A place where women rule.

Robert Tulip · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:37 am Post subject:

This theme of cultural evolution is fascinating. We can obviously see cumulative adaptation, the basic Darwinian principle, operating at cultural levels. For example, military and commercial technology evolve by competitive selection. Similarly, institutions evolve in a cumulative way - FA Hayek gives a good explanation of this in The Constitution of Liberty in his discussion of English common law with its basis in evolving precedent rather than in theoretic principle such as the Napoleonic Code. The trouble with cultural evolution, as with genetic evolution, is that it is easy to go down a blind alley, a niche which seems adaptive but has some deeper flaw which will eventually cause its undoing. I think of military imperialism in this light - an adaptive method which in the short term produces immense prosperity for a few, but which sows the seeds of its end through its valorisation of a false consciousness. This is most vividly displayed in the encounter between Rome and Jesus, where Rome's false imperial consciousness, grounded in Gods who did not exist, was challenged by an ethic of pure love. Jesus claimed that adaptivity to long term reality required an ethic of love - a faith that the meek shall inherit the earth. This seems absurd to a soldier who has power to steal the property of the meek, but Jesus seems to look forward to a world where spiritual transformation will dissolve the military power. This relates to the power of the feminine, which relies more on moral persuasion than physical force, pointing to a future world where force is not the main determinant of power.

President Camacho · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:45 am Post subject:

My reply to Ophelia's thread is partly influenced and polarized from the book I'm reading about the rise and fall of civilizations.

The niche idea that Mr.T brings up is illustrated in the way that early cyanobacteria evolved and were able to prosper until they sent the world into an ice age and caused a mass extinction event.

Because other cultures do things differently does not mean they're taking the path of success or failure. Right now, no one can know what culture is the 'cyanobacteria', flourishing now and headed for certain demise, and what culture isn't.

My reply concerned the division. I don't know how a culture divided can succeed in the long term. How does this affect the children? That is probably the most important question with respect to where the culture is headed in the future.

The real concern lies not with the individual women but what road that culture is headed down. Suppose it benefits the women to be separated from the males as seems to be the case. The ontogeny in this scenario may obviously benefit but at what cost? Is this better for the progeny; the future of those people? Who can say?

Empirical evidence is probably the only salvation of someone that wants to take a crack at this. The answer will still only be an educated guess. What are the odds that this division will help? will last? will benefit the future of the society?

I agree that women's rights are necessary for a more productive civilization. Limiting the access to various 'markets' lowers efficiency. I hope the men and women one day can reconcile, changes can be made, and the society can 'progress'.

Update your profile Mr.T and start a blog.

ralphinlaos · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject:

Hi Robert -

I would like to suggest that the world is going backward rather than forward. Spiritually speaking, that is.

Do you not believe, as the soldier does, that "the meek shall inherit the earth" is just absurd?

"Jesus seems to look forward to a world where spiritual transformation will dissolve the military power." When is this supposed to take place? When is it supposed to START taking place? In many cases, spirituality is the very reason for a strong military power. We've had over two-thousand years to get this spirital transformation on the road.

Are you suggesting that a nation ruled by a woman ("the power of the feminine") would be a more spiritual, uplifting society than that ruled by men? We've had many women leaders and rulers throughout history, and they've been just as nationalistic, imperialistic and chauvinistic as the men.

Am I wrong?

Ralph

Ophelia · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject:

Ralph wrote:

President Camacho · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject:

Is going backward in spirituality a good thing or a bad thing? First, I would have to ask why spirituality was brought about in us. Was it to escape some kind of perceived evil or personal stress? Was it to fill a some void? What advantages does it have?

If perceived evil is being eliminated, if the magnitude of personal stress is lessened, and if voids are being filled... will spirituality naturally decline? Most would then say that the decline of spirituality is a good thing.

Inspiration, motivation to change, and leaps forward are brought about by some inadequacy. If there is no inadequacy notable, if there is no reason to change, then there will be less inspiration and practically no motivation.

Loss of inspiration is a bad thing, right? It can be compared in some way to spirituality in that it is human and intangible. Would the person in a perfect universe be able to change something that someone would call inspired? No, because it is perfect and there is no reason for change.

Escaping the existential world for the magical will lose me every time. "I think we need to be more magical and need to put more effort into changing from human beings into balls of mystic light and love so much that we melt into a pool of love and evaporate into the atmosphere where we can sprinkle down on all the little animals, amen." Lost me...

The meek do inherit the earth, I believe. Just look at the birth rate of developed nations compared to under developed nations for some evidence. There is more evidence still when looking at birth rates of the different classes in a country. (won't get into that though, for fear of persecution.)

I personally don't think that any one person should 'rule'; whether that person be male or female doesn't matter.

President Camacho · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject:

I often think about that a bit Ophelia. Women have a competitive advantage over men in the way they naturally are. They don't need to be men. They shouldn't need to act as men do or be 'worse'.

It's tragic how they need to transform in order to rise to power. I think that really highlights the problems of the entire system! It's a huge red flag for reform and social evolution. The next step!

The flag says that shear intelligence is not the prerequisite for leadership - it is something else.

Women have something that men can't bring to the table and it is ingrained in their nature. I don't like discussing things that I feel I can't put my finger on (or close to) but what they have I just don't know. It isn't something that is shared - it's something their own. (intelligence and ambition are shared)

Not only that but feminists have ridiculed everything that is special about women and that truly is a shame. Ambitious women need to alter their behavior in order to earn leadership positions.

But then I'm thinking of the perfect woman. The nurturing, smart, benevolent, wise woman that I'd be proud to call a guardian and leader. Maybe I should be thinking of the individual 'person' who happens to be a female and isn't quite so nurturing, is of average intelligence, and gets hers when she can despite ethics/morals.

The way the market (politics) is set up isn't for the 'perfect' anyone. Men and women become something unnatural, imperfect, and ugly.

DWill · Senior Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 383 Gender:

But, just to go back to the point I was trying to make, when we talk about human societies evolving, we are speaking non-scientifically, metaphorically. We are not saying that natural selection has any part in this. We are speaking of the history of our own species, not about how species emerge and change. Too obvious?

President Camacho · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject:

The answer to that question is complicated. Natural selection plays a role in almost any enterprise.

To what degree natural selection plays a role on each human in a society depends on the protection that each individual in that society receives and other factors, I think.

Because each individual ant creates the colony - the colony is more than the sum of its parts. The ant of the colony has more of an advantage than the lone ant. The ant colony represents a civilization which also battles against other civilizations as well as itself for survival and hegemony. Each ant is 'worth' more than the lone ant. The lone ant is at a disadvantage. The more cooperative ant - the ant accepting the colony - lives and his civilization lives on after him. The colonial ants succeed. The lone ant is no more.

This is now in the DNA of the ant. When dealing with human civilizations this evidence in DNA can't be observed because we have just begun! It does happen though, to a far far far lesser degree (in my opinion). We aren't completely ruled by our instincts but we have them!

Humans aren't ants. We don't accept our roles. So, the larger the human civilization, the more battles that take place within that civilization and within each person within that civilization until an equilibrium is reached. The ants have reached theirs. Many species appear to have. I don't think we're close to ours.

As far as evolution of civilizations are concerned, natural selection may be applied, I think. Why not? A civilization not able to meet exigencies that succumbs to another civilization or to anarchy rings a familiar Darwinian bell.

Human societies evolving. Yes, if not then they would all be identical. Politics, art, class systems... everything.

Species change, culture, and civilization affect each other.

President Camacho · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:55 am Post subject:

Civilizations rise and fall like a living being, so yes it is metaphorical because civilizations don't 'live'. (That sentence contained a simile - figure THAT out! Laughing

)

Throughout history there have been civilizations that are 'born', prosper up to a point (their prime) and then fall apart (old age) and die.

Usually these are marked by very distinct events. The 'old age' event is usually marked by heavy military rule - a direction the United States is glancing at.

So, if this is taken into account then we can actually see how natural selection takes place in society. The societies that are able to adapt to everyone's needs survive while the society that doesn't, perishes.

lawrenceindestin · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: A woman's utopia

Herland Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, 1860-1935

Ms Gilman wrote Herland in 1915 and presents an interesting picture of the gentle side prevailing if there were only women in Utopia. You can read it on line from the University of Virginia library.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT