[Phil] Dogs, the Monkey Sphere and Empathy

So in a bit more of an exposition on my ideas I posted here, I think that perhaps Dogs might be the cause of Liberalism.  Let's define a term a bit more first...the Monkey Sphere, which essentially was a postulate that humans and other primates have evolved finite limits to the number of other people that they can have stable relationships with.  But, at the same time we can form an emotional bond with non entities like corporations, the government, God, etc.

There is a series of interesting documentaries on Dogs lately, but they all go back to this experiment run by a Russian exile in Siberia which recreated the evolutionary process by which Dogs were bred from Wolves.   But Symbiosis is a relationship between entities.  What if we didn't merely breed dogs, but they bred us?

What if our ability to have an emotional bond with a non human species was created as a result of selective advantage from tribes with Dogs vs those that didn't?  It's plausible, and more importantly, it would allow us to use the principal of the Monkey Sphere to abstract concepts like "the City" or "The Clan"...that flexibility of abstract thought was absolutely necessary in allowing us to have a larger society than the one we immediately and personally know.

So what if...what if...the problem we have with conservatives is a recessive empathy gene? I've gone over this a number of times, but certain disorders such as Asburger's Syndrome essentially involve a disfunctional part of the brain involving social interaction.  It has already been observed that conservatives have a larger fear center, what if they also don't have as developed a portion of the brain to allow abstract loyalty and/or empathy to people they don't know?

I'd like to take as an excellent example, the most conservative group in America, Libertarians.   There are as many types of Libertarians as there are Libertarians.  But they share a combined dislike for government.  But they also share a sharp dislike for the federal reserve, not JUST because it allows the government to get larger, but also because it is ...abstract.  The idea of non defined currency drives libertarians nuts.  Listen in detail on their discussions on the matter, and you'll find that the reason they like gold is because it is finite.  It is also a reason many of them like Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is deflationary.  There will only be a certain amount of Bitcoins EVER.  A bitcoin, even though it is only a bit of code, is a DEFINED thing.  It is not abstract.  It is not 'loose' and thus in their mind the numbers add up.

I would honestly be really interested to see the political breakdowns by profession of developers, engineers and accountants.  I would also really be interested to see the breakdown by party of those on the Autistic Spectrum, of which Asburger's is a part.  And finally, this will sound truly offensive to some...

I'd be really interested in a genetic examination of manifested recessive traits in libertarians, conservatives and liberals.  If the empathy gene is a dominant gene, purely by the Mendelian population, then it does make sense that roughly 25% of our population would lack it.  Conversely, in certain populations where a large amount of inbreeding as taken place, it makes sense that populations where this has taken place are going to have a lack of empathy and an increase in conservative thinking.

Whether or not that means we should return to the more 'natural' days of non empathy or whether conservatism is a genetic disorder may depend on what your political perspective is...

[Phil] Work Smarter, Not Harder

Scrooge McDuck had it right.  The phrase from Christ, "The Poor will always be with you," recognizes human nature.  Even in a post scarcity utopia, there will still be an economy.  And where there is an economy, there will the rich.  Since democracy is the likely form of most future governments until the state can directly control thought (and desires to do so), then the rich will always, or at least generally always have more influence than everyone else.

Granted, I can't see any future society worth a damn tolerating the level of stratification we have now.  A second gilded age should be all we need...if we have a third we're morons as a species.  But if the rich, and the rich influencing democracy are inevitables...how can we turn a liability (the rampant corruption of our current legislature) into an asset?  Because even in direct democracy, I assure you, there will be flaws in the system, and they will find someone to bribe.  Bribery means corruption.  Corruption means greater stratification.  Stratification means instability...which means war.

How to fix?

Two fold.

1) Change the paradigm by which prosperity is thought of, to what it actual is.  GNP per capita doesn't mean crap.  Inflation reduces its value as a barometer over time.  And in cases of psychotic stratification, you might think that 50,000 per year sounds like a lot right?  Bullshit.  Real people are hurting.  You know it.  I know it.  Change the value of the economy to Real GNP Growth for the Median 80% Per Capita, call it the Prosperity index.  Real GNP means adjusted for inflation, so you can measure good years vs bad years a century ago.  Growth per capita means how much money did you take home?  80% means the middle class in a nice safe hedge...the vast majority of folks.  In other words, regular folks with regular pay checks, how much more did they see in their pockets?

2) Set the highest income tax bracket and adjust it to the prosperity index.  In other words, if the economy does well, so does Draco Malfoy the trustfund baby. Draco isn't going to waste money bribing congress if he can get lower taxes by making jobs.  Do you realize how much money was wasted bribing congress?  How about that money creating good paying jobs.

Tie all the crazy schemes of Draco and Lucius to get rich to how rich the rest of us get.

Watch our economy bloom.  Simple.  And I guarantee it would work.