Once we have understood that the nature of all living things is to compete, we must realize that all attempts to eliminate such competition in human societies will fail, because such attempts run counter to the basic nature of life itself. The best thing possible, therefore, is to civilize this competitive instinct, so that society as a whole benefits from it.

In order to see how competition can be civilized, we need to examine the various spheres in which humans compete. Humans, like all animals, compete for sex, resources and survival. All three forms of competition are inter-linked: We must survive, gather resources and reproduce in order to pass our genes.

Competing for survival:

Initiation/ escalation of force are considered acts of uncivilized competition for survival. Preparing for and acting in self-defense are considered acts of civilized competition for survival.

When a significant percentage of actors in a particular society engage in initiation of force, the nature of that society changes and becomes more violent. On the other hand, when a significant percentage of actors in a particular society are ready to act in self-defense, that society becomes more peaceful over time.

A neutral actor (an invalid who is not capable of initiation of force or self-defense) will benefit from living in a peaceful society, even though that actor is incapable of exercising self-defense.

Competing for resources:

Theft and fraud are considered acts of uncivilized competition for gathering resources. Trade and production are considered acts of civilized competition for gathering resources.

When a significant percentage of actors in a particular society engage in theft (violation of property rights) or fraud (violation of contract law) to gather resources, that society becomes less prosperous as levels of trust reduce. On the other hand, when a significant percentage of actors in a particular society engage in trade and production to gather resources, that society becomes more prosperous as levels of trust increase.

A neutral actor (a beggar) would benefit from living in a high-trust, prosperous society because such societies are more charitable.

Competing for sex:

Rape and cuckolding are considered uncivilized acts of sexual competition. Attracting higher quality mates for monogamous marriage through self-improvement is an act of civilized competition.

Consider a society in which the institution of marriage is not respected and all members of this society are left to reproduce naturally. Such a society will be barbaric with high levels of violence and low levels of trust. On the other hand, a society which respects the institution of marriage will be more peaceful.

Neutral actors (children) will benefit immensely from being born in a civilized society.

Views: 753

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Buddhism? 

Sikhism (I believe) is not supposed to be misogynistic but it exists within a very misogynistic culture. 

I am an Atheist, I am not trying to convert you to Christianity. I am a Seeker of the Truth. Stick with me if you have the courage and we'll find out how deep the rabbit hole goes :)

I think you'll find that Belle has more courage in her little finger than the rest of us put together. 

In a verbal confrontation, women are biologically better equipped than men. There is no need for you to defend her.

Civilizationalist, your arguments and line of reasoning are offensive.  Women have suffered a historical equivalent of a holocaust.  I think you need to get out more. 

"Offensive" - If you resort to PC shaming as a debating tactic, you lose. Keep that in mind.

"Women have suffered a historical equivalent of a holocaust." - Find me one country in which the number of female victims of violent crime is higher than the number of male victims of violent crime. Any year in this century. Go!

Downright unpleasant, it seems to me.  Do you have a problem with women? 

"Downright unpleasant, it seems to me.  Do you have a problem with women?" - That's your second attempt at a PC shaming tactic. You are losing this one, aren't you?

I'm not even trying. 

Let us take our first step down the rabbit hole then. 

The Marxist Feminist world view is completely inaccurate from an anthropological and evolutionary psychology perspective. In our evolutionary past, men always protected, cherished, nourished and loved women to the best of their ability as they continue to do to this day.

There has never been a society in our past or today in which women suffer greater levels of violent crime than men do. Find me the country in which women have experienced greater levels of violent crime than men in any year. There is no such country. 

The media is suffused by actions of violence against women because we are biologically programmed to worry about women and children. The very fact that we are biologically programmed to worry about women and children should tell you something about the biological nature of men.

Humans, like all sexually dimorphic species, have been naturally selected to exhibit complementarity of sexes.

Women are biologically wired to find dominant men very attractive and to submit to such men. Men are biologically wired to find submissive women very attractive and protect/cherish/love such women. Male dominance typically occurs in different forms - dominance by intelligence, dominance by humor, dominance by charisma, dominance by wealth, dominance by power, dominance by physicality etc. The kind of dominance (the dominance preference) varies from women to women, but all women love to be dominated. A significantly large percentage of women love to be spanked. If you look at the illustrations of covers of Mills&Boon and other chick lit (which women buy for biological reasons), all those covers express this desire by women to be dominated.

What is the Marxist Feminist view of the Patriarchy? That it was culturally imposed by the evil men of the past as a way to control women.

Do you truly have such a low opinion of your ancestors?

Who were these evil men? How did they decide to implement the Patriarchy?

Did they decide to get together in a cave one day and someone said -  "Hey, do you know what would be a great idea? Let's build a culture to oppress women!". Then all the other men clapped and thought it was a fantastic idea. Then, they communicated with all the tribes across the world, that there is a fantastic new culture called the Patriarchy that men can implement to oppress women. And all men everywhere clapped at that idea and agreed. Do you think this is what happened? Do you not see that the Marxist Feminist view point is tin foil hat territory.

If the Patriarchy is a cultural construct, how come it is everywhere? It is biological. 

There was never such a thing as a Patriarchical culture set up by our evil ancestors.

Think about our male ancestors. Marxist Feminism says they were evil cave trolls who raped their mates.

But what does the anthropological evidence say? What does evolutionary psychology say?

When a woman is in danger, she screams. Why is that? Because she expects men to rush and come to her aid. What kind of a socio-cultural environment could have produced such an impulse to be naturally selected? An environment in which women were oppressed or an environment in which they were loved and cherished?

RSS

© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service