[p2p-research] Helping the Helpless

[Edward Miller]

I just wanted to agree with both Kevin's and Ryan's comments, but with
caveats.

Kevin, while I would say that there has been genetic consequences resulting
from the history of centralized power structures, I do not think that they
are all that strong. Our higher reasoning abilities may actually have
increased. Our brains have increased in size in the past 650 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4643312.stm

Perhaps this is just part of the Flynn Effect, or maybe it is something
else. Certainly in civilized society intelligence is clearly seen as an
indicator of sexual fitness, and even intelligence and sperm motility seem
to be correlated. While we may be woefully uninformed as a whole, this is
not because of a natural ability deficit. Thus, we are clearly capable of
making choices. Not infrequently do we make choices to revolt against
authority structures, in spite of any minor selection pressure for docility.
There are plenty of selection pressures going the other way as well. A lack
of assertiveness is seen as weakness by potential mates. Conditions of
geography, climate, and material scarcity also seem to select for
selfishness, aggressiveness, etc... though simultaneously we have a higher
level of cultural evolution and world-system evolution taking place which is
selecting for people who can function well by capitalist logic... thus we
see multiculturalism, teamwork, entrepreneurship and simultaneously docility
selected for.

So it is a very complex matter, and we can't make any simple
generalizations, except that we can say with empirical evidence that certain
genes promote certain temperaments, and we can speak of how we might like to
see them changed. Would we like to increase compassion? Increase pleasure
capacities? Under what mode of production? (capitalism? socialism? open
source?) Etc. For me it is a pragmatic matter.

---

Ryan, your definition of pragmatism is consequentialist in nature, and
likely utilitarian. I am a staunch utilitarian, as is David Pearce. The
criteria by which we determine what works "best" is how it affects the
subjective experience of the sentient beings which are being considered.

Now there are a lot of paradoxes in this worldview, such as the Utility
Monster or the Repugnant Conclusion, but most of them only deal with certain
types of utilitarianism (preference utilitarianism, classical
utilitarianism, hedonism, etc), and even still they can usually be dispelled
by taking a more holistic approach. Yet the ultimate goal of producing some
variation of the idea of the "maximum happiness for the maximum number"
remains unchanged.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090926/ac1c492b/attachment.html>