Thursday, October 5, 2017

Mercy Me

At what point did it grant an evolutionary benefit to forgive the organism that stole your food? After billions of years of the development of overpowering instincts--of hunger, resource recognition and acquisition, self-integrity, et cetera--when did the self-harming traits of cooperation and compliance so widely revered and/or observed in humans today (Terra 2017) become beneficial? We expand, again, on Components of Material Superiority, further demonstrating the material invalidity of "good" and the transmateriality implied by the recurrence of transmaterial "good" concepts in a material world.

The Potential Material Superiority of Mercy

Non-fitness-bolstering, non-selfish behavior is the literal bane of Jenomic evolution as it has been expressed until recent reformations (which are as yet incomplete). How often did food-stealers become, inside of a single lifetime--before the randomly-mutated forgivers could be betrayed a second time, and therefore starve--trusted allies who increased the survivability and reproducibility of those who'd developed the "forgiveness" trait? How immediately successful was forgiveness--extending a more arguably beneficial kinship-based forgiveness to genetic outsiders and/or non-kin--to the germ lines of people who would, as of that last random mutation, turn the other cheek? In order for forgiveness to have been so beneficial, it would have to have been not only beneficial to the forgiver, who could turn food-stealers into instant reliable allies, but it would have to've been more beneficial than concurrent mutations (or older, pre-existent coding) for those who killed food-stealers rather than forgiving them on the chance that they'd become germ-line promoters within a single lifetime. The benefit of an ally in a lifetime, if such could conceivably be produced, might indeed be profound, but is it so much more profound that fifty food stealers would compete versus forty forgivers and fifteen repentant food-stealers, then result in the forgivers surviving, let alone comparatively thriving? The coincidences begged by mercantile evolution for the rushed development of Earth-specific mutations look plausible compared to the development of any sort of mercy-derived trait being applied to non-offspring.

It is utterly ridiculous, not only in many more modern human fields, but particularly in mathematics, to contend that the combination of randomly-generated enduring forgivers with randomly-generated repentant food-stealers would (1) be created, (2) survive, (3) harmonize, and then (4) out-breed not only groups of unrepentant food-stealers, but also groups of vengeful food-horders unacquainted with the concept of letting food-stealers "just have" supplies vital to survival.

And yet, like honeybees developing alongside nectar-decisive flower populations and bats simultaneously mutating sonar-production and -analyzation components in different parts of the body, the world includes, and was for a long time superficially dominated by, just such groups: dreamy, pollyannaish forgivers who autogenocided their own terminal forgiveness.

We tend to fathom the possible utility of mercy-based traits using the toys currently possessed (surplus food, computers, or irons, depending on the age) when sufficient centuries of social cohesion have passed to permit a sustained division of labor, societal respect for parental mercy and authority, et cetera, wherein randomized forgiveness might retrospectively prove conducive to such development, technological or otherwise. Like the sudden advantage of painstakingly created Terran lungs, though, for forgiveness to have survived and spread to such a point where it would inundate a society sufficiently to allow for such reliabilities, it would've had to be (per Jenomic "randomized" material evolutionary rules) very quickly beneficial to individuals who had, in genetic isolation, randomly developed said trait. Ergo for forgiveness and social acceptance to be widespread, a tendency for forgiving food-stealers would have to translate into reproductive success over a small number of generations. Additionally, it would have to produce such an increased success rate that it could trump the success rate of people who had simultaneously evolved not forgiveness of food-stealers, but instead the behavior of setting deadlier traps around agricultural growth or storage areas. Either scenario is unlikely, but combined, the perceived evolutionary utility of forgiveness-traits moves beyond the ridiculous to the impossible. Randomized material evolution, therefore, proves itself again a competing religious faith rather than an evidentiary material science. To the familiar transmaterial tropes of virgin birth or ageless life we should add the presumption that, in a struggle for survival of the fittest, the willingness to forgive food-stealers is of competitive utility.

(Dress up as you like. Replace "food-stealers" with "food-poisoners" or "infant-slayers" or "arm-breakers" or any other individual or group with a mutated predilection for a behavior that would be harmful to others' chances of survival.)

Gay Germs

Greg Cochran's gay germ theory addresses a similar problem, attempting to counter the argument that non-reproductive sexual predilections might have evolutionary utility to groups if the non-reproducing entities ("gays") contributed to raising the offspring of the reproducers. Many modern commentators, Cochran included, have embraced the theory that a germ might cause homosexuality from a pro-material-evolution perspective, noting some of the internal contradictions always inherent in the material approach.

(Like creation from non-materialism or pre-materialism, materialism is always self contradictory; it is not difficult to find one or more of these scriptural errors in any material religion. "Allah moved on the waters, then created everything, then became really interested in foreskins" is a more internally consistent religion than randomized materialism, because it does not presuppose quite as many answers in ways that later contradict itself. Allah might be a human-like jerk or a pervert, in contrast to "randomization," which can be shown to be not merely temperamental, but explicitly contradict what it earlier said to be true. [Yes, this one knows Yahweh can show that about himself, too; the point is that the random god, bearing no human qualities, has no built-in excuses for grant-recipient error, ergo is more embarrassingly, indefensibly flawed than human-modeled Yallah can ever be.].)

In his case, Cochran points out that, for homosexuality to possess evolutionary utility, homosexuals would have to parent as many children as they would otherwise have in order to benefit the group as a whole. Posit two competing societies, each of 100 members, one of which has 50 gay siblings and the other of which has zero. If we remove the gays from reproduction, the remaining 50 reproducers have to have double the offspring to equal the output attributable to the hypothetical enemy group, which the gays should offset by helping watch the kids and thereby making it possible for the others to have more kids. That does not happen, in part because non-parent guardianship is not aggregately effective parenting, and in part because aggregate gays aren't that or at all interested in it; Cochran and his supporters mention these issues, but focus mainly on how, even if the gays are really into hanging out with their fair (let alone increased, as it would have to be) share of developing young for 10 years or 18 years or whatever, the gays' relatives would have to double their output to make up for the offspring sacrificed to gayvolution. And they haven't, and they don't, ergo Cochran cries germs.

Similar problems present themselves, though, in any of the traits otherwise preferred by material evolution. If gayness isn't beneficial to individual or social reproduction, yet persists, we may cry germ--what, then, causes a dying group's "pathological altruism"? Or, more locally put, "vulnerability to pseudo-Semites"? Few modern traits justify themselves under the rubric of today's popular material faiths, be they desire to forego children in favor of cooler cars or houses or lifestyles (social signaling, the expense of the actual genetic reproduction?), the desire to adopt foreigners (social signaling, but...again, at the cost of transmitting germ lines?), or the willingness to question one's history and challenge one's right to exist/reproduce at all or to exist as a non-slave.

(Again, yes, there is a lot of media assistance from Jenome to encourage Nu Euros to "not reproduce" et cetera, but is evolution really so weak it can be overcome by social conditioning? If you believe that, I have a proposal for you about you paying me seventy-four million to raise SAT scores in central Baltimore. Don't believe it? Then you see that the "nature" argument cuts both ways. Nu Euros are doomed. By your own rules, they can't be "I have a dreamed" out of it.)

Removing defiant non-producers has been a factor in most civilizations. As we discussed before, Europe never had gayness as an "issue" until after its conquest had begun, at which point gayness was employed as a way to control the new "aristocrats" and made mandatory for non-inheriting church sons and daughters rendered (primarily by Nu Euro society) "unmarriageable." Addressing the inundation of state homosexual art, including but not limited to the Christian, and its effects on greater than a millennium of students who feel a natural disinclination to learn about "high culture," is a separate, though fruitful, subject.

Degrees of Purity

This one posed the conundrum:
[A] nanosecond's question about degrees of purity in the instant cleanse is failure when you are competing against a true believer who would not suffer such hesitation...
We've seen, time and again, the material success gained in human societies by those organisms willing to, to some degree, betray their own. Consider a parasite infecting a group with a harmful philosophy and the group later (stupidly, embarrassingly later) recognizing the existence of the parasite enough to make it a matter of removal. If the parasite fosters the process of pretending to destroy itself by sacrificing some or many of its members in part of the area, its collective foresight helps it maintain a system devoted to its goals.

Such an act is "wrong" and "immoral" in the sense that betraying your kin, discovered by chance when it could've been you, might lead people (people with a belief in transmaterial "honor" et cetera) to attempt to protect and/or save the compromised individuals. Material mistake: if you don't abandon the slow, the race is lost. If you do abandon them in favor of your own endurance, you have become a "demon" in the sense of being amoral, but here successful.

Consider, e.g., how profitable Catholicism has been to the slow destruction of Europe, contrasted with Catholicism's recurrent role in leading various reforms of the European population and rulership. Contrasted with, say, 300 A.D. or 1,300 A.D. (what's a few thousand years between friends?), Catholicism has cyclically appeared to lead purges of Europe, distending overall resistance and regularly establishing and re-establishing lines of entitlement that were, however aggressive they might seem at the time, as much of a resistance to an overall agenda as U.S. presidents have offered. As well-disguised Catholics (successful Marranos) led the purge of less-well-disguised Catholics (identified Marranos, et al.), they could do so without hesitation, knowing that less-well-disguised Catholics were viable tools for saving the better-disguised. By contrast, Europe's original inhabitants were consumed with questions of intermarriage, faith, et cetera, which prevented any comprehensive action against earlier infiltration. The willingness to consider the merits and demerits of the desert god, in a reasonable and rhetorical way, proved fatal.

Today's "nationalist" faces the same conundrum: how much purity in one or the other direction is required in order to maintain certain qualities? It is long beyond the point where enforcing any such policies could be considered, yet even were such a point attainable, the nationalist argues, like potential DNC members--though perhaps with actual integrity and sufficient philosophical justification for said arguments--for various pragmatic concessions. It is rather foreordained that such a thing will not happen, but should it, questions about degrees of separation have proven part of failed survival before.

The instant's hesitation is certainly "right," given both the future's unwilling existence as a result of past choices (including e.g. "I didn't choose to be born 2.9% Probably Dangerous Subgroup!"), any age's inability to fully understand a self/material relationship (including, e.g., "My 3.5% of Probably Dangerous Subgroup is a Pangaean Irrelevancy that affects most people!"), as well as said inability to fully understand any form of current or future individual merit or demerit. As in the "environmental catastrophe" earlier described, the only victory to be had is effected by the soulless crushing of anyone who will, through their utter and probably unchosen sacrifice, achieve even a later success for the crusher.

The pattern is similar to the way the AMA has used medical schools to slowly adjust certain ethnic percentages in "medicine," and to leave profitable doctor shortages justified by the ridiculous pay-to-be-an-intern policies that it itself requires. By pretending to have concerns about service quality, the AMA leaves a significant portion of the American populace untrained and/or without prompt or reliable access to the state of the art. The system's unreliability makes the AMA appear to be an occasional champion of people who need to see a physician while concealing the AMA's grants of increasingly ineffectual pay-to-be-an-intern awards disguised as degrees and licenses. The AMA's virtual monopoly on training and history make it well-placed to create a tiered medical system where quality care is reserved for a select few and withheld from others.

Some day--perhaps many such somedays--those who designed the policies may have a sole grandchild traveling who undergoes an emergency that is bungled by some clown who cannot clearly speak the language or understand the literature. And that germ line will be gone. The system will provide endless personal setbacks for its creators and their progeny, even when they try to mathematically separate themselves from it.

No problem--like the Catholic Church executing some Moors and Marranos and forcing others to move away and change names before coming back, the ultimate result will pay off in the form of a church which dominates resistance of a sustainably ineffective kind. Because of the church, the sacrifices of so many of its own people will prove ultimately effective at destroying Europe and Europeans. And in their moments of death, the sacrificed will understand that, and understand that they would make the same choices of necessity were the roles reversed--just as those ordering the sacrifice, or helping enemies order or perform it, will know they are sacrificing for a larger gain.

This is what it means to be material, and this is why you cannot win. If you would be better, even against your better material judgment, you lose. If you would hesitate or feel later intellectual qualm about eliminating ten million 99.99% pure infants, you still have a trace of a "soul" and you have long lost this game.

The Forgotten Future

Imagine the ideal material victory. An organism is developed in secret which instantly kills all bad people on Earth. Good people then go on to build a clean, artistic paradise, colonize the solar system, groom young, conquer aging through soul transfers, and eventually, most planets are populated but not crowded, beautifully terraformed, and everyone is happy. When stars start to explode, the process is channeled into the completely safe generation of new stars, and when dimensionality crumbles, superstring tech unfolds the good masses into a fresh new reality which is shortly repopulated by immortal clones guiding the development of aesthetically pleasing planets.

There are, to be sure, a great quantity of true pleasures to be had in such a postulated material victory, not the least of which will be the reflections on evils of the past and how they were once and for all eliminated. "I," too, want to try it.

Even such a perfect cushioned corner as that--because it is such a cushioned corner--removes the benefits of a material life of this variety.

We may confer upon ourselves the retroactive ability to learn without pressure. "Oh, we would see something is missing from the material existence without Jenome to show us. Trust us, coach!" At later points of development, though, we would see how incomplete, how ineffectual, is learning the benefits of the transmaterial through hypothesis alone, rather than lived experience with material in an ultimate expression.

Resist, if you will. I will be the first to praise your unmaterial "humanity" and the moral superiority of your policies. There are many--for forgiving the food-stealers, believing the best of the slavers, and uplifting the child-killers on the credit of your own presumed moral superiority for having done so, does provide many potential material future benefits, including the potential quantities of improved offspring which would become unavailable if alternate choices were exercised.

The future may show the completed development of a "cooperative" evolution theory, similar to local beliefs about weapons or weather, wherein faith becomes focused not on the happenstance of things working out just so, but how it really was true all along that we benefited each other by co-evolving to cooperate.

1 comment:

  1. White Guilt --> "forgiveness" in extremis, yes. But it's got the most traction among those already given to guilt as a posture for social one-up-person-ship. Virtue signaling, etc.

    Among those more traditional, "conservative" etc in temperament, guilt imposed by religious suggestion/instruction isn't really seen though, is it? Does it shift to noblesse oblige among them?

    The hectoring demands requiring everyone to take care of others, others for whom they've never been responsible and in a sane world never would be asked to become such -- it's insane.

    Self reliance was commonly taught among kids when I was growing up. Today, if my observations are accurate and my child-rearing friends also see clearly, what's taught is self-indulgence and pompous disregard for others, while being able to mouth platitudes about a globalist perspective and the essential need to make big sacrifices for others.