In The Utility of Sexual Assault, we reviewed the seemingly reproductorily-negative behavior of homosexuality as a positive, wherein we considered how not reproducing, and in fact using reproductive resources in order not to reproduce, could reward a population with a net genetic gain. Male lions that kill lion cubs, or corporations that outsource jobs, are similar examples: by harming its own species (killing lion cubs), the individual male lion prepares female lions to carry his own cubs, rather than nurture those of competitors; by harming one's own community, the offshoring firm uses community resources to fund gain for a subset of owners/managers, rather than that of the corporation and/or community as a whole. By insulting or sabotaging engineers, other engineers make more likely their own promotion to management.
In Goldman Sachs Disease we discussed the issue with regards money, wherein damaging one's personal wealth, or making oneself poorer, can be an economically positive act for the person being hurt if it is done in such a way as to make others so much poorer that one's relative power increases even as one's technical wealth decreases.
However counterintuitive, succeeding by harming oneself is necessary to damage technological and social development in the surplus-ready world. If the African lion begins going extinct because it is out-hunted during wildebeest migration by packs of newly-arrived super-hyenas, the individual lions' behavior changes in the aggregate. There still might be a few jerks who cling to the old ways of exterminating others' cubs, but the accumulated lionate mind is aware that, when fighting dangerous super-hyenas over scavenging rights, more cubs surviving to maturity is good for the pride. The species-harming behavior appears individually (genetically, theoretically, short-termically) beneficial only when times are comparatively easy--when the survival of the species seems a given, and successful competition among individuals within that species seems to be an achievement. Without super-hyenas, and with southern Africa's tourism-funded armies keeping local humans from scavenging too much meat, the lions can retain the practice of cub-killing without apparent harm. Much social tension in the "developed" world circles this same bowl: in not only environments perceived to be resource-rich, but those perceived to be resource-sufficient, people who harm others of their own kind do so believing they're gaining a benefit at another's expense. Ergo junior financial executives sabotage one another's garden parties where the bosses are invited, or, in a more direct parallel to the behavior of male lions, middle-class individuals encourage lower-class abortions or lower-class communal diversification.
Consider governments/banks orchestrating a housing crisis that precipitates a stock market crash, causing the stocks of those corporations, and the tax revenues of those governments, to be reduced, perhaps drastically reduced. This is seemingly a negative, and they've seemingly harmed themselves--and in the long term, and in a science-fictional "developmental" or "moral" sense, they have--but otherwise, by reducing the resources available to other individuals, they've caused their own resources (both the imaginary currencies conjured by central banks, and the real resources, such as real estate, seized from tax-cattle) to gain increased potency, ergo become richer by losing billions.
What makes the current (2017) human situation intriguing is that the lingering desire to screw others over does not seem to be accompanied, in most cases, by the corresponding drive to survive. Not so with corporate executives burning domestic manufacturing: they have contingency travel plans and well-stocked panic rooms in foreign capitals, and their provisioning of themselves and their progeny with power and pleasure are as apparently logical as the lion's plan to murder the previous dominant male's children and then screw every lioness in sight. Rather, take the childless bourgeois couple who advocates for free underclass abortions: the genetic math doesn't add up. All of the desire to prevent the species' growth by discouraging the reproduction of other individuals, but none of the desire to correspondingly succeed by filling the void with one's own children. This is due to the young and liminal metaconsciousness, where ideological reproduction--the perpetuation, success, and development of a mass human's assigned/adopted place in a belief system--replaces genetic reproduction.
Much Terran behavior can be understood using this rubric, and only by using this rubric: Facebook and Twitter profile design and updating are more important than having or educating embodied offspring, to many people, because those acts represent a mass human's reproductive mandate more fully and purely than a child which may or may not agree with its parent(s). An individual's genetic line may persist or die out, may lead to a more important line in many successive generations, and may undergo many fortunes and mishaps which make the individual's drive/decision to reproduce something of a genetic gamble. Will the offspring survive? Thrive? Itself reproduce so as to produce surviving reproducers who produce surviving reproducers~?
Viewed in contrast to the vagaries of physicality, gaining a following on a social network, or achieving a minor public office or advisory position, publishing a noted article, seems like a surer bet. One's ability to contribute to the collective consciousness of future thinkers, by acting as a transmitter for a surviving idea, is now subject to the reproductive drive. Ergo the passion for various social isms and non-isms. Homosexuals who are keen on homosexual prominence are reproducing when they advocate for adjusting social standards. In a hundred years, a person's great-grandchild may die childless in the war, ending the line. In a hundred years, a society that incarcerates bakers for refusal to design properly may exist. One result is genetic heterosexual reproductive failure, the other is ideatic homosexual reproductive success. This is why Terra's ideological zeal seems maddened: because it's not really maddened. It's just mating.
(Humorously, white nationalists often combine these two processes, arguing that more white babies need to be born in order to keep white ideas from dying out. That conclusion is as hilarious as it probably is flawed, since Euro success, what little there ever was, depended on quality, not quantity. Interesting to see how their "three babies a couple" or "six babies a couple" plans work out against the already-vastly-larger force of "eight babies a couple" Aztecs facing them down. Particularly if they keep buying those babies lunches and scholarships because someone said a dead rabbi told them to.)
We cannot understand mass human behavior without viewing it as a form of mating, for without that perspective, our analyses will be purely fanciful. If we see a slip of dirty old paper blow onto the sidewalk, then see two individuals approach the paper, drop their cash-filled purses and expensive laptops, and begin fighting viciously over the paper, the interaction makes no sense unless we know that the slip of paper is a winning lottery ticket. If a poor man is invited to a rich country and offered lifetime food and cash to mate with a pretty girl, and he chooses not to relax and enjoy life, nor to have children and relax and enjoy life, but instead to blow himself up, his behavior is similarly mystifying, unless we view it as ideatic reproduction.
Marching, attending conferences, arguing on forums, tweeting angrily at some celebrity: these are acts of mass copulation, whereby one contributes one's small seed to the ideological makeup of tomorrow's society. The collective randiness is perfectly explicable. People share podcasts like they share hookers; they know they're not reproducing by listening in, but they still enjoy play-acting the reproductive process. Finding out that one's idea, one's video, has "gone viral," is like hearing about the birth of a healthy grandchild. "Hear that, world? I made a difference!"