Blog powered by Typepad

« What's the opposite of 'stasis'? | Main | Illinois is very, very ill! »

Thursday, 05 July 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I did not know anyone hunted giraffes? How dumb. Seems lions don't like rhino poachers either..

I like to think the animals are taking advantage of this situation. The rhinos like the lions around because they protect them against poachers, and the lions hang out with the rhinos because they know they are a magnet for the types of humans who don't have much intelligence.

Now, if only the lions and the giraffes could make a truce, they could sort out Miss Bloodlust as well.

The story reminded me of this one:

"Natural selection as a means of evolution is generally thought of as a slow process, and it usually is. That is, unless there’s some unnaturally strong influence at work. And that’s exactly what’s happening to African elephants. The unnatural influence is humans, or more specifically, poachers, and it’s causing an increase in the births of tuskless elephants. Those who do have tusks are becoming less likely to reproduce since they’re hunted down and killed for their ivory."

I wonder if there ever could be a Darwinian "invisible hand" / forcer that might eradicate the political gene from the gene pool?

Perhaps an equivalent of the tuskless elephant: we evolve to simply ignore them, refuse to obey them, and maybe even develop an urge to hunt them.

But here's the rub: any regional area that evolved in this way would rapidly prosper and progress, but, would also quickly be invaded by neighbouring regions where the evolution had not taken place and were still burdened by politicians. Without politicians of their own to whip them up in their own defence, the politically geneless regions would quickly be vassals.

That's kinda the underlying problem of human history, isn't it really? The political equivalent of the scientific "theory of everything".

And if "we" tried to do it by extermination, mandatory neutering, or gene therapy at birth, it would take a bunch of pols to do it - who would then breed their poisonous spawn back into the gene pool.

What use are a Ronnie and Maggie, "politicians are the problem not the solution", when they continue to breed? Mere sandcastles standing against an inbound tide, providing a fleeting respite in an endless torrent of tyranny.


She shot it so let's see her eat it.

In general, anyone wishing to do this will have paid £50,000 for a permit, extra for a guide , hotels, airfares etc.
All we need is people to match that for nothing and we're done.
Money should go to the local farmers who’s crops were at risk.
Similarly with rhinos elephants etc.
Since the locals are on $1.90 a day they'd sure protect the wildlife for that money. They might even risk getting trampled by elephants, gored by rhinoceros, eaten by lions if they only got $3 per day to live on.
But until someone reliably pays them to preserve wildlife they'll get their money any which way they can.
Of course most game hunting these days takes place on hunting reserves, which get their money from hunters for just as long as they preserve something to hunt. Which seems to me the best hope that someone will keep huntable creatures in existence- they can lift people out of poverty and even make people rich.

I can understand killing for food, for self defence or the protection of others, but killing for so called sport is sick. I can see no way in which you can boast of killing an animal that is no danger to you from a distance.

Perhaps this lady could pop over and shoot down the Muslin baloon to be flown over London this weekend.

Muslim balloon! iPad typos

If, like some of the African tribesmen, taking on a lion with just a spear, I might have some respect. However, two/three hundred yards with a telescopic rifle? then not a lot.


I promised FoD I wouldn't go into this stuff in any detail, but our brains are hard wired to be political, including your libertarian predisposition. Humans are social animals. That won't be changing any time soon.

Our brains can change ...

Thanks to the great series Westworld for steering me to that theory about which I had never heard.

The pol gene isn't "social". It's the antithesis of social. How many dead over the millenia?

It's surplus to requirements. The only purpose it serves is to defend a society against other pol infected societies.

The bargaining gene - that's the one that often has to be explained to pol gened authoritarians: the one that presents a predisposition to non-coercive exchange relationships, leading to mutual gain - makes us social animals. The pol gene burdens us at best, destroys us if we let our guard down at worst, and everything in between.

Here's a legend to demonstrate what happens when the bargaining gene is over-ridden by the pol gene ...


The way bicameralism and the pol gene interacted is interested to reflect upon.

Imagine someone 3000 year who was both bicameral and pol gened.

The pol gene would have been trumped by the bicameralism. There's no use the political gene reflecting on a problem or opportunity and granting a "cunning plan" Baldric style to the pol when there's a voice in pol's head saying "No! Do this instead!".

So bicameral would have blanketed out the pol gene. Nutty schizophrenic leaders hearing voices from God in their heads would have abounded making ordinary folks lives a super-misery.

When bicameralism faded out through the evolutionary development process described by the theory, reflective pols were revealed lurking below the surface.

Maybe they were the ones that wiped the bicamerals out?

When a flanking manoeuvre was called for as a reasoned reaction to a political or military state of affaird, the pol would grasp it. Meanwhile, the bicameral would listen to the voice in his / her head saying "No! Full frontal assault!" and lose the battle.

So Darwinian development has already occurred in the human race vis-a-vis political characteristics, literally a step-change Neanderthals to Homo Sapiens leap. And quite recently and quickly - 3,000 years ago.

We can but hope that the next step-change will see the pol gene dropped altogether.

Maybe by the end of this month please, good Lord above? (Was that a voice in your head? ... Ed)


SoD, "social" is quite different than "socialism", but your imagination deserves compliment. You're right that brain wiring doesn't have everything to do with one's politics. Nature and nurture, you know. Maybe you're a chip off the old block.

It's amusing that BoJo and other Brit toff pols have such a fixation about the classics, especially Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Google "Boris Johnson Homer" to get the gist.

These two scribbling, Iliad and Odyssey, are key corroborations in the Bicameralism theory. They contain no introspection, reflection, or "churn-and-turn" analytical thought by the auther through the characters. All the players simply respond to urging from the Greek Gods, like schizophrenics hearing "command voices" in their heads.

Contrast that with the Bard, a couple of millennia later. Imagine a "no introspection, reflection, or 'churn-and-turn' analytical thought" filter on the works of Shakespeare! What would Hamlet's soliloquys be like? They simply wouldn't
and couldn't exist by definition.

The bicameral Vs conscious mind comparison is very like the contrast between declarative and procedural programming languages respectively.

In a declarative language, like HTML, if you want to draw three circles on the screen you code: CIRCLES 3, or similar. Your code is simple, because a more powerful coder, the one who wrote the language, is doing the loop of 3 times behind the scenes. Your task as coder is very linear, so to speak, or you might say, very bicameral: Instruction -> Action.

In a procedural language, like JavaScript, if you want to draw three circles on the screen you code: -


Note we are doing the loop of three ourselves, rather than the coder of the language, to achieve the three circles effect.

The God-like coder of the language has handed the loop construct over to us, the mere mortal coder using the language. Very non-linear we are now, or you might say, very conscious: INSTRUCTION <-> LOOP "churn-and-turn" -> ACTION.

Through this evolutionary passing of more code constructs to our minds, moving us from bicameral to conscious, is God, the "coder of the language in which we are written" if you prefer, instantiating himself in us? Making us more and more of his form?

In observing the move from bicameral to conscious through the contrast of Homer and Shakespeare's works and the two millennia separation, have we just witnessed God the coder in action! An in-your-face miracle?

Anyway, from the sublime to the ridiculous: back to BoJo.

Does the obsession of some pols (and ordinary peeps) with linear urgings, unreflected upon, not churned-and-turned, indicate a lingering Bicameralism in the gene pool? Not quite a full-on schizo voice-in-the-head screaming "take back control!" or "Brexit means Brexit"!" (although not totally ruled out either), but a milder inability to reflect, reason, and churn-and-turn?

As my boss keeps saying to me, "Crack on with that coding, you lazy bugger!" I might say the same to God!

It's going to be a damn close run thing swinging that 52 to 48 % round the other way - crack on Lordy!

As for BoJo, a Greek saga like bolt of lightning in your coffee break (short coffee break) would do nicely.


"It's going to be a damn close run thing swinging that 52 to 48 % round the other way - crack on Lordy!"

There is no need to swing anything is there? Even if a 2nd referendum produced 99% in favour of leave - it wouldn't make any difference would it?

Of course it would, BOE!

A surge back to Bicameralism on a 99:1 basis would definitely see a no deal WTO hard Brexit outcome.

You seem to think that 52:48 should be as decisive as 99:1, and because it doesn't appear to be the case you are inferring that if 52:48 doesn't make it happen then neither will 99:1. Wrong, I think. You're just getting frustrated.

52:48 is not enough to do much with a functioning democracy constrained by an evolved constitution (albeit unwritten), and rightly so. If 52% were allowed to put 48% in a gas chamber, wouldn't be too pretty, would it? Even 99:1 shouldn't allow that.

That's why I dislike this authoritarian democracy, will of the people, shit that abounds at the moment, aspired to by Corbyn and May. Very linear. Very bicameral. "Command voices" in the people's heads from the Daily Mail telling them to tear down a couple of millenia's worth of evolved checks and balances, introspections and reflections embodied in institutions.

Around 60:40 would do it and get you what you want.

In the meantime you just have to keep looping - asking the people, the societal equivalent of the procedural coder's loop - until the introspections and reflections yield a substantial enough majority.

Things might burn a bit in the meantime, or not actually (project "Fear" only kicks in if we do it, and political paralysis while in the single market and customs union is "Accidental Libertarianism" enjoyed by Blighty for 45 years), but it's worth the wait.

Just watch footie instead.


The comments to this entry are closed.