Post: #1

A man, in all of his nobility, chooses to sacrifice his life for the man on his left or the man on his right while struggling through some forsaken piece of land, consciously over ridding that impulse of self-preservation. He is giving up his ability to spread his seed and build a future for himself and perhaps others.
I will begin by saying that I think in the end, it is an either-or type of fallacy and Ideas and Examples do not die like the flesh, but I am not 100% convinced.

Post: #2

I would say that it depends on the person, their society, and their tribe. High trust societies tend to be more selfless, and produce individuals that are interested in the 'greater good'.

When applied to modern humans, the theory of evolution becomes questionable. Roosh wrote an excellent piece that raises glaring holes in evolutionary theory: http://www.rooshv.com/the-theory-of-evol...an-beings. It makes me wonder if humans are more interested in producing offspring only in times when they can provide an environment where they will be surrounded by a tribe that shares similar values. That would create pressure to preserve, possibly to the point of self sacrifice for a tribe of like minded people.

Once a society moves the basic identity from the individual to a wider network, the impulse to self sacrifice grows. If the individual identifies with the clan, they will make greater sacrifices for the clan. If the individual identifies with the tribe, they will make greater sacrifices for the tribe. And so on, until you reach the level of nations.

I think the current elites are attempting to have this apply on a global scale through globalism, where everyone identifies with a worldview of crony capitalistic universalism. I think it will fail because the value systems across the world are too disparate to integrate in such a short period of time.

Post: #3

(01-16-2016 12:01 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  I would say that it depends on the person, their society, and their tribe. High trust societies tend to be more selfless, and produce individuals that are interested in the 'greater good'.

When applied to modern humans, the theory of evolution becomes questionable. Roosh wrote an excellent piece that raises glaring holes in evolutionary theory: http://www.rooshv.com/the-theory-of-evol...an-beings. It makes me wonder if humans are more interested in producing offspring only in times when they can provide an environment where they will be surrounded by a tribe that shares similar values. That would create pressure to preserve, possibly to the point of self sacrifice for a tribe of like minded people.

Once a society moves the basic identity from the individual to a wider network, the impulse to self sacrifice grows. If the individual identifies with the clan, they will make greater sacrifices for the clan. If the individual identifies with the tribe, they will make greater sacrifices for the tribe. And so on, until you reach the level of nations.

I think the current elites are attempting to have this apply on a global scale through globalism, where everyone identifies with a worldview of crony capitalistic universalism. I think it will fail because the value systems across the world are too disparate to integrate in such a short period of time.

Your point is shared with regard to the value systems being too disparate to integrate in a short period of time, but these crazy psychopaths can go to extreme means to destroy vast swaths of the population, rather than only use soft kill or slow kill methods.

I am of the opinion that the elites only need large groups (economic, religious, political, military, etc.) to make sacrifices and nations can be dissolved as they are more recent creations (Treaty of Westphalia). The issue would then become the disintegration of the tribe (as that is based on things that are more deeply shared) then to the family unit (which is not a normal construct in the world of the tribe, but was a splinter of the tribe) and with the disintegration of the family unit, the person in power (king, president, etc.) will have a direct relationship with the individual and the individual can be more easily controlled and manipulated. A father-son type of archetypal relationship is established where the son natural trusts his father to provide, protect, instruct, etc. This can then be done en mass. The elites can succeed if they can eliminate the tribal elements of the former nation states (like they did with native Americans and various indigenous tribes such as those in the Amazon or the Aborigines) and the memories (stories) of them. Having said that, I do not believe they will choose this path, rather they will try to build larger supra-national blocks in Asia, the Americas and Europe and dissolve the identities in this manner, after which they will attempt to establish a direct relationship from king to individual. This is yet another worthy topic of discussion

I am hoping that we can be Socratic here and bring some greater focus. Let us set aside reproduction and focus on the first part of sacrificing and building a future for himself. After a few back and forths, I want to eventually circle back to your notion of producing offspring when an environment of shared tribal values exists. I think that you hit the nail on the head.

Perhaps we can examine items one at a time. I wanted to ask you how does society move the basic identity from the self to a wider network, but first would you define the idea of basic identity? I am thinking in terms of values (from less shared to more shared).

Post: #4

I posted this elsewhere, I think it is relevant:

Quote:In some ways, societies take on lives of their own. History is replete with examples where men would forgo their own selfish interests in order to die to defend their country, or to protect an idea. In some societies, the concept of family extended to their countrymen, the people that shared similar worldviews and values. These societies formed unprecedented levels of social trust, which allowed for crime to dissipate, and for commerce and civilization to flourish. By forming a symbiotic relationship that tied them to millions of others, the country as a whole thrived.

Within each of us are billions of machines working together to keep us alive. Our mitochondria break down molecules to provide us energy to move, function, and think. Our white blood cells attack the bacteria that try to destroy us. Our stomachs contain billions of bacterial organisms which help to break down our food and provide us sustenance. Our RNA help transport and replicate our genetic material so that what we are can be passed on. Our chromosomes provide the possibility of continuing all that we are into the future. We are the home and the product of countless laborers working and thriving together. Is it such a stretch to imagine that societies can function in a similar way?

Expanding on that, let me propose a thought experiment. What if human societies have reached the complexity where the macro organism is the society, not the individual. I don't think this is such a radical idea. There are already parallels within other species.

Take herd animals, for instance. The weaker, slower, least fit members of the herd often become food for predators. Not only does it benefit the predators, but the herd itself benefits as well. Sure, the ones who become food die and don't get to pass on their genes, but the fitness of the herd improves, and the herd as a collective group benefits.

I've read that it's possible the Neanderthals had better reasoning abilities compared to modern humans. But modern humans had higher social cohesion, which made them more successful.

Many of the more ridiculous ideas the Left expects us to believe, even celebrate, could simply be tests for loyalty with the herd. Not going along with an idea at the expense of one's position in society, no matter how ridiculous, could be seen as a form of mild social autism. Demanding submission to ridiculous ideas could also be a form of probing for splinter groups that may eventually become threats to social cohesion, or even rival groups in the future. Widespread dissension often does lead to civil war, the breakup of nations, and the formation of competing states. History is replete with examples.

Quote:From a young age, Chinese children are taught a simple saying (Zhi Lu Wei Ma) which originates from an event that happened thousands of years ago. The saying literally means “Calling a stag a horse”, and it describes the actions of a bureaucrat who seized power by demanding total submission from his subjects. After rising to power, he paraded a deer in front of his subjects, and exclaimed “Look at this wonderful horse I’ve brought before you.” Some subjects, sweating and nervous, agreed how beautiful the horse was. Others told the old man “You’re insane, that’s a deer, not a horse!” The ones who pointed out reality were executed because they were a threat to absolute consensus.

So, social autism can mean death. But if it were so maladaptive to the individual and to social cohesion, that begs the question, why haven't they been bred out of the gene pool yet? Well, I would propose that there may be value in dissension for a society. In fact, I think that could explain the wide distribution of personalities in a given society. I think seemingly antagonistic personality types form a darwinian role within a society as checks and balances on the group as a whole to probe for lack of fitness.

Take for instance, the fact that sociopaths exist in a small distribution in every society, and most are commonly found in positions where they can exercise power. Sociopath has a negative connotation, but perhaps there is a reason they've popped up in societies throughout history. Perhaps they are required to make the difficult decisions in war time to preserve the greater society.

So perhaps there is also a role for those of us who loathe hypocrisy and submitting to obvious logical fallacies. On the one hand, it threatens group cohesion, but on the other, there are cases where group cohesion can go too far. Think, the great leap forward in Mao's China, or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Dissidents provide a memetic blow-off valve to prevent excessive loyalty testing that threatens destruction of the society as a whole.

Quote:But the question still remains, where is the logic in a man putting their very lives on the line simply to draw a line in the sand? Perhaps it is a reminder that to do otherwise would allow the sickness to spread, until it consumes us entirely. Our society is unhealthy, and grows worse every day. The destruction of families is encouraged. Rampant consumption transcends any goal of honest work or providing a legacy. Parents who push their prepubescent boys into mutilating their genitalia are celebrated for allowing them to corrupt the very humanity they were born with. Everything has been reduced to a purely material and hedonistic existence. We as a society have lost our soul. We are dying. Though the better part of us may live on.

When a person ages, their body begins to fail them. The internal processes that faithfully provided years of service will break down, and ultimately, stop. Everyone dies eventually. But when the conditions are right, there is the possibility to leave a legacy to those that come after. History is replete with civilizations that follow a similar pattern. Societies will arise, flourish, decay, and collapse. Though even in collapse, some of those societies may be preserved. To this day, many among us continue to read Aristotle, practice the maths of the ancients, and follow the spirituality passed on through the eons.

The voices who shout “this far, and no further!” grow louder and more numerous with each passing day. The last vestiges of the Romans fled a burning Constantinople, and watched from afar as all that they knew crumbled. But they brought with them the legacy of Western civilization, which continued to flourish in its new home. What comes from the ashes of this nation, I do not know. But there is still hope. If we do not let the corruption consume us, we may be fortunate enough to form our own tribes that will grow into healthy nations of their own. Life goes on.

Apologies for the meandering nature of this post. I know this doesn't speak to your question directly, but it's something to think about, at least. I think societies, and the tribes that may be carved out of them are motivated by values that are an intersection of complex and competing factors. In my opinion, what informs values are genetics, personality inclinations, experiences, and environmental pressures. I'll explore those more in subsequent posts.

Post: #5

I think the answer to the OP is yes and no. If you read The Fate of Empires, and then read history through that prism, as a cyclical thing, then it seems clear that typically civilizations start out courageous and self-sacrificing when they are young, then as their growth slows they become more financially and artistically focused, before ultimately becoming knowledge focused, at which point there is no incentive or social pressure to be self-sacrificing, and every incentive to look out for number one. Essentially we have the full gamut of human emotion and action within us, but the dominant characteristics of the age will be what shapes us, by and large.

Post: #6

The impulse of self sacrifice has no place in everyday life. Are there certain situations when it is necessary? Sure.
Luckily we live in a day and age where such times are few and far between.
This issue came up in the Giving Up On Fellow Men thread: /thread-53070...pid1194675

Post: #7

@H1N1
But if there is a genetic element (of which I am unsure) then it is not always a question of incentive to be self-sacrificing. I am attempting (perhaps like Don Quijote) to circumvent this yes/no. The frame regarding cycles is profoundly applicable to many parts of civilization.

@NomandofEU
Your point is well taken. Moving to the subject of virtue (or excellence) as in Greek word Arete is part of the theme to the brother of this post titled Heroes and Heroism. Heroic deeds are not normal every day, but why not? Can we get to that point? Is it worthwhile to do so and why is it worthwhile? I am not asking you to address these here, there are more rhetorical, but important (to me).

@thoughtgypsy

I understand that you are supporting your point(s) with stories. I place a high value on this methodology as it provides a rich context that is appropriate.

So if we agree to view basic identity in terms of values and the position is that these values are made up of genetics, personality inclinations, experiences, and environmental pressures, how does society move the basic identity from the self to a wider network?

I suggest that we temporarily pause the valid thought experiment (and when we pick it back up we attempt to objectify some scale for complexity to determine where we are) as to focus on the first part of sacrificing and building a future for himself, which is more individualistic. We can circle back to this, but I am trying not to become too nested in loops. I think that it is more critical to circle back to

It is exactly the complex and competing values that I want to get to, but I am trying to avoid logical inconsistencies or circular reasoning. For example I see the distinct possibility of coming to a variation of the A PRIORI (genetic, innate) vs. EMPIRICIST (environmental) problem where the Empiricist says show where the genetic trait of Altruism is located and then how it is transmitted. If the A PRIORI cannot, the EMPIRICIST says it does not exist.

So, how does society move the basic identity from the self to a wider network?

I want to give more of my train of thought as I am not trying to win a debate or engage in sophistry, rather my goal is to come to a greater understanding myself with the help of other human minds to the original question that I posed. In a Platonic sense, I am trying to partake of the Form of Truth.

When we answer the above question, it was proposed that the impulse to self-sacrifice will grow, the desire then is to demonstrate how it grows. What causes an individual to become more selfless? You mentioned that if he identifies with the clan he will make greater sacrifices and there are certainly many examples of this today and historically across numerous cultures

If it is a hereditary trait, I am unsure that the question is relevant because he cannot become more selfless, he simply is selfless; it is part of his genetic make-up (maybe we will take this one down the Aristotelian path of Potential vs. Actual). So would identifying with the clan have any meaning other than shared genetic material? Consequently the Empiricist says show me the genetic material with this ´selflessness.´ We can see that selfless expression exists, but we cannot demonstrate that it is a gene that is causing this behavior (although being unable to demonstrate this does not make it untrue, rather only unproved by some objective standard). Also, we could then say that there is a trait for self-preservation. If this is the case (and it is possible), we have gained no ground in attempt to answer the question of does the impulse of self-preservation outweigh the impulse of self-sacrifice.

Is it because the individual is given (by an external force) an idea of something more than themselves leading up to the notion of a greater good? Perhaps it can be said that this is innate if we define innate as being derived from the mind (generally speaking).

Damn it is good to get my intellect re-engaged and spooled up after years of contemplating while sailing. Thanks Gents.

Post: #8

I think Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene explained it quite well. Altruism has a genetic explanation, as your genes are willing to sacrifice your body in order to ensure the propagation of the same genes in another body. So to answer your original question: It depends on how similar genetically you are to the man to your left or right.

Post: #9

(01-21-2016 03:20 PM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  If it is a hereditary trait, I am unsure that the question is relevant because he cannot become more selfless, he simply is selfless; it is part of his genetic make-up (maybe we will take this one down the Aristotelian path of Potential vs. Actual). So would identifying with the clan have any meaning other than shared genetic material? Consequently the Empiricist says show me the genetic material with this ´selflessness.´ We can see that selfless expression exists, but we cannot demonstrate that it is a gene that is causing this behavior (although being unable to demonstrate this does not make it untrue, rather only unproved by some objective standard). Also, we could then say that there is a trait for self-preservation. If this is the case (and it is possible), we have gained no ground in attempt to answer the question of does the impulse of self-preservation outweigh the impulse of self-sacrifice.

Without going too far off topic, I would agree that we shouldn't get into a nature vs. nurture argument. Personally, I think that they both play important roles, so arguing which is more important is just splitting hairs. I think there is enough evidence to suggest that genetics play at least some part in informing behavior inclinations, and there has been many photons spilled on HBD and Gene-Culture Co-evolution sites to show that genetics plays a role in the level of trust within society.

But, and this is an important but, judging by the radical differences in the impulse for self sacrifice for the same homogeneous populations under different conditions shows that there are other factors at play. Take the US, for instance. My grandparents' generation fought in wars, gave to charity, helped out neighbors, and so on. My generation is largely atomized, and very often won't lift a finger for others, let alone could I imagine most of my peers feeling a duty to go off to war. These people all come from the same general gene pool, so something else is responsible for the attitude shift. I take that as proof that the selfless impulse isn't purely genetic, perhaps even minimally so.

This is something we may actually be able to control, where we can explore what conditions give rise to the inclination to put others above oneself. I think this is the part you're interested in.

(01-21-2016 03:20 PM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  How does society move the basic identity from the self to a wider network?

When we answer the above question, it was proposed that the impulse to self-sacrifice will grow, the desire then is to demonstrate how it grows. What causes an individual to become more selfless? You mentioned that if he identifies with the clan he will make greater sacrifices and there are certainly many examples of this today and historically across numerous cultures

Is it because the individual is given (by an external force) an idea of something more than themselves leading up to the notion of a greater good? Perhaps it can be said that this is innate if we define innate as being derived from the mind (generally speaking).

I think it largely comes down to shared experiences, incentives, and punishments. Or, in simpler terms, the Social Contract. Societies or tribes that reward behavior that is self sacrificing will see more of it, while ones that take it for granted will discourage it.

Take modern marriage, for example. In the past, men were rewarded for making sacrifices for their wives and families, and they were rewarded with incentives in the form of families and domestic nurturing from their wife. Now men are being punished for following the same, and the marriage rate continues to drop to record lows every year, despite being a biological impulse at our very cores.

It may be more complex than that, but that's all I can think of, for now.

Post: #10

The example of the impulse of selfless not being completely genetic and being influenced by cultural factors is a strong one. So we will examine what conditions give rise to the inclination to put others above oneself. I suggest we use our established framework of values as genetics, personality inclinations, (shared) experiences, and environmental pressures (in terms of things that incentivize and those that punish), and genetics having been established.

I am of the opinion that personality inclinations are a mixture of genetics, experiences and environmental pressures and we can focus on the others. Perhaps there is another element that you are considering, like a soul or spirit. This may be a part of the personality inclinations or separate but influence these inclinations. The goal is not to go down the path of metaphysics, rather to briefly touch upon this as it related to our topic.

After this, we should circle back to the notion of producing offspring when an environment of shared tribal values exists.

Post: #11

I want to give an example of what I mean regarding environments that produce the proper risk/reward conditions for altruism to flourish.

Let us take Japanese Martial culture, for instance. A Japanese soldier was expected to fight to the death, and to kill themselves in certain circumstances to avoid dishonor. On the surface this appears illogical, but certain conditions gave rise to this behavior.

There is the story of the Japanese soldier stranded on an island in the Philippines who believed that WW2 was still occuring, and continued to hold out years after the war was over. Eventually he was discovered, and able to be convinced that the war was over, where he was allowed to return to Japan. Upon his arrival, he was greeted with hundreds of marriage proposals from women across the country. This gets to my next point.

The reason for this fanatical selfless behavior was through the reinforcement of a social code that encouraged selflessness, punished seflish behavior, and provided rewards for those who upheld their social obligations. Selfless behavior was rewarded with higher social capital, and meant that those who followed it would gain in reputation and be rewarded with greater business contacts, and greater sexual access. Those who did not follow it would be dishonored and shunned. Social exclusion meant they would live hard, miserable lives, and have limited options in sexual partners. For many, this meant that to die honorably was a better option than to live dishonorably. At least if they died honorably, their family reputation would remain intact, and their progeny would continue to flourish.

This sense of duty and reciprocity could be accelerated through propaganda and popular culture. Even children and women who would never see the horrors of war would be exposed to messaging that would instill a sense of their obligations. With the rise in selfishness and social atomization, the connection to popular culture through YOLO, selfies, and general narcicism should be obvious. Culture and media could be a powerful tool for reinforcing the values a society wishes to adopt.

Societies who practiced greater selflessness would gain a multitude of benefits. Cohesive military forces would mean less in-fighting, greater coordination, and more effective fighting and defensive capabilities. Cohesive economies would give rise to efficient market functioning. Cohesive societies would become safer and more enjoyable for everyone. And so on. What is rewarded you will see more of, what is punished you will see less of.

I am going slightly off topic to discuss my next point. The elevation of certain values would also have a genetic impact. In the 1700s-1800s, the British penal code became one of the strictest any society had ever implemented. Even petty crimes resulted in long imprisonments and an erosion of social mobility for criminals. Their access to reproduction was seriously curtailed, and many of them dropped out of the gene pool. This removed the seflish and violent elements of their gene pool, or channeled them into military institutions where violence was permissible. Crime rates continued to fall, and England shortly after became one of the most powerful empires the world has ever seen.

However, I believe this sexual selection for selflessness can also lead to the downfall of a society. Over time, the genetic selection for nonviolence can lead to a male population that is more docile and takes the stability of their society for granted. The benefits of a selfless society are seen as entitlements, and no one recalls an era where they were necessary for survival. The sacrifices to maintain them are seen as unnecessary, and society becomes more selfish and decadent. I think we're in this phase, currently. What follows is a time of greater instability and volatility, where people must return to a code of reciprocity in order to survive. I think these times are when seeds can be planted and new societies may form.

It is clear that government and popular culture, namely media play a large role in the shaping of behavior within society on a mass scale. However, I still think it is possible to build tribes within the greater society by practicing their own forms of social reinforcement within the group. I hope to generate some ideas for this in my next post.

Post: #12

Consider the point of violence and selflessness not being mutually exclusive. If the violence exists in a protective context (genetic and/or non-genetic) and is not mutually exclusive for selflessness (on a level greater than the individual) then perhaps the sacrifice to maintain them will not be seen as unnecessary and the society would become less selfish. When we look at it from the individual level, violence existing in a protective context can be self-preservation.

What would trigger a genetic selection for non-violence (is it simply the sexual selection for non-violence)? Sexual selection on the part of the female for non-protective traits would appear to contrary to her reproductive instinct. Perhaps it is the female´s personality inclinations (particularly due to the environment) that induces laziness, sloth, and the like that can exert influence over her genetics to cause this selection.

Post: #13

(01-25-2016 09:16 AM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  Consider the point of violence and selflessness not being mutually exclusive. If the violence exists in a protective context (genetic and/or non-genetic) and is not mutually exclusive for selflessness (on a level greater than the individual) then perhaps the sacrifice to maintain them will not be seen as unnecessary and the society would become less selfish. When we look at it from the individual level, violence existing in a protective context can be self-preservation.

I think there are plenty of examples of non-violent selflessness being encouraged in societies. For instance, let's take the Anglo enthusiasm for forming Queues. In some cultures line cutting is seen as perfectly acceptable if the person can get away with it. However, it's a major faux paus in Anglo cultures, and leads to a loss of reputation and a perception of being lower class for the person doing it.

This might be getting away from what I was trying to express in the previous post. I think the discussion of violence and selflessness and their inter-relatedness isn't the front and center issue, though it may certainly be an extreme motivator. What I wanted to express, is that selfless behavior can be facilitated through a system that reinforces selfless actions with rewards, and discourages selfish behavior through punishment.

(01-25-2016 09:16 AM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  What would trigger a genetic selection for non-violence (is it simply the sexual selection for non-violence)? Sexual selection on the part of the female for non-protective traits would appear to contrary to her reproductive instinct. Perhaps it is the female´s personality inclinations (particularly due to the environment) that induces laziness, sloth, and the like that can exert influence over her genetics to cause this selection.

True, a woman's nature hasn't changed much throughout the eons. What has changed is the political system. In the past, women were disenfranchised politically, and men controlled politics and law. The men that women were typically attracted to (bad boys, criminals, etc) often created problems for the male family members of the women. They led to bastards who were a drain on the resources of the family and community, women who were left unmarried which the father must continue to support financially, etc. Social codes (chaperoning, chastity, dowries, etc) were developed to control a woman's reproductive impulses towards men that had a greater sense of reciprocity and social duty.

Men were still violent and powerful, but only when sanctioned by the state. There were still policemen, military officers, and so on. Men who could operate businesses effectively could provide protection and stability for their women.

Post: #14

There is a strong debate in motion concerning whether or not to produce offspring. We have talked around the idea of producing offspring when an environment of shared tribal values exists. What would be some of the common values shared values across the various tribes? For example among Native American tribes commonalities such as living on the ground, being hunters, working together exist. There are also traits across tribal cultures such as Native American and Australian Aboriginal, to include the deification of natural elements, and the continued existence or communications with ancestors.
If tribes share these common values, in what instances would it not be normal to produce offspring?

Post: #15

NASA Test Pilot Wrote:There is a strong debate in motion concerning whether or not to produce offspring. We have talked around the idea of producing offspring when an environment of shared tribal values exists. What would be some of the common values shared values across the various tribes? For example among Native American tribes commonalities such as living on the ground, being hunters, working together exist. There are also traits across tribal cultures such as Native American and Australian Aboriginal, to include the deification of natural elements, and the continued existence or communications with ancestors.
If tribes share these common values, in what instances would it not be normal to produce offspring?

Expectation of stability: Does the immediate environment seem like a safe place to raise children? Will there be enough resources to raise them?
Expectation of Legacy: Will the father have a stake in the Child's future? In the case of divorce, will fathers be stripped of involvement in their life, as in the current Western scenario?
Cultural environment: Is the popular culture that the child will be born into a similar worldview to the parents? Will the children be traumatized as outcasts?
Support network: Who can the child rely on in case of the parents' death? This varies from society to society, ranging from the extended family to institutions in higher trust societies.
Reciprocal support: Will the children care for the parents in old age? Note the drop in birth rate coinciding with the rise of pension funds.

Essentially it may come to the risk/reward structure for having children. Previously, families exerted greater control over their families, particularly when it came to instilling a similar worldview and sense of duty to the family. A children's production may benefit the family unit greatly through assistance in labor or chores. As children reached adulthood and pursued lucrative trades, the older generations would gain support from their children and allowed to retire. The nuclear family unit would be largely intact, the wealth could remain within the unit and be transmitted across generations. There was a lot of reward for having children and little risk.

Now the conditions are the opposite. Families exert little control over the worldview and reprimanding of their children. Punishment that is outside the cultural norm, or raising children outside of cultural expectations, like seeking a second medical opinion for instance, may prompt bureaucratic organizations like child protective services to kidnap the children from the family unit. Children get most of their worldview through constant intensive media exposure, indoctrination in exceedingly long public school programs, academia, and pop culture. Often it is very different from their parents' generation and causes further schism. Worst of all, divorce is rampant and incentivized for the female, making the probability of debt slavery for a male attempting to start a family very high. The high cost of housing, perpetual property taxes, decreasing median salaries, increasing tax rates, high cost of commodities, and finally estate taxes mean that a family's wealth is eroded and fails to be transmitted to future generations. The additional cost of raising a child, especially considering the inflated cost of college education, makes them a tremendous financial burden that does not generate future financial reward. Retirement ponzi schemes like social security, medicare, and pension funds mean that children are not expected to help look after parents in old age.

If those conditions cannot be found in a current environment, there is little incentive to reproduce. There may be the possibility of creating a new one based on a set of shared values. These may be:

Duty and Reciprocity: Do the members of the tribe feel an obligation to help others? This impulse would be greater in times of relative scarcity.
Fairness: Are the rules of the tribe applied universally? Notice the disillusionment over the recent handling of Hillary's emails, IRS, F&F, etc.
Similar worldview: Do the members of the tribe share similar expectations regarding punishment, duty, spiritual enlightenment, a common sense of history, etc.

Cultural vehicles can be used to enhance a shared worldview and bind people together. Take the Iliad and the Odyssey, for instance. They informed countless Greek generations of what deeds were considered heroic, and what values were expected them as males. This transmission of culture allowed for connections to be formed across communities hundreds of miles apart. People sharing similar worldviews would expect the same treatment, and identify with others who shared similar views on law, politics, virtue, and so on. Another powerful one is religion, as evidence by the history of European Christianity, Islam, and so on.

When these conditions are met, naturally a tribe will want to produce offspring in order to perpetuate the legacy of their shared heritage.

Note that the current cultural zeitgeist seems antagonistic to all things that bind people to each other. The family unit, nationalism, religion, they are all being dismantled. The time is ripe to reverse that process.

Post: #16

In our attempt to reverse the process, perhaps in our next segment we can explore Altruism as the reinforcing mechanism for self-preservation of the tribe as well as the continued progression of the tribe in terms of body, mind, and soul. We can begin with the examination of duty and reciprocity through the lens of altruism. Then progress to fairness and thirdly, a similar world view.

Post: #17

Self sacrifice works in smaller homogeneous groups fighting for common ideals, goals and survival, not in our modern world with 7 billion humans from all corners of the world living close together.

Post: #18

(01-16-2016 10:10 AM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  A man, in all of his nobility, chooses to sacrifice his life for the man on his left or the man on his right while struggling through some forsaken piece of land, consciously over ridding that impulse of self-preservation. He is giving up his ability to spread his seed and build a future for himself and perhaps others.
I will begin by saying that I think in the end, it is an either-or type of fallacy and Ideas and Examples do not die like the flesh, but I am not 100% convinced.

Balance is the key

If everyone was completely selfless we'd have never evolved since the caveman era because pretty much all technology and innovation is the result of people thinking outside the box and wanting a better way of doing things.

But if everyone is selfish we would've died off fighting over scraps.

Post: #19

Self sacrifice is a direct component of self preservation, the two are not mutually exclusive. What do you give up to preserve your lifestyle? You sacrifice having wives, girlfriends, and the crushing debt and pointless wasted time managing one. That sacrifice preserves a mans wealth and health, if he truly wants to get ahead in the world today and set himself apart and ends up becoming a more productive member of society. Or on a macro level, the noble warriors that signed up for military service to protect America after 9/11. These men selflessly sacrificed their lives to protect their families and their country. The degree to which self sacrifice is measured, is ultimately the scale of their intended self preservation. And who are we to judge someones level of self sacrifice?

Post: #20

(01-30-2016 11:36 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  Self sacrifice works in smaller homogeneous groups fighting for common ideals, goals and survival, not in our modern world with 7 billion humans from all corners of the world living close together.

My experience shows me that you are correct, but there is a part in me (maybe it is my spirit) that says there is something more and I am trying to understand that and if it can be practically applied to something greater, and if that is the case how would it be done. What does the balance look like (EDantes), and is it possible to have a number of points of equilibrium not simply one. Or perhaps these are musings of a man getting older and I have too much time on my hands.

Post: #21

There's a saying, "Most of us go through our entire lives never realizing the other is."

I remember hearing Joseph Campbell in "The Power of Myth" describe a story of two police officers who responded to a suicide jumper at the bridge. While they were trying to talk him down, the jumper jumped, and one of the officers leaped after him and grabbed his ankle with both hands. He leapt fully without holding onto anything for himself. Fortunately his partner was able to grab him and they all came back up together.

When asked afterwards why he leapt after the jumper towards certain death he replied, "I don't know, it all happened so fast. It was instinct. I guess I felt I couldn't live with myself if he died too."