Familial favoritism is benign until ethnic special interest groups and activist orgs and NGOs cause problems. Nationalism used to be the solution to clannish behavior, but it is now just a shell of itself and a way for military contractors to make money.
Of course, genuine nationalism is natalism -- a nation is a people who share a birth (and is pro-fertility for that reason: we have to out breed the outgroup). This still works even in industrialised countries, if the share-a-common-birth group is culturally permitted to think this way.
Do people in Seattle share more of a 'birth group' with people in next door Vancouver, or with people in far away Podunk?
Until about 80 years ago, Catholics and protestants in Germany almost never intermarried. How does that fit with your birth group theory?
Military budgets are a fairly small part of overall spending in the economy. If we could buy them out by just doubling their budget for free, in return for free migration, that would be a steal. Doubling world GDP from free migration dwarfs military budgets.
There's a sleight of hand here where Bryan goes from people know that doing bad things because "It would help my son" is bad to people don't know that doing bad things because "It would save American lives" is bad.
What about doing bad things because "It would save my son's life"? What do you think people's moral intuitions are?
My man, you need to read (maybe re-read) Confucius. In China is morally good to prefer your family than your country (He literally wrote is wrong to give your father away to the police if he had committed a crime). That's why nepotism is not seen as badly as in the West is. And that's why the CCP is doing enormous efforts to high nationalism among Chinese.
Having just said something anti-nationalistic, George Orwell was confronted with the challenge: "would you betray your country to protect a friend of yours?"
> Familial favoritism is a deep and ineradicable part of the human psyche
How can one know the limits of what is possible?
Also: is this stated in the form of a True/False binary, and insufficient data type for the problem space? Perhaps this has something to do with the "ineradicable " nature of various things.
> Nationalism, in contrast, is widely seen as an acceptable excuse for horrific crimes against outgroups.
See also: "the rules based liberal world order", "democracy", "the facts", "the reality".
> Nationalism – and expansive tribal identities more generally – pretends to be equally fundamental, but it’s largely cheap talk.
Rationality pretends to be rational, but it's largely hallucination.
By looking for/at whatever evidence there is, and making a judgement about whether that is adequate to recommend action or not.
Have people tried to eradicate it? What sort of methods did they use? Were they at all successful? Can we see an episode in history that seems like an instance of eradication of familial favoritism?
It has never occurred to me to look, but I doubt there are enough instances that count as evidence against Caplan’s claim. Various totalitarian regimes have succeeded in getting offspring to betray their parents, but rarely the other way around. (Speaking from ignorance here. ) Parents in premodern societies sometimes killed infants by exposure or sold them into slavery. Rousseau had several illegitimate children that he sent to orphanages. Those seem anomalous, but not enough to undermine Caplan’s point. It isn’t a sure bet in every case, but I think I know the sort of odds they would give in Las Vegas.
> By looking for/at whatever evidence there is, and making a judgement
This is *forming a belief*....but then, Belief = Knowledge, doesn't it! (Forgot where I was for a few minutes there.)
I continue to believe that the humans continue to vastly underestimate themselves (and also, *overestimate* themselves...kinda like walking paradoxes, how can you not love them!!).
Familial favoritism is benign until ethnic special interest groups and activist orgs and NGOs cause problems. Nationalism used to be the solution to clannish behavior, but it is now just a shell of itself and a way for military contractors to make money.
Of course, genuine nationalism is natalism -- a nation is a people who share a birth (and is pro-fertility for that reason: we have to out breed the outgroup). This still works even in industrialised countries, if the share-a-common-birth group is culturally permitted to think this way.
What do ethnic special interest groups and activist orgs and NGOs have to do with familial favoritism?
🤷
“Familial favoritism is benign until ethnic special interest groups and activist orgs and NGOs cause problems.”
What does that mean?
Could you give an example of the problems you have in mind?
Do people in Seattle share more of a 'birth group' with people in next door Vancouver, or with people in far away Podunk?
Until about 80 years ago, Catholics and protestants in Germany almost never intermarried. How does that fit with your birth group theory?
Military budgets are a fairly small part of overall spending in the economy. If we could buy them out by just doubling their budget for free, in return for free migration, that would be a steal. Doubling world GDP from free migration dwarfs military budgets.
Let's see, a snarky irrelevant question, an own-goal, and a belittling "you [...] theory".
Yeah this is bait, try harder next time. Tip: figure out what people are saying before pwning them epicly.
I have no clue what you are talking about. But I'm glad you seem pleased with yourself.
Yes, I know you don't, and thanks, me too.
so this would have been more persuasive if you had discussed nepotism
He did mention it briefly. Nepotism is at least seen as bad, and people at least to to the effort of being hypocritical about it.
Nepotism is seen as bad ** in the WEIRD West **.
Is Kaplan a fish who doesn't notice he's wet?
There's a sleight of hand here where Bryan goes from people know that doing bad things because "It would help my son" is bad to people don't know that doing bad things because "It would save American lives" is bad.
What about doing bad things because "It would save my son's life"? What do you think people's moral intuitions are?
Both inane and irrelevant. Go to a football game sometime. You'll see...
Is it Nationalism to restrict voting for Federal & State office only to citizens of the country? Or is it common sense?
I don't think Bryan cares about giving foreigners voting rights. Foreigners by and large also don't care. For individuals, voting is useless.
My man, you need to read (maybe re-read) Confucius. In China is morally good to prefer your family than your country (He literally wrote is wrong to give your father away to the police if he had committed a crime). That's why nepotism is not seen as badly as in the West is. And that's why the CCP is doing enormous efforts to high nationalism among Chinese.
The fifth amendment in the US protects you from testifying against your dad, too.
Having just said something anti-nationalistic, George Orwell was confronted with the challenge: "would you betray your country to protect a friend of yours?"
His reply: " I should hope so!"
> Familial favoritism is a deep and ineradicable part of the human psyche
How can one know the limits of what is possible?
Also: is this stated in the form of a True/False binary, and insufficient data type for the problem space? Perhaps this has something to do with the "ineradicable " nature of various things.
> Nationalism, in contrast, is widely seen as an acceptable excuse for horrific crimes against outgroups.
See also: "the rules based liberal world order", "democracy", "the facts", "the reality".
> Nationalism – and expansive tribal identities more generally – pretends to be equally fundamental, but it’s largely cheap talk.
Rationality pretends to be rational, but it's largely hallucination.
“How can one know the limits of what is possible?”
Are you saying there is no evidence at all?
No, I am asking: “How can one know the limits of what is possible?”
So, how can one?
By looking for/at whatever evidence there is, and making a judgement about whether that is adequate to recommend action or not.
Have people tried to eradicate it? What sort of methods did they use? Were they at all successful? Can we see an episode in history that seems like an instance of eradication of familial favoritism?
It has never occurred to me to look, but I doubt there are enough instances that count as evidence against Caplan’s claim. Various totalitarian regimes have succeeded in getting offspring to betray their parents, but rarely the other way around. (Speaking from ignorance here. ) Parents in premodern societies sometimes killed infants by exposure or sold them into slavery. Rousseau had several illegitimate children that he sent to orphanages. Those seem anomalous, but not enough to undermine Caplan’s point. It isn’t a sure bet in every case, but I think I know the sort of odds they would give in Las Vegas.
> By looking for/at whatever evidence there is, and making a judgement
This is *forming a belief*....but then, Belief = Knowledge, doesn't it! (Forgot where I was for a few minutes there.)
I continue to believe that the humans continue to vastly underestimate themselves (and also, *overestimate* themselves...kinda like walking paradoxes, how can you not love them!!).