Jim's Blog

Normally hypergamy is eugenic.  That is what it is for, that is its telos, that is almost the definition of hypergamy.  Yet it is very noticeable that a successful natural is frequently poor, perhaps usually poor, and often rather stupid. A loser, except he is a big winner with girls.

Consider the peacock.  Glorious tails are so big and heavy that they are bad for the species, bad for the race, would be bad for clan and family if peacocks had clans and families, which they do not.   Females tend to want what other females want.

Suppose females tend to go for X, where X is initially a good indicator of health and fitness, where females selecting males on X is initially eugenic.   If other females select X, it is good to have sons with lots of X, so a female should select X if other females select X, even if X has ceased to be a good indicator of health and fitness. Selection for X tends to become more and more extreme, even if it ceases to be a good indicator of fitness. Sexual selection tends to become driven by unreasonable and rather arbitrary female fashions.

Humans and chimps murder, hunt, eat meat, and, unlike most animals, make war.  The only other mammals I know of that make war are the lemming and the naked mole rat.  I expect there are plenty of others that I have not heard of, but war is, for obvious reasons, a rare characteristic.   We may therefore conclude that the common ancestor of man and chimp was violent, ate meat, and made war.

War requires loyalty and comradeship.  You love your comrades, you will kill for them, and risk death for them.  Humans are killer apes, but our specialty is loyalty, friendship, and cooperation.

Humans are not only smart, thus good at cooperating, but have physical adaptions for cooperation.  Our eyes have whites, which make it harder for us to hide and make us more vulnerable to UV damage, but makes it easier for one human to tell what another human is looking at.  Our throats are modified for a wider range of sounds in ways that make it considerably easier for us to choke.   Humans are more specialized for cooperating than chimps.

The common ancestor of man and chimp lived in the jungle, but being the meanest sons of bitches in the jungle, some of them decided to wander out on the plains.  Since they were the slowest sprinters on the plains, we may conclude that they were dangerous enough to take care of predators.  The theory that the first of our ancestors to go on the plains were timid gentle herbivores was not very plausible even back in the days when we thought that chimps were timid gentle herbivores.  If you cannot climb out of reach of carnivores, and you cannot sprint very well, what are you going to do?.  A child or a female is going to stick with the males, a male is going to stick with his comrades.

Plus out on the plains, there is more meat and less fruit, more hunting, less gathering.  So females are more dependent on males.  So more patriarchy, more specialization for violence, more specialization for cooperative violence, and, with more patriarchy, more war.   We became smarter in the course of thousands of genocides.   Conversely, primitive humans that live in jungles tend to evolve to become more like chimps.  In the jungle, females don’t need male support and can kick their kids out at four to gather for themselves.  Cooperation in large groups of men is less important in the jungles, where the individual male tends to individually predate on women and children, and so humans of that ancestry are not very good at cooperative endeavors – much better than any other animal, but not as good as their plains dwelling relatives.

Large groups of males quickly sort out their status hierarchy, after a bit of status jousting that is usually too subtle for women to understand, and thereafter treat each other with respect.  The private crisply salutes the officer, the officer salutes back slightly less crisply.

Women in contrast never sort out their status hierarchy, and are always plotting against each other and undermining each other, so that it is difficult for large female groups to work together.

To women, this standard smart male cooperation all looks like submissiveness, looks like being low man on the totem pole, because this stuff just goes over their heads.  To her, it looks as if the officer and the private are both kissing each other’s asses, so she wants:

See the way he walks down the street
Watch the way he shuffles his feet
My, he holds his head up high
When he goes walking by, he’s my guy

When he holds my hand, I’m so proud
Cause he’s not just one of the crowd
My baby’s always the one to try the things they’ve never done
And just because of that, they say

He’s a rebel and he’ll never ever be any good
He’s a rebel ’cause he never ever does what he should
But just because he doesn’t do what everybody else does
That’s no reason why I can’t give him all my love

He’s always good to me, always treats me tenderly
Cause he’s not a rebel, oh, no, no, no
He’s not a rebel, oh, no, no, no, to me

If they don’t like him that way
They won’t like me after today
I’ll be standing right by his side when they say

He’s a rebel and he’ll never ever be any good
He’s a rebel ’cause he never ever does what he should
Just because he doesn’t do what everybody else does
That’s no reason why we can’t share a love

By and large, he really will never ever be any good, for for men to get stuff done, have to work well with other men. By and large, he is a rebel because stupid – if he was a smart rebel he would be rebelling in ways less visible and more subtle than shuffling his feet.

But if all women tend to make the same mistake, then in a woman’s interests to make the same mistake as other women commonly make, for the sake of sexy sons

Because female sexual selection for X tends to go over the top, tends to become unreasonably extreme, because females tend to select for even more of what other females are selecting for, tends to be fashion driven, selecting for men who are at the top of the male hierarchy leads to selecting for men who do not display submissive behaviors, which leads to her selecting for the rebel who shuffles his feet, when she should be selecting for the officer whose reply salute is slightly less crisp than that of the private, which leads to her selecting guys at the bottom of the male hierarchy, rather than the top.

This post inspired by the movie “Zulu”, where all the characters, British, Boer, or Zulu, were ridiculously manly except for the preacher and his daughter, and the preacher’s daughter entirely failed to notice.

When we read that only one man in three reproduced, we tend to imagine two thirds of the men in an underclass detached from society, enslaved, killed, or driven out, and one third of the men forming society, with three wives each. Or you could have two thirds killed in war and the survivors get the booty. And similarly, if only one man in seventeen …

But obviously it is likely to be a power law. The ratio of men having n wives to men having n+1 wives will be roughly constant.

It turns out that, assuming equal production of males and females, this power ratio is equal to one minus the proportion of men contributing to the gene pool.

If one third of men reproduce, then about one man in nine has one wife, about one man in thirteen has two wives (that is to say, two thirds of the number of men who have only one wife), one man in twenty has three wives, (that is to say, two thirds of the number of men who have two wives), about one in thirty will have four wives and so on and so forth.

That seems like a fairly stable society, assuming you keep the excluded men under control. One solution would be to give the more valuable part of the excluded men the used up old wives of the men who are actually part of society, women approaching their use by date, women who have exceeded their use by date. This corresponds to the ancient Hebrew system of easy divorce for men only, and the traditional Muslim system of alarmingly easy divorce for men only.

Equal distribution of pussy by basically socialist means is fair, which is to say, monogamy with patriarchy, since we are reluctant to use market and capitalist incentives to manage the production of women, which is to say, fully propertize them and sell them to highest bidder for profit, with breeder farms functioning like piggeries. If we are not going to incentivize the production of women by capitalist cash market means, should not distribute them by capitalist cash market means.

On the other hand too much equality in the distribution of pussy is dysgenic. We want some men excluded, but two thirds excluded seems so large as likely to be destabilizing.

And of course, we want the right men excluded, which at present does not seem to be happening. Although production of children in marriage is mildly eugenic at present, in that wealthier men have more wives (serially and informally) and more children, the effect is weak, and probably more than counterbalanced by the grossly dysgenic production of children outside marriage – dumb women producing little bastard thuglets, smart women never getting married, never much wanting to get married because they cannot find any men who are their social superiors, and the supply of immortal vampires is a bit low, so they just don’t feel much like having sex. And, if they do feel like having sex, which mostly they do not, having had sex with someone they feel is a social inferior, they form weak attachment to any resulting children, aborting, neglecting, or outright murdering, or looking the other way when stepdad number three does the murdering. To become good mothers, women need to first be good wives, to feel themselves owned and mastered by someone better than themselves. Charles Murray argues that upper class women are well behaved, but in fact women who are married to upper class men, which is not quite the same thing as upper class women, are well behaved. Upper class women who fail to form suitable marriages and stay married in those marriages give truck stop strippers a run for their money.

A ratio of fifty percent – half the men have no offspring, a quarter have one wife, a eighth have a wife and a “maid”, a sixteenth have a wife and two “maids” and so on and so forth would be pretty stable, since no possible combination of those missing out could overcome those getting some. We could dispense with the easy divorce, at least for wives. One should enforce patriarchal monogamy, which is to say, the socialist equal rationing of pussy, to the extent necessary to ensure a majority of men are attached to society at a youthful age, but enforcing it more than that might well be overkill.

The sociobiology leading to the conclusion that women are ill suited to be part of the larger society, and should be subordinated to husbands and fathers, rests in large part on high reproductive variance among males in the ancestral environment, the environment of evolutionary adaption.

Now it obviously seems likely that reproductive variance among males was extreme – just look! And pretty much everyone in the manosphere agrees that it was, but until recently, I have not been able to find any good science pinning it down.

Now I have.

Throughout most of human history, almost all women reproduced but only one male in three reproduced. During the neolithic, from agriculture to the start of the bronze age (very rough dates) one male in seventeen reproduced – sixteen males died without children, one male had seventeen wives, concubines, and slave girls. After this roughly four thousand year period of very extreme inequality, it returned to its long term norm, one male in three – all races, all cultures, all societies, and it is been at roughly its long term norm for the past four thousand years or so.

Tasmanian aboriginal skull

At least that is what the article says, though maybe they photographed a Neanderthal skull in error.

On the other hand, Erectus walks among us gives an example of an almost equally primitive looking aboriginal skull, and suggests that our most recent common ancestor with the Australian aboriginals is not very recent.

Human skull

The difference seems to be at least as great, as the difference between a human skull and a Neanderthal skull, and the cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull considerably greater.  Observe the sloping brow and the ridges surrounding the eye sockets, very similar to what makes a Neanderthal skull Neanderthal. Indeed, I wonder if this is a Neanderthal skull somehow mislabeled.

If, as seems likely, Neanderthals had very limited interfertility with humans, we would, on the face of it, suspect that Tasmanians would have very limited interfertility than humans, assuming the skull to be correct, and, from cranial capacity, a substantially lower technological capacity than Neanderthals.  In fact, however, Tasmanian technology was better than Neanderthal.  Tasmanian art was about the same as Neanderthal art.

That nurses became sick “shows there was a clear breach of safety protocol” – but they are able to draw this conclusion without knowing what the breach was.

The underlying reasoning is clear:

Quarantine is racist.

Therefore ebola is not very infectious.

Therefore business as usual.

Oops. Two nurses are infected with ebola.

Obviously the nurses’ fault. They must be racist. This is a tragedy because it makes people think forbidden thoughts about Africans.

Moravec’s paradox is the hard problems are easy and the easy problems are hard. A computer can beat the world’s greatest chess player at chess, but it cannot beat a spider at getting around. If humans have been working on a problem for a thousand years, you can program a computer to do it. If evolution has been working on a problem for a hundred million years, not so easy.

It turns out that the vast majority of the functional human genome is information processing.  A small proportion of the human genome codes for proteins, but most of the important genes, most of what matters, does not code for proteins.  It is RNA world data processing, RNA genes, RNA generated primarily to process RNA.

Given  that twelve to sixty percent of the human genome is data processing, is software, is programming, that is a lot of information processing – seven hundred megabytes to four gigabytes of software. A lot of this software is instructions on how to build a human being – where and when to express the proteins of which a human is made.

If, however, you have a massive system for processing data, seems likely that the brain is going to use it.

Particular RNA genes are expressed in particular kinds of neurones, often a particular RNA gene being expressed in few hundred or a few thousand very specific neurones in the entire brain,  Protein expression is considerably less specific.

Most of the genetic complexity of the brain consists of very large numbers of very specific RNA genes being expressed in very specific neurons.  Protein enzymes for editing RNAs are most highly expressed in the brain, and a disproportionate number of RNA genes are expressed only in the brain, and only in very specific neurons in the brain.

The human brain does thirty five times as much RNA editing per unit mass as the mouse brain.  The smarter the animal, the more RNA data processing in neurons.  Smarter animals not only have bigger brains with more neurons, they have substantially more RNA software expressed and running in each neuron. This is the missing complexity.  Humans have about the same number of protein coding genes as a sponge or a flatworm.  They have substantially more RNA genes, a large proportion of which are expressed only in quite specific neurons in the brain.

This suggests that neurons process data at the RNA level – that a large part of the evolution towards intelligence occurred in RNA world creating smarter individual free living cells, before cells got smart enough to gang up for attack and defense, and likely before they developed protein synthesis.

If brain data is processed in complex ways in RNA, there is no way that this can be emulated in silicon.  Likely we have software that evolved over billions of years, which software is designed to run on RNA molecules in water solution and can only be efficiently run on RNA molecules in water solution.

So, if RNA world data processing, no possibility of emulating the human mind in silicon.  Silicon consciousness would have to be built from scratch, rather than by copying existing software, which looks to me like a very hard project..