sexual partnerships per person infected with HIV.  

The actual formula is:

R0 = βcD


R0 = Reproductive rate of the virus ( If > 1 we are in an epidemic.)
D = Duration of infectiousness
β = The odds of transmitting the virus per partnership

So far so good, right? I mean the longer you are infectious the more people you are likely to infect and the more likely you are to infect a given partner, the more people you are likely to infect.

But what about that 'c' up there? Well, here it is in all its complex glory:

c = m + σ²/m


c = The effective average number of partnerships per person over the distribution
m = The average number of partnerships per person over the distribution
σ = The standard deviation in the number of partnerships* per person over the distribution

The big enchilada of epidemiology is determining R0 for a given population. The big enchilada of public health is getting R0 as low as possible -- most urgently below 1 and most desirably 0. One of the things that can make people over-optimistic about R0 is thinking 'c' is 'm' when, in fact, 'c' is bigger than 'm'. Indeed, if σ is large, the smaller 'm' is the bigger 'c' hence R0 is.  

Oh, but its worse than that!  

Did you notice that 'σ' is squared: σ² (aka "variance" in the number of partnerships per person)

You know what that means?

It means "diversity is strength" squared. Strength of the epidemic squared that is!

It is known that during the AIDS epidemic there have been AIDS murders; someone with AIDS simply "loses it" and starts having sex -- deliberately unprotected sex -- with others to infect them. Indeed, AIDS neuropathy may contribute to such serial-killer-by-sex behavior in some cases.

There are people who harbor profound feelings of resentment if not outright hatred of US society. Do you think that number has decreased since 1987 when the above epidemic formulas were derived for AIDS? Has the "diversity" of US society decreased since 1987?

I'll put it this way:

If, on average, one of those serial-killer vectors has Ebola and is able to "scan" enough of the population (say, by boarding a subway and leaving a lot of bodily fluids around) to infect another of those vectors, civilization is in big trouble.

*That was the article that I, in turn, further corrected to end the rumors that "the AIDS epidemic was over".  My correction was merely to the definition of one of the variables -- a correction that was later published by Nature in a quasi-retraction -- that being "the probability of transmission of the HIV per partner contact" vs "the probability of transmission of the HIV per partnership".  A "partnership" is a sexual relationship regardless of the number of sexual acts within that relationship.  As Robert M. May told me in our conversation, the tendency to transmit was more dependent on the particular two people in a relationship than it was on the number of times they had sex.  I know -- its counter-intuitive but that's really what he said.  My suggested change to the formula was to keep "the probability of transmission per partner contact" as the definition of β but to exponentially approach 1 with the number of sex acts. He told me that's not an accurate model of the probability and although I don't understand why, I can accept that he did have the proper background to make that judgement. In any event, his is a better definition of a "hit and run" type of encounter between members of the public in anonymous urban settings, which is the primary problem in the Ebola epidemic.