''In any case, there’s a social Darwinian consideration that might drive the conservative’s prejudice against immigrants. The goal would be to preserve the nation’s “purity” or the integrity of a certain bloodline or gene pool. This racism which became overt in Nazi ideology is implicit in animal behaviour. Many males in animal species are obsessed with securing access to mates and with preventing rivals from interfering with their chances of passing on their genes to the next generation. The conservative’s opposition to immigration, then, could be driven by racism.''
Self-preservation is racism?
The primary basis of conservative ideology is the belief in the existence of absolute inequalities between groups and individuals, human and other species. It starts with the belief in deities or in god, that is, in a metaphysical entity absolutely superior to human beings. Then, the absolute differences between human beings and finally in relation to other species. But I think advocating for a reasonable immigration policy is one of the few political points where conservatives are way-more right than liberals.
It would be a question of self-preservation only if immigrants were threatening the life of local people. If they're needed to take jobs in the service sector because they're harder workers or they're willing to work for less, that's a problem with capitalist incentives. Jobs went overseas for the same reason, because companies looked for the cheapest labour to cut their costs.
There's also the problem of the collapsing birth rate in the First World. The richer and more decadent the society, the less folks are interested in starting families. So immigration is needed to maintain economic growth.
This is not just an economic issue. Still, opening the door to the migration of people from underdeveloped countries without trying to solve their problems in their own countries does not seem very efficient to me.
It seems to me that one of the main reasons young couples are delaying or avoiding having children, I mean, those they want to have, is economic.
I had already seen a research done by EUROSTAT that found that the typical European couple would like to have two children.
I agree that immigration isn't just an economic issue. In the article I could have placed this issue under the heading of social rather than economic conservatism.
''Granted, female animals are often in favour of entertaining a variety of suitors and of choosing between them since the females bear the greater cost of having to carry and to rear the offspring. We might expect, then, that social Darwinian human females would be in favour of immigration to increase their mating options, assuming the male immigrants are often single and of healthy stock. Yet the (heterosexual) female perspective on immigration would be subordinate in conservative circles because of a facet of social conservatism, to which we can now turn.''
It is very evolutionary psychology to explain it.
I think women, because they are more empathetic, are more positively supportive for immigration.They are less territorial.
Do you think militaries need guns? If so, why? In order for something to be precious and valuable in needs to be rare and in demand. There is nothing rare about humans, and they are increasing being replaced by technology.
I'd say life is anomalous as well as rare, and people are anomalous even within the animal kingdom. People may not be rare within societies, in that our population might keep expanding, but within nature more broadly people are evidently rare. The rest of the known universe is lifeless.
You're talking about economic value, but preciousness can be based on anomalousness, not just the question of quantity. We may not be rare on Earth because we've come to dominate the planet, but that doesn't mean personhood isn't an anomalous, emergent phenomenon.
The nations of the world are either autocracies (monarchy or dictatorship) or oligarchies (formal or informal cabals of military and/or economic elites). All routtinely claim to be "public servants", working for the interests of the entire citizenry. As long as this image is maintained, by a mixture of propaganda and force, the autocracy/oligarchy remains in power. If it fails, the result is revolution and the eventual institution of a new, similar elite. Yes, this is a very harsh, banal, and depressing portrait of humanity; it is unfortunately also coldly realistic. The "science-fiction" of George Orwell's _1984_ has quietly become the contemporary way of life.
Democracy at least applies an egalitarian brake on those natural defaults. But we might need a stronger brake, based on mass, transhuman enlightenment.
I tried reading his "Thirst for Annihilation" some years ago, but his writing style brings out the worst in pretentious Continental philosophy. He's like Raymond Brassier in that respect. The pomposity is exasperating. The closest I've gotten to addressing what might be his views is in my articles on Bataille. But maybe I'll look more closely at Land. Why, what is it about him that interests you?
"Those so-called atheists who try to base prescriptive morality on biology are guilty of the aforementioned conflation of descriptive and prescriptive morality, a conflation that costs them their authority. Those who argue that morality comes from evolution: that we have evolved sympathy and altruism and that we therefore ought to be sympathetic and altruistic fall into the is-ought gap. That we have evolved these characteristics is not in question. But that we ought to follow them is. The characteristics are descriptions. But these descriptions are then magically transformed into prescriptions. One could equally validly (i.e. not validly) prescribe envy as it too is a characteristic which we have evolved. Aggression and violence have also evolved, else we would not exhibit these tendencies." -Peter Sjöstedt-H
I'm not sure what you mean by, "lies in wait for the social Darwinist." I fail to see how this quote from Peter commits the naturalistic fallacy. He is not claiming anything to be good/bad here. He's simply pointing out, that one cannot logically get an ought from an is.
No, I was saying he's identifying the same fallacy I talk about, not that he's committing the fallacy. I'm saying social Darwinism commits that fallacy.
Nope. I reconstruct moral values in aesthetic terms in a pantheistic context. But feel free to present an example of the naturalistic fallacy from my writings.
They're essentially the same except that the is/ought problem is more general. The fallacy is positing a prescription or moral claim based only on some set of descriptions or nonmoral factual claims, without explaining the derivation. There's a logical gap between them, so some explanation is needed.
Going Galt means recognizing that you do not need to justify your life or wealth to your neighbors, "society," or politicians, or bureaucrats. They're yours, period!
That's also the precivilized state of nature, so if we're going back to that, no one has rights and the libertarian would have no moral basis for complaining when robbers gang up on him, kill him and his family, and take all "his" stuff. Rand's egoistic libertarianism is just social Darwinism. I'll likely be writing on Rand in my ongoing series on conservative "thinkers."
Libertarians are in favor of limited laws/enforcement to prevent theft. Rand also wrote an essay called, Ethics of Emergencies which gets into the issue of limiting rights during extraordinary and temporary conditions.
Sure, but I doubt there's any principled way to defend limited government without falling into anarchism or committing yourself to an expanded government. If government can perform some tasks well, why shouldn't it be tasked with performing others?
Ayn Rand's childhood was ruined by a tyrannical government. Perhaps her philosophy was her revenge. People rarely forget when they are harmed as children. Since her philosophy likely contributed to the complete destruction of the earths biosphere, her revenge may extend from beyond the grave. I sure hope Ayn gets her ultimate revenge, and the diseased species homo non sapien is finally put out of its misery.
"Can you sacrifice a few? When those few are the best? Deny the best its right to the top--and you have no best left. What are your masses but millions of dull, shriveled, stagnant souls that have no thoughts of their own, no dreams of their own, no will of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words others put into their brains? And for those you would sacrifice the few who know life, who are life? I loathe [Andrei] your ideals because I know no worse injustice than the giving of the undeserved. Because men are not equal in ability and one can't trust them as if they were." - Ayn Rand
Right, I meant "misanthrope." But Rand was a snob, not a misanthrope. A misanthrope has equal contempt for everyone, including herself. A selfish cultist like Rand thinks far too highly of herself to be misanthropic. A misanthrope has humility, whereas a cult leader like Rand thinks she earns all the good things that happen to her, that luck isn't a factor. She's high on her supply, whereas a misanthrope thinks all humanity is a speck in the cosmic scheme.
''In any case, there’s a social Darwinian consideration that might drive the conservative’s prejudice against immigrants. The goal would be to preserve the nation’s “purity” or the integrity of a certain bloodline or gene pool. This racism which became overt in Nazi ideology is implicit in animal behaviour. Many males in animal species are obsessed with securing access to mates and with preventing rivals from interfering with their chances of passing on their genes to the next generation. The conservative’s opposition to immigration, then, could be driven by racism.''
ReplyDeleteSelf-preservation is racism?
The primary basis of conservative ideology is the belief in the existence of absolute inequalities between groups and individuals, human and other species.
It starts with the belief in deities or in god, that is, in a metaphysical entity absolutely superior to human beings. Then, the absolute differences between human beings and finally in relation to other species.
But I think advocating for a reasonable immigration policy is one of the few political points where conservatives are way-more right than liberals.
It would be a question of self-preservation only if immigrants were threatening the life of local people. If they're needed to take jobs in the service sector because they're harder workers or they're willing to work for less, that's a problem with capitalist incentives. Jobs went overseas for the same reason, because companies looked for the cheapest labour to cut their costs.
DeleteThere's also the problem of the collapsing birth rate in the First World. The richer and more decadent the society, the less folks are interested in starting families. So immigration is needed to maintain economic growth.
This is not just an economic issue. Still, opening the door to the migration of people from underdeveloped countries without trying to solve their problems in their own countries does not seem very efficient to me.
DeleteIt seems to me that one of the main reasons young couples are delaying or avoiding having children, I mean, those they want to have, is economic.
I had already seen a research done by EUROSTAT that found that the typical European couple would like to have two children.
I agree that immigration isn't just an economic issue. In the article I could have placed this issue under the heading of social rather than economic conservatism.
Delete''Granted, female animals are often in favour of entertaining a variety of suitors and of choosing between them since the females bear the greater cost of having to carry and to rear the offspring. We might expect, then, that social Darwinian human females would be in favour of immigration to increase their mating options, assuming the male immigrants are often single and of healthy stock. Yet the (heterosexual) female perspective on immigration would be subordinate in conservative circles because of a facet of social conservatism, to which we can now turn.''
ReplyDeleteIt is very evolutionary psychology to explain it.
I think women, because they are more empathetic, are more positively supportive for immigration.They are less territorial.
I don't know about that. Women's protectiveness of their children might make them more territorial.
DeleteMore protective towards the child. Masculine territorialism is individualistic.
DeleteDo you think militaries need guns? If so, why? In order for something to be precious and valuable in needs to be rare and in demand. There is nothing rare about humans, and they are increasing being replaced by technology.
ReplyDeleteI'd say life is anomalous as well as rare, and people are anomalous even within the animal kingdom. People may not be rare within societies, in that our population might keep expanding, but within nature more broadly people are evidently rare. The rest of the known universe is lifeless.
DeleteYou're talking about economic value, but preciousness can be based on anomalousness, not just the question of quantity. We may not be rare on Earth because we've come to dominate the planet, but that doesn't mean personhood isn't an anomalous, emergent phenomenon.
The nations of the world are either autocracies (monarchy or dictatorship) or oligarchies (formal or informal cabals of military and/or economic elites). All routtinely claim to be "public servants", working for the interests of the entire citizenry. As long as this image is maintained, by a mixture of propaganda and force, the autocracy/oligarchy remains in power. If it fails, the result is revolution and the eventual institution of a new, similar elite. Yes, this is a very harsh, banal, and depressing portrait of humanity; it is unfortunately also coldly realistic. The "science-fiction" of George Orwell's _1984_ has quietly become the contemporary way of life.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy at least applies an egalitarian brake on those natural defaults. But we might need a stronger brake, based on mass, transhuman enlightenment.
DeleteThe Greeks had some interesting things to say about democracy.
DeleteBen can you write a piece on Nick Land?
ReplyDeleteI tried reading his "Thirst for Annihilation" some years ago, but his writing style brings out the worst in pretentious Continental philosophy. He's like Raymond Brassier in that respect. The pomposity is exasperating. The closest I've gotten to addressing what might be his views is in my articles on Bataille. But maybe I'll look more closely at Land. Why, what is it about him that interests you?
Deletehttps://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/georges-bataille-on-free-market-utopianism-d16357706541?source=friends_link&sk=cee94456a755c218cc241b9855b0779d
https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/does-nature-drive-us-to-be-wasteful-b6c276aaf0d8?sk=1f75bb9b2f0c90b8f19161af2474f60e
"Those so-called atheists who try to base prescriptive morality on biology are guilty of the aforementioned conflation of descriptive and prescriptive morality, a conflation that costs them their authority. Those who argue that morality comes from evolution: that we have evolved sympathy and altruism and that we therefore ought to be sympathetic and altruistic fall into the is-ought gap. That we have evolved these characteristics is not in question. But that we ought to follow them is. The characteristics are descriptions. But these descriptions are then magically transformed into prescriptions. One could equally validly (i.e. not validly) prescribe envy as it too is a characteristic which we have evolved. Aggression and violence have also evolved, else we would not exhibit these tendencies."
ReplyDelete-Peter Sjöstedt-H
Right, that's the naturalistic fallacy or the is/ought gap that lies in wait for the social Darwinist.
DeleteI'm not sure what you mean by, "lies in wait for the social Darwinist." I fail to see how this quote from Peter commits the naturalistic fallacy. He is not claiming anything to be good/bad here. He's simply pointing out, that one cannot logically get an ought from an is.
DeleteNo, I was saying he's identifying the same fallacy I talk about, not that he's committing the fallacy. I'm saying social Darwinism commits that fallacy.
DeleteIt appears that the is/ought fallacy is committed regularly on this blog.
DeleteNope. I reconstruct moral values in aesthetic terms in a pantheistic context. But feel free to present an example of the naturalistic fallacy from my writings.
DeleteI was referring to the is/ought fallacy, not the naturalistic fallacy.
DeleteThey're essentially the same except that the is/ought problem is more general. The fallacy is positing a prescription or moral claim based only on some set of descriptions or nonmoral factual claims, without explaining the derivation. There's a logical gap between them, so some explanation is needed.
DeleteGoing Galt means recognizing that you do not need to justify your life or wealth to your neighbors, "society," or politicians, or bureaucrats. They're yours, period!
ReplyDeleteThat's also the precivilized state of nature, so if we're going back to that, no one has rights and the libertarian would have no moral basis for complaining when robbers gang up on him, kill him and his family, and take all "his" stuff. Rand's egoistic libertarianism is just social Darwinism. I'll likely be writing on Rand in my ongoing series on conservative "thinkers."
DeleteLibertarians are in favor of limited laws/enforcement to prevent theft. Rand also wrote an essay called, Ethics of Emergencies which gets into the issue of limiting rights during extraordinary and temporary conditions.
Deletehttps://samples.primeessays.com/sociology/the-ethics-of-emergencies.html
Sure, but I doubt there's any principled way to defend limited government without falling into anarchism or committing yourself to an expanded government. If government can perform some tasks well, why shouldn't it be tasked with performing others?
DeleteAyn Rand's childhood was ruined by a tyrannical government. Perhaps her philosophy was her revenge. People rarely forget when they are harmed as children. Since her philosophy likely contributed to the complete destruction of the earths biosphere, her revenge may extend from beyond the grave. I sure hope Ayn gets her ultimate revenge, and the diseased species homo non sapien is finally put out of its misery.
DeleteHmm. Clearly, Rand was overreacting to Soviet communism, but I doubt she was a nihilist or misanthropist.
DeleteNot a misanthrope? What do you make of this?
Delete"Can you sacrifice a few? When those few are the best? Deny the best its right to the top--and you have no best left. What are your masses but millions of dull, shriveled, stagnant souls that have no thoughts of their own, no dreams of their own, no will of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words others put into their brains? And for those you would sacrifice the few who know life, who are life? I loathe [Andrei] your ideals because I know no worse injustice than the giving of the undeserved. Because men are not equal in ability and one can't trust them as if they were." - Ayn Rand
Right, I meant "misanthrope." But Rand was a snob, not a misanthrope. A misanthrope has equal contempt for everyone, including herself. A selfish cultist like Rand thinks far too highly of herself to be misanthropic. A misanthrope has humility, whereas a cult leader like Rand thinks she earns all the good things that happen to her, that luck isn't a factor. She's high on her supply, whereas a misanthrope thinks all humanity is a speck in the cosmic scheme.
DeleteHave you written about the MGTOW phenomenon?
ReplyDeleteI've written on incels and pickup culture, but not on that movement, which I hadn't heard of.
Deletehttps://medium.com/@benjamincain8/omega-males-and-the-search-for-posthuman-heroes-719ee22cc165?source=friends_link&sk=f15b83a5096a8bba3100bcc2ad1a9268
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2018/05/incels-and-call-for-omega-enlightenment.html
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2015/10/sexuality-and-individualism-critique-of.html