Semi-random thought

[unixronin]

There's nothing wrong with a nation being ashamed of its soldiers' behavior when their behavior falls short of reasonable expectations.  But a nation that is ashamed of its soldiers simply because they are soldiers is doomed.

Comments

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

Anticipating the argument of pro "civilization" folks about other evolved in behaviors that need to go out of style, let's take rape:

Rape is not pro-survival, or, to be more accurate, it has limited survival utility and is only pro-survival for losers. Stopping it is pro-survival for winners.

Human offspring require a lot of nurturing from their mothers or they die. Women don't feel all cozy about babies from rape, generally. Sure, sometimes, but they're a lot more likely to kill the infant. The woman's regular mate is highly likely to kill the infant. If she doesn't have a regular mate to help with resources, she's less likely to be able to raise the infant.

A man with good genes is going to be favored by the woman or her kin. He's not going to have a problem getting a mate, generally speaking. Sure, he might increase his odds of more offspring by rape, but by reducing the breeding opportunities of other good-gene males, he loses allies, and still has little way to guarantee that his rape-made offspring don't get killed instead of raised. Large cost, little reward. Some reward, but there are major constraints on it. Generally, one way or another, his resources have to support the kids or they won't get raised. If he has resources to support the extra kids, and his genes are good, he has better odds of them getting better care if the kids' mother likes him and likes them, and he's going to have no shortage of willing chicks.

Generally speaking, rape is the strategy of losers.

Others arranging marriages versus people choosing their own mates is something for another day.

Point is, yes what you hear in the news and from "experts" is really fucked up, but I wouldn't really worry about them being able to pull off major changes in the gene pool that quickly--especially when people with healthy genes can easily masquerade as pathologically conscience bound--even from themselves.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

You'll hear no argument from me on any of that.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

If you haven't yet read Victor Davis Hanson's (no relation to me: I'm a Hansen) book Carnage and Culture, do so now. Seriously. It's a magnificent tome which takes the same argument you're making and develops it into the realm of an actual theory of history.

According to VDH, the Western virtues of patriotism, political liberty, individualism, free association, economic liberty and self-criticism are not in themselves things we have cultivated. But war is the ultimate Darwinian environment for cultures and civilizations, and cultural values that make nations martially ineffective tend to lead to military ruin.

For instance, Napoleon lost 99% of his troops in his attack on Russia... why? Because France wasn't willing to shake its fist at Napoleon and say "you moron, you're fucking up our conquest, now learn from your mistakes and stop killing off your entire Goddamned army!" Had Napoleon lived in fear of his populace, he likely would have conquered a lot more of Europe.

Anyway, VDH looks at Salamis, Lepanto, Charles Martel's repulsion of the Moors, the Spanish discovery and conquest of Mexico, Cannae, Rorke's Drift, Midway and Vietnam, using each as a lens by which to discover what cultural traits on the winning side most influenced the victory, and showing that the overwhelmingly peaceful Western way of life is really the result of the perfection of war.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That sounds like a very interesting book. I'll have to see if I can get my hands on a copy.