Hacker News Reader

Comment by ironman1478 | Hacker News Reader

As I've gotten older, I've come to really feel like humans just haven't been around that long and we really haven't progressed that much outside of technology. WW2 wasn't really that long ago and neither was the the American civil war, both wars based on race and atrocities. I think it's a bit of a fallacy to think that just because some country is technology and economically advanced it will have correct moral values. Germany in WW2 is an example of that and so is America now imo, it's just that in America we aren't as far gone (but there are people in America who probably wouldn't mind killing other groups).

View on HN

> we really haven't progressed that much outside of technology

This would imply that the measure of progression / advancement is civility, and that we are going to progress and become more civil given more time. That seems to be a fallacy also, it may be that evolution does not optimise for civility at all, after all being civil is not going to help you to crush your enemies or attract a mate in this environment.

Evolution might promote civility in a similar way to peacock feathers through sexual selection. Civility implies that you have enough wealth and power to spare on luxuries even in a world of brutal competition. This allows you to attract more mates/immigrants which ultimately offsets the additional cost.

Evolution is very slow:

  you.class == caveman.class

Genetic evolution is very slow. Societal evolution can be very rapid at times. But similar models regarding reproduction, mutation, and natural selection apply in both cases.

My understanding is that evolution optimizes for learning and adapting to the environment. We aren't 'programmed' to be either civil or violent, but to respond in the most advantageous way to the circumstances we find ourselves in. In a society full of dishonest people who are prone to violence, a person who tries to be honest, kind, and peaceful is at a huge disadvantage. But in a society where people are mostly honest, kind, and helpful, helping others altruistically is likely to pay off down the road, and violence or dishonesty are likely to get someone ostracized.

Mating choices will reflect and perpetuate this--in a violent, corrupt society, the physically strong, cunning, and ruthless will be the most sought after. In a more altruistic society, people who produce the most value for others (and therefore receive the most favors in kind) will have the highest status.

So evolution in this sense isn't really outside of our control. If we help each other and discourage violence, evolution will reinforce that, making society more peaceful and altruistic over time. On the other hand, if we make it so corruption and cruelty are the best ways to get ahead, people's behavior is likely get worse and worse.

This reminds me of Evolution of Trust (https://ncase.me/trust/). A little way through the game you can see this play out over time. It's a great demonstration of how the winning strategy changes (or evolves) over time with different pressures.

> WW2 wasn't really that long ago and neither was the the American civil war, both wars based on race and atrocities

I don't think the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was racially motivated.

> in America we aren't as far gone (but there are people in America who probably wouldn't mind killing other groups).

I agree. I think the definitely-not-fascist leftists in USA are dangerously close to lynching whites. Oddly, so many American whites are deluded into believing leftist activism mania is about making a cute incremental improvement rather than burning it all to the ground.

That national socialism (combined with 20th century eugenics) could become as popular as it did in Nazi Germany had been surprising to me. Given the state of the modern leftist cult, it's no longer surprising. People can actually be deluded to such an extent!

The current chinese regime under Xi is also essentially a coalition formed of nationalist and marxist factions where nationalists get their outward looking and military/defense spending and posturing while the marxists get their largely inward looking state owned and planned economy as well as social programs.

The discussion is really about the Chinese (and American) governments. The US government is really... Not great. See wars in the middle east, spying on its people, military industrial complex, bad environmental record, bad civil rights record and all of these are ongoing problems. I dont think the US government is any better than the Chinese government. They have been responsible for so much instability in the world in the middle east, Africa, south asia and south America even if we just want to focus on how they treat people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com