On Altruism

Suppose that a certain segment of people is oppressed, let's say people with big noses.  This oppression threatens the future of big nosed people.  Now suppose that one big nosed person risks his life to fight for the rights of big nosed people.  In doing so, he is diminishing his own reproductive potential.  Does this make evolutionary sense?  The answer clearly is yes because he probably shares many genes with other big nosed people.  It makes more evolutionary sense to fight to protect the future of those shared genes than it does to have children who themselves will have a doubtful future.  I believe that this is the basis altruism.  Altruism is working for conditions that benefit shared genes in the population at the expense of one's own future.

Suppose one lives in a society that is a good place for one's genes, meaning a place where people with similar genes will likely survive and reproduce.  It makes perfect sense to contribute to such a society.  This is the reason that so many men choose professions that contribute to society over professions that would benefit them more personally.  This includes statesmen, scientists, artists, and many others.

Now suppose one lives in a society that is a bad place for one's genes, meaning a place where people with similar genes are unlikely to reproduce.  In such a society, it makes no sense to contribute.  The logical evolutionary action is to be completely selfish and possibly harmful to society.  I live in such a society and I have followed this path.

We live in a world dominated by feminism.  Feminism has effectively put my kind of genes on death row, headed towards extinction.  As a co-alpha male, I see only one logical evolutionary path, and that it to try to create at least one tiny piece of the world that is good for co-alphas.  This is more important than my survival or the survival of my family.  If no society exists that is good for my genes, then nothing else matters.  This is why I am so committed to the idea of the CoAlpha Brotherhood.

You are right in your premise, but wrong on your terms. The rational defense of big noses (as the family/group/race defence instinct) action is not Altrusim.

Altrusim is the glorification of a Big Nose person who comes to the defense of a small nose person, over defending his own big nose child being killed by many small nose persons. Altrusim says the big nose rescuer is best for he saves a stranger, not one of his own, and thus trumps the traditional defender of his group who comes to the rescuer of his own tribe.

This is why I oppose Altrusim, and walked out of a class on this very subject at university, for it turns what you support, and what I support, in its head.

It is meant to do so, and is meant to encourage disloyaty within groups by glorifying defence of others you don't know. This backs up distorted chivarly too, as heros rescue pretty strange women over old women, old men, men kids and familiary women of his tribe. This also fits in nicely with women's nature, as they are "familairity breeds contempt" by nature too.

It is part of the big plan that you are not so sure exists yet.

It seems we entirely agree on substance and only disagree on the definition of the word "altruism".  So I would ask you, what word would you use to describe one man's defense of another man in his tribe, if not "altruism"?

I got nothing of substance to add (so dont read too much into this) but Ill just say: The devil is in the details of how you define, or how broadly you define, big nosed people.

According to The Selfish Gene theory ala Dawkins - it would make sense to fight only if other big nosed people would fight for you in kind. I do not like Dawkins nor agree with him on everything, but he had a nice video in the 1980s where they put different computer simulations up against each other in a sort of prisoners dilemma game.

Some programs would always backstab others, some would only backstab others if the others backstabbed them etc. Some got very complicated.
In the end, the program that won was the one that assumed a friendly non-backstabbing opponent/collaborator at first, and then was tit for tat thereafter. Was quite a simple program really.

The video is called "Nice guys finish first" and it seems to be on piratebay
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4689468/Richard_Dawkins_-_Nice_Guys_Finish_First

Was a fun watch when I first saw it a few years back.

I read Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation" which explains the whole tit-for-tat idea.  But this misses my point.  You don't help your kids because they will help you.  You help your kids because they share your genes.  The same applies to a lesser extent with other people who share some of your genes.  Think of the evolutionary value of an action as follows:

d = increased probability that a person affected will reproduce
s = some function of the amount of DNA shared with you (not sure what this function is)
n = number of people affected

Then the genetic value of any action is simply d*s*n.  And this is without any reciprocating.

Not sure of any new term. Yet it is just the normal tribal pact, though "tribal" has been one of the terms that has been in the process of being discredited.

Yet Ardia has touched on something I talked about in my book, and references a study done on Tamarian Monkeys. They set up a system where one monkey could only get the food if another monkey pulled a switch. 3 groups developed in the study.

Type 1:  Those who would help others get food, even when they were not give a return gesture of food.  (Generous to a fault type, in this case till death if this is the only food source)

Type 2:  Those who would take the gesture to get food, but not return it (selfish to a fault type)

Type 3:  Those who would help, but if not returned would go ape shit on those who didn't return the gesture (honor type) This one is me:)

So Ardia is touching on this, but a culture that assures type 2 gets hammered for their selfish ways is a solid one. Yet one that is Ayn Rand or "me generation" center type 2 (as we find ourselves in) means all become more like type 2.

The police miss or let off many criminals and arrest type 3 types who take the law into their own hands. In the past type 3 were let off with a lecture, or the law was bent. Now type two is let off or the law bent for them and the type 3 is hammered for they show up the systems corruption. I see this again a purpose in this madness in the Anacho-tyrannical plan.

In the movement we have men who help others until they burn out, and others who take help and then bugger off. I have lasted so long for I demand give & take and don't burn out, while I find the generous to a fault types have something going on too.

Now Frank knows why I'm so rabid give & take!

I think altruism is a good thing, but the culture of selfishness that is prevalent and the equally bad culture of expecting the state to take care of the greater good, makes it something that is very unlikely to be reciprocated these days..

I find, young men are by far the most self-centred group of individuals on the whole..

I believe that is mainly due to the fact that they are so heavily influenced by their mothers attitudes..

They have ridiculous notions of what they can expect, they simply don't even recognise how much they are helped, and to what an extent this is at the expense those who help them..

Pisses me off to think of it actually!!

What a good thread!

Just wanted to check in a say that - short on time for the moment.

"Feminist societies are terrible for co-alpha males.  We should never contribute to feminist societies.  They are clearly our enemy."

I agree in spirit but there are certain practical considerations. I do not know yet of any CoAlpha Societies I can realistically join in a physical sense (like, say, becoming a citizen in a CoAlpha nation). Furthermore, one of the necessary aspects of any such society seems to be having a defense force, unless someone's come up with a way to have a society that is immune to war and invasion. (If so, I'd like to hear about it!) I say this because, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I am a Marine. I am in the service of a nation currently in the throes of feminism; it can be said that I am contributing to a feminist society.

That is more a byproduct of the times, however. An oath of service to the country is, technically speaking, an oath to defend the Constitution - a document I think is well written. Some amendments have changed that, exploding voting rights and such, but, amendments can be repealed. It has happened before, after all (prohibition).

What is the end state of a CoAlpha society? An entirely new nation? Co-opting a currently existing nation and infrastructure (military, etc)?

You are right, I should tone down my original post in this thread.  I pay taxes, which is also contributing to this society.  What I should find a way to say is that there is no reason to feel allegiance to a feminist society, and one should not be criticized for acting selfishly in a feminist society.  For now, I will just remove the strong language from my initial post.

A society isn't the same as a nation.  A nation needs a military, but a society doesn't necessarily need one.  I consider strong subcultures like the Amish and the Hasidic Jews to be their own societies that in effect pay taxes to the nation in which they reside in return for military protection.

I also like the American Constitution, but at this point I view it as a document that Modern America largely ignores.  And even if you swear to uphold the Constitution in the military, the practical reality is that you can be sent on unconstitutional missions by a government that has lost respect for the constitution.

I don't know what the end state of a CoAlpha society is, but I do know that all good societies started out as CoAlpha societies, and that includes America.  It is almost impossible to see so far into the future to know where a society that is just beginning will end.  One can only try to head in the right direction.

fschmidt wrote

You are right, I should tone down my original post in this thread.  I pay taxes, which is also contributing to this society.  What I should find a way to say is that there is no reason to feel allegiance to a feminist society, and one should not be criticized for acting selfishly in a feminist society.  For now, I will just remove the strong language from my initial post.

With this I can agree entirely. Perhaps "undying allegiance," if you want to get technical. I have sworn allegiance to America, for instance, until the terms of my contract expire. But there are pertinent and practical reasons to do so - free college education, free vehicle to travel the world, indispensable free training in various disciplines (from martial skills to gun-handling skills to the technical skills my job demands) and a pretty healthy paycheck with many opportunities for advancement. On the basis of these practical reasons alone, I might consider staying in the service. However, my allegiance isn't based entirely upon these trinkets; I happen to agree with the core ethos of the Marine Corps. (I really should write about that, sometime.) I believe that the Marine Corps is successful in recruiting some of the nation's best into its ranks.

fschmidt wrote

A society isn't the same as a nation.  A nation needs a military, but a society doesn't necessarily need one.  I consider strong subcultures like the Amish and the Hasidic Jews to be their own societies that in effect pay taxes to the nation in which they reside in return for military protection.

I also like the American Constitution, but at this point I view it as a document that Modern America largely ignores.  And even if you swear to uphold the Constitution in the military, the practical reality is that you can be sent on unconstitutional missions by a government that has lost respect for the constitution.

Fair enough. I would merely point out, again, the difficulty in locating a nation that is friendly to CoAlpha ideals that I could also become a member of. And a nation does provide, generally speaking, those essential things a society needs to survive. It is the military of the nation that protects the societies of the Amish and Hasidic Jews, as we've been discussing. Other things too: mostly infrastructure - roads, economy, etc.

Modern America does indeed ignore it, but as I've said elsewhere (and it may just be my young and naive optimism), I don't buy into fatalistic arguments that imply the certainty of the collapse of America or the impossibility of reversing the course. Propaganda can be quite effective, and trying times call for trying measures - I think the average American is eager for some "results," for instance, that feminist ideologies and policies will never be able to achieve. The key is to have a careful and concerted effort to wean America off its feminism, starting (I would argue) with boys and men - particularly young men.

fschmidt wrote

I don't know what the end state of a CoAlpha society is, but I do know that all good societies started out as CoAlpha societies, and that includes America.  It is almost impossible to see so far into the future to know where a society that is just beginning will end.  One can only try to head in the right direction.

This is a fact I'm only beginning to appreciate. The first 17 years of my (now 21-year-old) life were spent in a hotbed of feminist ideology and thinking. It is only fairly recently that I have become fully unplugged in every sense of the word. Perhaps this is also why I have faith that things can be different. I was once as ardently feminist as they come; if I can be convinced, even though I was marinated in feminism since birth, why is it inconceivable that others can be convinced as well?

Hm . . .

Like Fschmidt, I don't have the answer to the end state of a Co-Alpha society.

To me the idea of equal men banding and cooperating instead of fighting to become a lone (single) Alpha-Male, is a great idea and probably the result of an original insight that made men depart from the animal kingdom and evolve into Mankind.

The 'banding' or 'brotherhood' thing could very well be the reason for our first proto-societies. Every civilisation on earth can be seen as a step in the direction of an ordered and  peaceful society.

It doesn't really matter that no one has the final answer to this - I think. :)