Saturday, 11 February 2012

Lessons in life.

I'm writing this, as I'm having a bitter argument with somebody. First, a music video.



At low population densities, humans are social, as mutual co-operation favours survival. Humans naturally form groups of about 150. At low population densities, anarchy works - for a while. However, inevitably, somebody starts cheating on somebody else. Cheating is beneficial to the cheater (until they get caught) and detrimental to the cheated. Cheaters may be physically punished, or evicted.

Nowadays, we have purpose-built places to which we evict cheaters. I know that modern-day prisons also contain people who have broken pointless laws.

As population density increases, unrest increases. There are power struggles & disputes.
In male-dominated societies, disputes are resolved by violence and murder.

In female-dominated societies, disputes are resolved by sex. N.B. Scenes of violence, murder and sex.

I know which society I'd prefer.

As population density increases, an increasing percentage of the population are antisocial.
EDIT: As population heterogeneity increases, an increasing percentage of the population are antisocial, due to group snobbery.

In the US, there is a high population density, also high heterogeneity. What do you think will happen if US citizens (who are free to carry guns) are left to run themselves? See 2012 - 2013 Violent Welfare Riots/ Looting spread across America - Gun confiscation in major cities. I predict rioting, looting and carnage.

In the UK, there is a very high population density, also high heterogeneity. What do you think will happen if UK citizens are left to run themselves? See UK - London Riots, BBC News: "Andy, we'll leave it there". I predict rioting & looting.

Rioting & looting are bad for business and are therefore not allowed.

I believe it's a sad fact of human nature that large, dense, human populations need to be controlled.

4 comments:

praguestepchild said...

The contrast between bonobos and chimps in the wild is brought up a lot. The bonobos definitely seem to have the nicer time of it.

Although we are more closely related to chimps I think we humans tend to act more like bonobos in HG societies (which is what these tribes are). IOW, despite all the BS hullabaloo about humans being the only animal that kills it's own species, we are actually quite socially adapted creatures.

Here in the Czech Republic, gun laws are lax but there's very little day to day violence. No fights outside of pubs, and very few gun homicides. The Czech Republic is quite densely populated, perhaps one of the highest in Europe, yet it has no yob culture.

I would point to Japan as a densely populated country that has very little violence.

Japan and the Czech Republic also happen to be very homogeneous countries. I know it's not PC to point this out but there is a high a correlation there.

The US has never been very homogeneous, yet the tough-guy attitude that has arisen there in the last, I dunno, 20 years indicates large cultural shifts, I think. Everyone has to be a tough guy, these days, in the US, that's my general impression. I've also gotten this impression in Sweden, which has had an increase in violent behavior not really correlated to population.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

I'm back (from more karaoke madness)!

In sparsely-populated areas, more sex=more humans=good thing, so I agree that HGs benefit from being like bonobos. Unfortunately, everything changes when males start taking over.

I completely overlooked heterogeneity as a factor which increases antisocial behaviour. I have no idea what causes yob culture. Is it simply a case of "birds of a feather flock together" combined with group snobbery? Political correctness be damned! I shall edit my post accordingly.

Anyway, thanks for your input. More than one brain is better than one brain.

praguestepchild said...

This reminds me of a related thing that occurred to me a while back. In the Dark Ages of Europe with the rise of the monastery system I wonder how much of a positive aspect it was. You essentially had a lot of people taking themselves out of the gene pool but still contributing to society. At a time when food was very scarce this probably had an overall positive aspect. So while I used to think that the Catholic celibacy thing was detrimental (sending some of the best and brightest off to be priests or whatever) I now think the overall effect could've been positive.

This makes it interesting that the rise of protestantism coincided with the introduction of New World plants, especially the potato. Almost like the meme of celibacy started to get supplanted about the time it was no longer needed. There were of course other factors, improved husbandry, the heavy plow, etc, that had already improved things by then.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Your knowledge of history is much better than mine (I got 4% in the last history exam I took before giving up the subject).

It's almost like it was all planned!

After today's post, I'm giving politics a rest. I'm not going to prod Richard with a pointy stick any more.

I'm going out for some croaking now.