Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Diametrically Opposed Tendencies in Human Evolution and Political Ideology

This document is intended not so much to inform, but rather to draw the reader's attention along a strand of related ideas that, hopefully, can be tied together in a meaningful and potentially useful way. The ideas are certainly not intended to exclusively explain all of human existence and society - they're selected to serve a specific purpose.

Diametrical Opposition and Balance

The universe is full of diametrically opposed ideals and influences that are necessary for existence as we know it. There must be matter, but matter is no good without space in which to exist. There is night and day, hot and cold, life and death - many examples of opposites that must be balanced within a certain range so things can be as they are.

There's a pair of influences that have evolved with humans over millions of years to make us as we are today. I'll label them "self-interest" and "social cooperation". Every functional human raised by other humans to an age of awareness and communication will almost certainly have incorporated a bit of both these influences.

Self-Interest

Self-interest is apparent, in its most basic form, as our ingrained need to survive and reproduce. We share this with all creatures to some degree, from the highest, most complex to the simplest single-cell organism. It's enforced by nature, by the fact that those without the will and the means simply do not survive. They die before having reproduced, are not replaced, and - gradually or abruptly - their species "goes extinct".

Lower life forms may not be aware of their craving to survive and reproduce. For less complex creatures it's probably autonomous - they simply do (by almost "mechanical" organic and chemical processes, with no volition on their part) survive and reproduce. On the other end of the spectrum, we humans certainly are generally very aware of our will to survive and reproduce. Further, we've developed a vast array of complex mechanisms to help insure our personal survival and that of our offspring.

Social Cooperation

Equally obvious is a "social cooperation" instinct that exists in many species. It's evident in those whose offspring would not survive without some form of parental and/or societal care. This is certainly most evident in the human species, whose members have evolved beyond the capacity to exist (even as adults) without social cooperation. We've lost our ability to stand individually against the forces of nature; we've come to depend on each other to fulfill a vast range of needs both basic and complex.

It's social cooperation that has allowed us to advance to the point where we have little choice but to make a distinction between our species and all others. We are "human", they are "animals". It goes without saying that the divide between human and animal is vast; the variety of our tools - from opposable thumbs, to symbolic and abstract thinking, to modern technology - makes this clear. Humanity has leaped past a certain barrier and become a new kind of creature. Though we retain the aspects of animal, we are much more.

Human/Animal Aspects

Humans are not distinct from our animal basis; we are both animal and human. The human aspect is built upon the animal base. We've developed in such a way that the survival of our animal basis must rely on our social framework. Both aspects are equally important to our existence - without the animal we could not live; without the human extension we'd be animals.

Socially, we carry ideas in our psyche through culture and interpersonal communication, but that's not the limit of it. We carry both animal and human aspects in our DNA, as well. Aptic structures cause us to "instinctively" eat from the moment of birth, to attempt to crawl and then walk soon after, to recognize faces, to imitate and learn speech, and much more. It's no stretch to assume that genetics carries a certain amount of predisposition toward self-interest and social cooperation.

While by nature we each must carry in our being (through some combination of nature and nurture) both "self-interest" and "social cooperation", it seems reasonable to assume that any given individual would - if such things were measurable - be found to hold more or less of either when compared to other humans.

Self-Interest, Social Cooperation, and the Political Compass

For those who can accept the ideas above, it might be beneficial to begin speculating on how tendencies in individuals toward "self-interest" vs "social cooperation" affect their leaning left vs right in the political spectrum.

Self-interest often seems to conflict with social cooperation. It serves the animal kingdom well, and it brought us to and supports us in our lofty position as humans. The price of this advancement, however, is social cooperation. Therefore, both aspects have their place in consideration of any human issue.

Contemplation and discussion of subjects in this light might lead to a better understanding between both sides of the political spectrum, and hopefully a better acceptance, of how others can reason as they do. It's possible such understanding and acceptance might lead to more productive debate and compromise, or even to new tools for discovering the best course of action when self-interest and social cooperation conflict.


Friday, August 4, 2017

Anatomy of an Excellent Discussion - American Economic Class Perspectives

One of the most excellent, invigorating, enlightening things a person can participate in is a really great conversation. If you're like me, you may sometimes find the world confusing - full of facts, figures, concepts, data, and disciplines that no one person could ever hope to understand completely. Still, this confusion might be brought under control if you can chat about things with people who care enough to do it right.

I've been having trouble with some ideas on economic justice, so I went to my secret stash of genius chatters. These people don't screw around. OK, wait... they do screw around (a lot!) but when it comes to discussion they practice great principles: They're reasonable, rational, even-tempered, and they have a habit of documenting what they're saying with arguably solid sources. That's something I'm honestly trying to emulate, but the truth is I'm lazy and they're a lot smarter than me. Until I've improved my ways, it's probably better I just get them going and then sit back and learn.
...there aren't ten million rich people... 
Last night I was lucky enough to recognize and seize the opportunity to sway conversation and get the help I needed. Notice that they're already on a related subject - I think this really helps. By some miracle it occurred to me at just the right moment that this could be my chance.

<friida> if you have 10 million poor people who want healthcare, and 10 rich people who don't want healthcare, you should give the people healthcare
<coney> friida, that would be that whole general will thing
<ControlFreq> That's an invalid scenario. What we have is ten million poor people who have no insurance who want 10 million poor people to have health insurance v. ten million rich people with health insurance who don't want 10 million poor people to have health insurance.
<friida> there aren't ten million rich people


Rich people? Ooh! Now's my chance to attempt a shift away from healthcare and toward economic justice in general.

<nine> what is it? the richest 800 americans own like 60% of america's wealth?
<nine> something crazy like that
<ZShurp> hmmm, something like that nine, but let me see if I can find the figure.
<nine> i'd love to find documentation on that

...let me see if I can find the figure... 
These people are a powerhouse of interest and follow-through.  I suspect they'd started looking from the moment I'd posted the first question because the results were rolling in within seconds.

<coney> nine, are you thinking of this:  https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/18/rich-people-own-much-money-half-world-report-says/y6az3Wtasd5TIf9Q6k3I4K/story.html
<coney> nine, or this one:  https://www.thenation.com/article/20-people-now-own-as-much-wealth-as-half-of-all-americans/
<ZShurp> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States -- 5% own 62%
<ZShurp> so 5% of 300 M is 15M.
<ZShurp> The "Next Nine Percent" of Americans owns 38%
<ZShurp> The Top One Percent and the Next Nine Percent are about even. And then the bottom 90% have about as much as well
Look at how ZShurp has laid out a set of facts taken from a source he provided reference to. In contrast to the vague "something like" I'd proposed earlier, he gives credible evidence that most people would probably accept - and he has a plan for it, too. Watch him go straight from the facts and figures to the calculations.

<ZShurp> So there you go, that's a good definition of class society in America.  The bottom 90%, the next 9%, and the top 1%
<ZShurp> Let's see... 38% of 65T divided by 9% of 300M is how much per person to be Middle Class ?
<ZShurp> Ahhhh... OK, so the average middle class wealth is $900,000... per *person*.  A middle class family of 4 has $3.6M.
<ZShurp> An upper class family of 4, by contrast, has $33 M
<ZShurp> And a lower class family has $230K on average.

...without fuss, he begins to lay out his thinking...
At this point ZShurp hasn't really made his plan clear, so it's understandable that coney's a bit taken aback. Notice how she handles it, though: There's not even the hint of personal attack, but rather a strong expression of incredulous surprise followed immediately by the laying out of the facts she intends as arguments against his organizational claims.

<coney> ZShurp, what world do YOU live in?
<coney> The median wealth of those younger than 35 is just $6,676. The median wealth for those older than 75 is $155,714. Here's the complete breakout by age group:
<coney> ZShurp, at the peak worth age in the US, 65-69yo, median net worth is 194,226 which includes the worth of your home, your car and the cash value of your retirement accounts

Coney does relate some good facts, but ZShurp is on a different and unexpected track. Succinctly and without fuss he begins to lay out his thinking.

<ZShurp> coney, I live in the real world, where *class* is a political division in society, and "middle" means "between".
<ZShurp> The people who have $3.6M per household constitute a *class* whose political power is substantial and who stand between the rich and everyone else.
<ZShurp> coney, I'm talking about middle class, not median wealth
<coney> you are talking numbers that put both what you call the middle class and what you call the upper class into the top quintile
<coney> https://www.thebalance.com/american-net-worth-by-state-metropolitan-4135839

...she'd never expect someone to "just believe her"...
Not yet satisfied, coney has made an objection and again provides a link to reference material. Nobody has to ask for that. She'd never expect someone to "just believe her". She's ready with it! But ZShurp clears the matter up quickly. He's providing a different (and very useful) perspective:

<ZShurp> coney, top quintile?  I'm talking about much higher, the 90% to 99%.  They have as much wealth as the top 1%, as much power as the top 1%, and their political interests are not the same as the top 1%.
<ZShurp> 0-90, 90-99, and 99-100 are the class divisions in society by power block.
<nine> so you're calling 90-99 "middle class"?
<ZShurp> yes, nine.  Assuming by "class" we're talking about politics and power, rather than the fantasy that the common man actually has any say in his government.

Look how he goes right to the heart of the matter: Politics and Power.
...even more important is what coney does: She lets him!
ZShurp was never distracted by the standard class definitions because they don't help to illustrate his point (and in fact are deceptive). What he actually does - and this is important - he takes the time to answer coney's concerns while simultaneously sticking firmly to what helps clarify his thinking: how money equates to political power.

Perhaps even more important is what coney does: She lets him! She's paying enough attention to what he is saying to realize that he's on a different track; that he has a different kind of perspective to share...

And boy does he! Look at this comparison chart that shows the classes as ZShurp has reorganized them. The differences in separation are staggering, especially when broken down further in the image below.

ClassPercentRangeProportionAvg$/Family
TopTop 1%99-1001/3$35M
Middle2nd 9%90-991/3$900K
LowLow 90%0-901/3$230K
...they haven't finished scooping up all the money...
Now the time had come to consider the implications of all this, and what could be better than a graphic to help illustrate the data?


<ZShurp> The bottom 60% are basically irrelevant.  The 60-90 constitutes the third power bloc.
<ZShurp> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:If-us-land-mass-were-distributed-like-us-wealth.png

<friida> ZShurp, do you know what that means?
<friida> it means they haven't finished scooping up all the money, so they are still hard at work doing so
<ZShurp> friida, they're working at it, yes, but civilization will collapse.  They can't push it much farther
<friida> once they perfect the A.I. robotics, all the jobs will disappear, and soon so will all the people who they needed to work those jobs

They own -0.9% of the global wealth...
Finally, loot jumps in with yet another interesting (if disturbing) perspective in the form of a reference link and a summary of it's interesting points.

<loot> http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/the-costs-of-inequality-when-a-fair-shake-isnt/
<loot> America today appears to illustrate this process in action. Though the wealthiest 20 percent earned nearly half of all wages in 2014, they have more than 80 percent of the wealth. The wealth of the poorest 20 percent, as measured by net worth, is actually negative. If they sell all they own, they’ll still be in debt.
<loot> Harvard divides it in 80/20
<loot> The Harvard study also shows the bottom 40% have negative money.
<loot> They are in debt.
<loot> That's how they survive.
<loot> They own -0.9% of the global wealth.
<ZShurp> Good point, a lot of the wealth of those on top is debt owed by those underneath...
<ZShurp> coney, it makes you wonder how the lower two quintiles get by
<coney> ZShurp, lots of people in the lowest quintile live with their parents and eat on food stamps, or are effectively homeless migrant workers
<loot> They just die.

On that cheery note, the conversation dies, too. Truly it is a dire situation, but it's a blessing to shed some light on it.

<ZShurp> well, it appears I've managed to flood the channel into silence.  Sorry about that
<nine> lol no
<nine> i'm actually taking and arranging notes
<nine> this is like goldmine night for nine

It's a goldmine for sure. The subject matter was only part of it. The real blessing is in being able to participate in a conversation with people who are willing to put in the work of finding resources, making calculations, presenting alternate points of view, and - most especially - to really listen and give consideration to each others' ideas. I belong to the lower class by both the ZShurp and coney scales, but when it comes to accessing great political discussion I feel quite rich.

References


More Links

The Blame Game

  IT'S NOT JUST A GAME ANYMORE   There's an adamant refusal, built into human nature, to look to our own faults. The typica...