Post-Gedankenexperiment Speculative Questions

Matsya comes to the rescue of Manu

Assuming for the purpose of play the prior post, 

And assuming say a time point of what we would date as around say, 3000-4000 CE/AD,

What would be the mix of religions?

The simplification our species would have gone through would probably be the most drastic one yet, at least since that mysterious big human population drop about 70,000 years ago. So I doubt the current religious systems would make it through the cusp, like in this wonderful novel.

We can with some confidence in a general sense I believe, predict what governance and social methods/structures may arise. That is because we have matches from the past to go with previous socio-technological levels of complexity.

Of course, the wild card on this is the following.:

What knowledge of past human history (the time before the relatively sudden

decrease in human population) would make it through the cusp?

What form and accuracy would it entail?

Assuming the simplification is geographically inconsistent, would some surviving groups have a technical advantage or experiential advantage in competition for resources?

Would that past become mythic elements, and how long would that take?

We have seen this process in our actual past, after non-planetary-wide  simplifications, (Early post Roman Britain views on “Rome”, or the drastic simplification in a short time across the Western Hemisphere from the spread along trade routes of the diseases brought to the Caribbean by the first Europeans to come ashore there. But this time, the rapid simplification would be on a planetary scale.

For some perhaps, the actual Simplification with be reimagined and weaved into some great story. This would be not unlike how probably the human experience the flooding around the planet with the melting of the last ice age, eventually became all the human flood epics, from the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh to flood Legend of Manu.

Gedankenexperiment

One of the cool creatures that developed out of the PETM.

An attempt at an apolitical attempt to answer the question:
If you care about the world so to speak, "think big picture" should you vote for Donald Trump?

That answer probably depends on what your goals are, and how you envision a preferred world future.

If you are into one of the variants of "radical ecology", you might want to vote for Donald Trump. (I do not consider myself in the radical ecology camp.)

Assumptions:

Donald Trump does what he says he will do and he acts in accord with what he says he thinks.

The United States of America since World War 2, due to its military, economic and cultural dominance of the planet, has been in a systems dynamics sense, a stabilizing influence; militarily and economically.   

As a result of that stabilization, the influence of the U.S.A. is in a slow decline, since the rise of economic power of other state actors following the end of the "cold war".

That rapid climate change science is reasonably accurate.

That the shrinkage of mountain system glaciers continues at its current rate 

A continued problem with fresh water on a planetary basis, as to quantity, quality and equitable access thereto.

Scenario (assuming above)


A Near Future (1-8 years)

Trump elected.

The stabilizing influence of the U.S. A. rapidly decreases.

Foreign policy practices of many states become less cooperative and return to a more ad hoc, a la carte model.

U.S.A. abandons all effort towards building an international climate change mitigation framework.

The federal government abandons all efforts and funding relevant to climate change mitigation and adaptation, domestically and via foreign aide.

An Intermediate Future (Remainder of century)

Other states find it difficult to fashion an international GHG mitigation framework, without the inclusion of the U.S. and Russia in the process as "positive" actors.

Despite a patchwork of "local" attempts to mitigate GHG's/rapid climate change, much of the world continues to rely on fossil energy sources.

Central Asian mountain system glaciers provide decreasing fresh water to South Asia, central "Stans", central Russian and East Asia.

Water issues in Middle East and Asia escalate.

Periodic outbreaks of warfare in the above areas start and continue, and nuclear and other WMD's are used. 

Atmospheric drift of radiation adds contamination to the primary food production areas in the rest of the world, amplifying impacts of those areas current and ongoing "migration" north and south (depending on your hemisphere).

Formally non-combatant nuclear states, engage in limited counter-force strikes against combatant states to curtail future contamination drift. Combatants retaliate.

Social complexity, in differing ways and to various levels of complexity, rapidly simplifies.

Simplification, along with the atmospheric impacts of the numerous nuclear explosions (blocking. some solar radiation input), collapses mass agriculture, while also slowing the planetary warming trend.

Deeper time period

After the wolves went extinct and then the Simplification, the wolf niche
was occupied by feral packs of formally domestic dogs.

A drastically reduced and less concentrated  human population achieves less complex socio-technological levels of operation, with less impact on the planetary and local ecosystems.

The "long tail" of the warming trend is shorter than under a "business as usual scenario".

Past human induced changes and the impacts/changes of the above process resulted in a large non-human die-off too. But surviving plants and animals over time go through a period of genetic variation and speciation mostly free of concurrent of human influence.

The Phenomena of Teflon Don

Cleon of Athens

I would suggest that calling Donald Trump a "demagogue“ is niether hyperbolic nor an insult, (as the term was not in it's place of birth, ancient Athens). It is perhaps, just accurate.

“A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of the mob, from δῆμος, …a political leader in a democracy who gains popularity by appealing to the passions, prejudices, and ignorance of the common people. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. “

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

The methods of demagogues

Scapegoating

Fearmongering

Lying

Emotional oratory and personal magnetism

Violence and physical intimidation

Personal insults and ridicule

Gross oversimplification

Accusing opponents of weakness and disloyalty

One of the historically apparent characteristics of a demagogue is to be a “teflon candidate”. It is rationally arguable the Donald Trump is close to being classic demagogue  and may be an absolutely American version of one, (Americans somehow separate the “elite” from the “wealthy…as foreign folks have pointed out, we tend to confuse “rich” with clever or smart).

Teflon is a nickname given to persons, particularly in politics, to whom criticism does not seem to stick. The term comes from Teflon, the brand name by DuPont of a "non-stick" chemical used on cookware.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon_(nickname)

To back him for president, assuming it is not just a matter of party loyalty, one must suspend one's analytic functions on what he says, or at least not notice the apparent irrationality in what he says. For the supporter, maybe they have shrouded their own brain with teflon.

Is Donald Trump the First Postmodern Presidential Candidate?

Just Google the words:   Trump  Postmodern

"Donald Trump is not a conservative—he’s a reality TV star thoroughly in tune with the passions and dynamics of mass publicity and social media. No matter how much he denounces them, he’s still a product of victim-based identity politics."

From Donald Trump: At Home in Postmodern America http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/12/16133/

We saw moments of post-modern thought in past presidents. Reagan ("Facts are such stupid things"), Clinton (the word games during his testimony re Lewinsky ) and Bush 2 (Rhetoric during the lead up the 2nd invasion of Iraq). I am not claiming that Donald Trump conciously embraces postmodernist philosophy in his world view, nor in his performance art*.
But, when i look at his campaign behavior to date, i think it is not far fetched to describe his ideas and their expression as "postmodern", philosophically. 

Postmodern Philosophy.

" Walter Truett Anderson described postmodernism as belonging to one of four typological world views, which he identifies as either 
(a) Postmodern-ironist, which sees truth as socially constructed 
(b) Scientific-rational, in which truth is found through methodical, disciplined inquiry
(c) Social-traditional, in which truth is found in the heritage of American and Western civilization
(d) Neo-romantic, in which truth is found through attaining harmony with nature and/or spiritual exploration of the inner self." 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism 

Postmodernism regects certain Enlightenment values, such as:
Grand narratives
The primacy of rationality
The existence of objective reality
The concept of absolute truth
Objective moral values
Truth is considered a variable social construct. Also, in postmodern sociopolitical writing, critique far outweighs the promulgation of structured, potential solutions. 
Postmodernism is also considered to be an element of the modern version of identity politics. This, apart from Trumps frequent use of dog whistles, is part of his appeal to his core support (non-college graduate "white" males).
This is the most interesting and may be the most important presidential election during my life so far.



* His style exhibits a sort of conceptual bricolage. Words are a central feature, recycling of past styles and elements, collage, simplification, and a creative freedom from the empirical world.

Enough Said

News Items & Tainter Simplification

Will the current sporadic armed conflict between some U.S. citizens and law enforcement personnel increase or hold steady in rate? Is it another aspect of  Tainter Simplification ? Is it example of a social behavior arising out of a confluence of pressures driving the simplification, first manifesting in some mentally damaged folks?
Only time will tell. But the structural aspects can be discerned.

The widening availability & spread of firearms possession
Open carry/concealed carry
Increasingly confrontational political rhetoric
Increasing use of racial and ethnic derogatory comments by authority figures
Identity politics
Events usually not widely seen recorded and posted online
Increasing economic disparity
Increasing anti-government rhetoric
Apparent increasing distrust of government
and...
In other words, is this a progression?

Booking Up

As a citizen of a plutocracy, i thought it might be useful to start studying plutocracies in history.
Here are some examples:

Roman Republic
Some city-states in Ancient GreeceCarthageThe Italian city-states/merchant republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa 

Pre-World War II Empire of Japan 

And here is the Google Scholar search string for the word      plutocracy

Going for the Jugular

“And a Democratic option that sought to bar all gun sales to those individuals on the terror watch list failed 47-53, the second time the proposal went down to defeat after a mass shooting. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein originally pushed the proposal in December after a shooting in San Bernardino, and revived it after the horrific Orlando nightclub shooting by a gunman who pledged allegiance to the terror group ISIS.” WGN website 06/21/2016”

Interesting. This a.m., early, just after waking I heard a news item similar to the above. I immediately was possessed by the spirit of some left of center anti-matter twin of Carl Rove or Frank Luntz, from some parallel universe, and came up up with the perfect Democratic spin on the above event. More on that later.

A number of years ago I was listening to a weekly broadcast of the Washington Press Club, the lunch speaker was Theodore Roosevelt the 3^rd or 4^th. Like his illustrious namesake, he was a Republican, and a member of that extinct in public office, and near extinct everywhere sub genius, a Progressive Republican. Yes Virginia, their used to be Progressive Republicans. In fact, his name sake was their national standard bearer. His namesake now tends to serve as a CEO or President of a major environmental organization, mirroring his namesake again.

Anyway, at the lunch he was asked: “What is the key difference between Republicans and Democrats. His Reply? “Republicans have an instinct for the jugular, Democrats have a instinct for the capillaries.” Quite right. I agree with that pretty much sums up the differences in approach to issues, the spin style if you will, of the two. I wonder why? Bears research i think. But i digress...

Of course, Faux News is trying to do spin control , or even funnier, the view of  “Terrorist Watchlist: The Re-Birth of Tyranny” from the folks at Ammoland Shooting Sports News….

But, back to my first thought this a.m.

What would it sound like if Democrats made statements about this vote in the spin style of the Republicans? If today every Democratic candidate & operative said the same thing? I think it would sound like this:

The Republicans and the NRA support ISIS.

They want to arm ISIS terrorists in America.

A more Trumperized version:

The Republicans and the NRA support ISIS.

They want to arm ISIS terrorists in America.

In fact, in fact (double use intended) they are by this vote, giving aid and comfort to a sworn enemy of America.

Well there is a word for that, its treason. The republicans are traitors, just as bad as the terrorists themselves, maybe worse.

Chuckle.

Deus Vult

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.”   

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

https://creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/should-we-stone-atheists/

"Without pledging ourselves to any particular Confession, we have restored faith to its pre-requisites because we were convinced that the people needs [sic] and requires [sic] this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
Baynes, Norman Hepburn (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922 – August 1939'. H. Fertig. p. 378.

"Another ramification of our social nature and intelligence is pseudospeciation. Quoting from Jane Goodall's "Chimpanzees of The Gombe"@ 532: "In our species cultural evolution permits pseudospeciation (Erickson, 1966)--the transmission of individually acquired behavior from generation to generation within a particular group, leading to the customs and traditions of that group. This process is analogous to the formation of species through genetic inheritance. Pseudospeciation in humans means, among other things, that members of one group may not only see themselves as different from members of another, but also behave in different ways to group and non-group individuals. In its extreme form pseudospeciation leads to "dehumanizing" of other groups, so that they may be regarded almost as members of a different species (LeVine and Campbell, 1971). This process, along with the ability to use weapons for hurting or killing at a distance, frees group members from the inhibitions and social sanctions that operate within a group and enable acts that would not be tolerated within the group to be directed toward "those others”." The expression of pseudospeciation in such behaviors as ethnocentrism, racism, prejudice and warfare compound the scarcity condition or perceived scarcity, and increase the perceived threat levels for individuals seeking to meet needs. What results is an interaction between status related behaviors and pseudospeciation which often leads to inter-group violence and increases cultural isolation. As humans became more technologically sophisticated, this situation becomes increasingly acute due to inherent feedback loops. Resources disappear at an increasing rate, wastes accumulate at an increasing rate and violence increases in lethality and in incidence. Scarcity increases. Perceived threats increase. It all feeds back onto itself."

 Air Water Ground: An Essay on New Adaptive Strategies, © 1978-2014 Jay Moynihan

In my country, polls routinely inform us that when it comes to elect- ability, an  atheist is at the bottom. Another poll found that the majority of Americans thought an atheist was less trustworthy than a rapist. Even on the so called "left" it is little different. The PC police overlook anti-atheist language and images.
This attitude toward the atheist minority is so wide spread here that it makes a good subject for looking at the underpinnings of the problems that can arise from contingent altruism.
Contingent altruism is cooperation by phenotype with conspecifics that display shared labels, markings or other ques; sometimes referred to as “tags”. It is found in social species. The reaction to tag, or its absence is a continuum of behavior. The more intelligent the specie the more graduated the responses.
Presence of a tag: trust or greater tendency to trust.
No tag: react by attack or a lesser tendency to trust.
In its most basic form, it can just be predicated on the presence of a chemical compound, such as the "nest scent" of ants.
Present: exchange pheromone information or food.
Not present: release alarm pheromone and kill or run.

In social birds and mammals, it gets more complex. With us, the most complex social creatures we know of, it can get byzantine. We learn to see a multitude of tags and responses thereto from our parents, siblings, peers, and eventually, from our own experiences.
Some basic apparent differences (skin color, gender, language/dialect, dress) seem to impact on how much we trust, depending what we have learned as a young creature.  Other tags (team logos, and other minutinae for example) seldom have body counts.
To "discriminate" (pseudospeciation) is a cultural universal, but what we discriminate against is learned.  The belief in a supernatural, unseen being is another cultural or "human universal". Which type of religion or spiritual practice one has, if any, is usually that learned from the parent. and it can have teeth and a body count.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! " 

Pope Urban the 2nd, Address to the Council of Clermont, November 27, 1095

"I'm fighting so I can die a martyr and go to heaven to meet God. Our fight now is against the Americans.

 Osama bin Laden

The belief in a supernatural, unseen being, while the details of its expression in any one individual is varied, it is a very important factor in a group. Hence the use of differences in the details of that belief across groups is so easily manipulated to drive others to violence.
But it is, even more important for the phenotype than that. 

For a person of faith/theist, it is part of their basic structure of reality and worldview. It is their sword and buckler against existential horror.
An atheist, a person who does not share this very core symbolic object "human universal" with them, is missing a major tag. No wonder they would not trust them.  No wonder they fear them. For some of them, an atheist is a walking threat of combinatorial explosion.

Auguring Over a Dead Horse

I have read a few pieces tonight about Donald Trump's apparent ascendancy being a crisis of our "democracy". 
WTF?
If we are going poke about the corpse of our body politic, we should at least have the decency to use correct terms.

The founders did not create a democracy (no representatives, like ancient Athens was for awhile. All eligible to vote, vote on every individual issue. Very rare, unstable form with few examples, Athens of Plato's time,Viking Iceland, a few native North American Nations).
The founders intentionally created a "republic" (essentially the exercise of power of the people through elected representatives and courts)., primarily in imitation of the Republican Period of ancient Rome. But republics are normally short lived things, normally transformed to another form via the eventual concentration of power via concentration of wealth.
And, that transition has already happened for us.
Not wanting to be mean, but someone needs to say it. What is so outlandish about a people that let their republic turn into a plutocracy, electing to the highest office, a narcistic, opportunistic real estate developer?
But as the the Romans taught us, what follows the fall of republics, can be monsters ...

Anerriphtho kubo

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud .  .  .  hatch out"

It now appears that the two finalist for the office of President of the United States this year will be Donald Trump of the GOP and Hillary Clinton of the "Democrats" ( like her hubby, she reminds me, politically, of the majority of Republican politicians in Wisconsin when i was a sprout, but i digress...). 

I assume that if you are a regular reader of this blog, you know how i will vote. Assuming that I do vote, and not take the position of good old Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. 

Anywho...

I want to write a couple things about this election year.

First, there has been a fair amount of apolitical stuff out there about how parents & civics teachers have been having problems talking with children about the things Donald Trump says. This link may be helpful for a start.

Second, people who do not want Mr. Trump to win, must not become over-confident. What a person says they will do to a spouse, friend, co-worker, or pollster, etc., may be quite different in the privacy of the voting booth. All of us, to a variable extent, have within us that primeval core that for which the Trump message is perhaps the strongest.

Third, I am very interested in how the planetary media-verse will handle this election race. Everybody overseas watches our presidential elections. For many of them, it is not unlike watching the old fashioned competition for who will be their emperor. This one has an interesting feature though. 

This will be the first election fight for the highest executive office in the government of a "great power", where it can be said without resort to hyperbole, that one of the contenders is apparently racist, ethnocentric, etc., since 1933. Very interesting intellectually speaking.

I think Ayn Rand & Friedrich Hayek Would Approve

For the fun of it....

This is a humble proposal for a solution path for a U.S. social controversy using law and market forces.

It is a market based approach with strong elements of individual rights and responsibility. 

Short example:

In the U.S. the number of White Tailed Deer on the landscape is actually determined by, in addition to certain biogeophysical factors, the the regulatory laws and regulations of each state government on matters such as game hunting, land use, etc.Each year their are many collisions of deer and motor vehicles on public roads.

So, market based solution:

That the state government be strictly liable for any damage to person or property resulting from the collision of a deer and a vehicle on a public road.

So, ok gun folk, have it your way. But I do not want to pay for the cost you may externalize to society, that i have to pay for directly or indirectly. . so,

Here we go

If you are doing concealed carry or "hunting" or keep a gun at work or home or vehicle; and are not a member of the military or National Guard, or not a member of law enforcement:*

1. That you will not be required to take part in any firearms safety or use training

2. There will be no background checks

3. That you will not be required use trigger lock or any safe storage equipment or procedure in your home or your vehicle.

4. You must federally register your firearm within 3 business days of your receipt or purchase. Failure to do so will be a federal criminal offense with a fine of not more than $500,000 or prison of lot less than one year nor more than 15 years, or both such fine and imprisonment, for each offense.

Note: this recognizes the concepts of transparency and individual responsibility, and the rights of individuals to make informed decisions on many things, such as deciding if they want to live next to a gun owner, or for a business, to make hiring decisions, insurers to make business decisions, etc.

5. Any seller of a firearm must register the sale of that firearm with the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and firearms, through an internet based system for that use. Failure to do so before the end of the day of sale, will be for the seller and/or their agent a federal offense with a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or prison for not less than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment, for each offense

Note: this recognizes the concepts of transparency and individual responsibility, and the rights of individuals to make informed decisions as consumers  insurers to make business decisions, etc.

6. No liability for law enforcement if they cap your ass during performance of their lawful duties

Note: This is to help law enforcement in its daily tasks and their own safety.

7. Your health insurer or liability insurer can refuse to insure you if you are a gun owner, seller or manufacturer

Note: The right to refuse legally includes the right to determine higher premium rates if the insurer concludes that higher risk is present. The insurance industry would be free to create its own "exceptions" to higher rates. For example, gun collectors who have their pieces permanently made inoperable.

8. That you are strictly liable for any harm to person or property caused by the discharging of your firearm(s)

Note: "In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous." ibi

9. If a civil action is brought against you based upon discharge(s) of a firearm(s) of yours, and said firearm(s) is a hand gun, a semi-automatic or an automatic, or any combination thereof; you may join as party defendant the legal person(s) who sold you that firearm(s) and the manufacturer of that firearm(s).

Note: This does not say that parties joined as defendants would be subject to strict liability. But the court or jury would be able to assess and weigh their negligence in its deliberation on co-liability and assignment and amount of damages.

Ok folks, thin the herd! 

* I put hunting in quotes here to indicate the popular use of the word, as opposed to and to distinguish it from, its correct usage. The exemptions mentioned in this paragraph are also to make an absolutely clear distinction based upon a truly conservative reading of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A Ramble on an Applied Example of Sensitivity to Initial Conditions.

https://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/suminst/bbi01/projects/regina/

References for this ramble:
Initial Condition
Early Childhood Brain Development and Workforce Development
AAP Resources
Lick Your Rats

Ok. I have reading alot of the stuff above re my day job. When i hit the papers re the rats & mice though, i then thought about the following.
What is the "survival value" of what we normally deem, "bad parenting?
My thought path on this is a good example of of number of things:

We make moral judgments, the rest of nature does not.

Evolution via natural selection is not teleological.

Sensitivity to initial conditions.

Increasing the quality of a workforce, reducing crime and reduction of some 
healthcare costs, may be both complex and expensive, in a pecuniary based economy model. 

A sketch, (assuming you have read the stuff above, me lazy)

Rodent model
If "high contact" & non-violent to offspring parent, then
In baby serotonin high, cortisol re-uptake high.
Offspring grow to be calm, curious, friendly

If "low contact" &/or violent environment of parent, then
In baby serotonin low, cortisol re-uptake low.
Offspring grow to be hypervigilant and aggressive

Generally
If you add in the stuff known about human brain development... 

How a child is parented is highly dependent on the environment.

From the "selfish gene" POV, with human moral overlay aside, "good" parenting is a continuum with placement along it tied to the genes & environment of the parent. 


For example, if in a male dominant vertical dominance human hierarchy, it could be argued that an optimum "selfish gene" strategy for a phenotype would be:
If female; breed early and confuse paternity *
If male; hyper-vigilance and aggression

In my day job, One of things i teach is the importance of early brain development/high contact parenting to workforce development. But, here is an interesting ethical question. In a time of increasing economic disparity, economic stratification and socio-economic simplification, what is "good" parenting, for who?

* 1999: Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants and Natural Selection. New York: Pantheon. Published in UK as Mother Nature: Natural selection and
the female of the species. London: Chatto and Windus);. ISBN 0-679-44265-0.

The Decent of Man

It is a common practice for folks to criticize the Right Wing in the United States for being "anti-science". Climate change denial and "anti-evolution" education being the most noticeable examples. It is also common for the "American Left" to chastise and mock the Right about this. The left should not. 
I posit both sides accept the science that matches their pre-scientific values, or at least tolerate (i.e., Ben Carlson's acceptance of antibiotic science and the Bush families utilization of paleontology in oil and gas exploration; while both rejecting evolution through selection and old earth geology, but i digress) and rely on the science, while denying it.
The Left or as it is now sometimes called, the "Regressive Left", accepts basic science for the most part, but often dismisses the core of liberalism on the grounds of relevance , or refuses to apply the science because doing so would skewer a sacred cow.
An example of the latter is the hostility towards the integration of what we now know about evolution and genes, into the social sciences, law, etc. Try bringing up Cultural Universals in a group of regressive liberals when talking about violence and prejudice, and many other topics. Anything that is not on the "nurture side" of the nurture/nature debate (which is not a scientific debate anymore. Behavior is a relationship between a phenotype and an environment in a state of constant change; ie. it is naturenurture...) is deemed anathema ex cathedra. The role of what is in the "wetware" and what is learned after birth are not united by the regressive left to actually try to address the problems they are supposedly concerned about.

The end of liberalism
Historically, the concept of "liberal" was part of the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. Adam Smith was a liberal. 

“If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.” 

― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

I think that both the left and right have in essence embraced in their own ways and per their member's perceived pre-scientific self identifications; identity politics  . 

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.
The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

 Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

So many groups, position, differences. Whether it is the discriminated against while male, females, people of colour, or other social subdivision of homo Sapiens into a minutiae of MOPES*; we are pulling apart while doing the same thing as the other is. In times of stress, pseudospeciation can infect everyone. Are we no longer even paying lip service to the central tenet of the enlightenment, as so well put by  Maajid Nawaz, "No idea above scrutiny, no person below dignity."?


*Most Oppressed People Ever

Inter-group violence among early Holocene hunter-gatherers of West Turkana, Kenya

Paper: 

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7586/full/nature16477.html

Radio Interview re Paper:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/archaeological-fine-points-to-ancient-human-violence/

The Prince

"The one who adapts his policy to the times prospers, and likewise that the one whose policy clashes with the demands of the times does not."

Niccolo Machiavelli

The Trumph brand of the politics of disgust, conjures images for some of the nascent American fascism (which is also reducing the scrutiny of closet Dominionist Ted Cruz, but i digress....).

“The vulgar crowd always is taken by appearances, and the world consists chiefly of the vulgar.” 
                             Machiavelli

""Do I look like I have a plan?" says the Joker in "The Dark Knight". "I'm a dog chasing cars. I don't know what I'd do if I caught it". Mr Trump's havoc-spreading run seemed to share this improvisational spirit."          The Economist.

But, well, a question. If you are not in a republic, but rather are in a plutocracy; why not consider the candidacy of an unprincipled, opportunistic billionaire?

I was reminded of the writing of Niccolo Machiavelli secretary and second chancellor to the Florentine "Republic" (which was actually at the time a defacto plutocracy in transition to aristocracy), in looking at Trump's opportunism. So which do you prefer, America, Trump or giving Ted a chance to build his father's dreams?

Is the ESOBC Inescapable?

Here is some evidence for the position that we cannot breakthrough ESOBC (Economic Socially Obligate Boundary Condition, read the document called Air Water Ground linked on the right sidebar). The Dark Mountain Project , monetized itself from the beginning. Not really a ctitiique, just saying "uncivilized writing" ah right.  But, i am thinking of trying to monetize Air Water Ground...When in Rome, etc. ?

Neurotransmitters are highly conserved across taxa

Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (2012)
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf 

"An international group of prominent scientists has signed The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in which they are proclaiming their support for the idea that animals are conscious and aware to the degree that humans are — a list of animals that includes all mammals, birds, and even the octopus. But will this make us stop treating these animals in totally inhumane ways?" http://io9.gizmodo.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-declaration-that-animals-have-conscious-awareness-just-like-us

An interesting Christain Identity video

The Christian Identity movement (a facsimile of a FBI backrounder on them is here) is a shared ideology across most of the spectrum of the ultra-far right in the United States. 
The recent Planned Parenthood shooter was apparently a fan of these folks, the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing folks were adherents, etc. 
These folks are farther to the right than the Dominionists (which lacks a racial aspect to their belief system), and farther to the right than most elected Republican office holders.
 I recently stumbled across a Christian Identity video for non-members.

OK, i do not like trigger warnings, but i will do one on this link.

Trigger Warning: 
This video was prepared by white male supremacists. It is  or may be offensive to Most "whites", Non-Christians, LGBT folks, any person of color, women and most mainline Christians.
   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph7zKSblzo

At around minute 30 +-, they depict the persecution of "rescuers" at abortion clinics. 
The video is chock full of faux-history and a certain weirdness, but worth watching for a look into the mind of some folks. I guess...

From a Friend on Facebook