look_think_do

While trying to understand the origins of the recent financial crisis, I took it upon myself to form a cogent definition of what "wealth" is. The website thefreedictionary.com provides, among others, the following definition of wealth:  

"An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches" .

However, I find this definition unsatisfactory, as it does not provide a clear criterion/criteria to discriminate between different "material possessions".  Since I am of the opinion that practically all human attributes and characteristics can be traced to the evolutionary  drive to maximize one's genetic transmission, I have formulated my own definition as follows:

"Wealth is the sum of hard resources (such as foodgrains, minerals, fuel etc), and soft resources (such as knowledge of engineering, medicine etc), which allow the owner(s) of said wealth to secure and maximize their genetic transmission ".
 

So the criterion that defines wealth is its ability to help its owners, whether individuals or society at large, to protect future generations from the vagaries of nature while enhancing their numbers and well-being. This definition seems consistent with the fundamental difference between wealthy and poor persons or societies; wealthy societies such as those of the west are characterized by low infant mortality, an abundance of nutrition, long life expectancies (indirectly corelated with better genetic transmission, although ill-judged contraception has clouded the picture) etc.

APPLICATIONS OF THE DEFINITION:

So far so basic. However, some surprising conclusions arise when applying the above definition to various aspects of modern society. Clear examples of wealth are our increasing knowledge of medicine, our ability to genetically engineer crops for instance, mobile telephony, the internet, better technologies for extracting minerals and oil from the earth, nuclear and renewable energy technologies etc.

Less glamorous, but nonetheless clearly "wealth"  are mundane services like sanitation, garbage disposal, transportation and logistics and many other services and goods.

What might be more intriguing and even astonishing, is the seemingly immense mass of occupations and professions that fail the above criterion. For instance, what good are the "gourmet" foods and "fine" wines industries? These do not provide any nutritional value, but nonetheless employ a mulitude or people. The same goes for the large "recreational" eating industry. While there are economies of scale to be had in industrial food manufacture (thereby freeing up labor), a large number of restaurants etc focus on providing transient pleasure, (not nutrition), but no bring absolutely no lasting benefit. I am left with no choice but to conclude that the most "talented" chef is worth less, in terms of wealth created, than an ordinary plumber or garbage disposal guy.

The fashion "industry" is even worse. What possible benefit (as defined in terms of genetic transmission) could be accruing from the activities of this kind of activity? While clothing has some usefulness in terms of hygeine and protection from the elements, the vast bulk of this industry is devoted, literally and actually, to form over substance, fulfilling shallow obsolete instincts, particularly among females. (Full Disclosure: I may have a bias against this profession because it is the cause of many sharp disagreements with my wife).

Once again, I see nothing but a huge misallocation of labor and other resources.

The same holds true with many other activities such as music, large sections of the media industry, many recent financial products and services etc. How much better off would society be if this realization was more universal and the energies of the entire labor force directed towards genuine wealth creation rather than pandering to anachronistic instincts?

While it is unrealistic to expect an abrupt and immediate reversal of this state of affairs, I hope you will ponder this point of view, dear reader, and if you find it logical, try to inform your social circle.
 

Comments/criticisms?

 

I have posted this elsewhere before, but you've probably not seen it there, so here goes.


EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF MORALITY:

It is well known that the process of evolution selects traits and behaviors that maximize the survival and reproduction of the individual/group who possesses the aforementioned traits/behaviors.

These behaviors are classically thought to be coded for by the genetic blueprint encoded in every person's DNA. However, some behaviors are transmitted as thoughts, codes of behavior or social rituals (also known as "memes"). Following the rationale of evolution, those codes of behavior that enhance the survival and reproduction of individuals or groups of individuals, will over time, become predominant, just like "good" genes become predominant over a number of generations.

It is here that "morality", a set of codes of behavior, emerges in its proper context. If you notice, all moral codes serve to enhance the productivity of a society that subscribes to these codes. As an example, the injunction against theft enhances the productivity of the society that subscribes to it, by freeing up time and energy of the citizens from guarding against one's neighbor (an unproductive activity) to accumulating resources, investing in technology development, etc. Likewise the injunction against murder etc. Over time, a society which subscribes to these codes will outcompete societies that do not, resulting in the preponderance of adherence to "morality" wordlwide.

Of course, primitive man cannot be expected to undertake this reasoning, and the message must therefore be couched in theist terms.

One very telling moral code, which particularly serves to illustrate the evolutionary origin of morality, is the prohibition of incest. As such, incest does not involve coercion or fraud, a hallmark of other "crimes" such as theft/murder. Why did the "prohibition of incest" meme then become widespread throughout human society? The answer, which has only come to light with the development of genetics, is the homozygous recessive nature of many genetic diseases. Briefly, it is likely that closely related individuals share the same faulty gene, and if they mate and pass both faulty genes to their offspring, that offspring is greatly at risk of various genetic diseases. This is commonly observed when first cousins are married in some communities.

The consumately evolutionary reason to prohibit incest, and other "sins", is excellent evidence of the evolutionary origin of the moral code.

I’m starting this blog to present my views on various aspects of human society. I believe that if similar perspectives were more widely held, society would be much better off, benefitting myself and my progeny and hopefully you too, dear reader.

I have gained a great deal of insight, or at least think I have, into social issues and behaviour by looking at people and society as entities shaped by the evolutionary pressures of:  a) survival and b) reproduction. This application of an evolutionary lens to the peculiar features of mankind shall be a common theme (some may call it an obsession) of this blog.

I’ll begin by trying to convince you that we are born to fulfil a specific purpose.

THE PURPOSE OF LIFE:

Why is it painful to stub your toe? Or be deprived of nutrition? Or be subject to derision by your peers? Conversely, why is sex, or certain types of foods or social approval pleasurable? Is there a pattern to why certain situations are painful (i.e. to be avoided) and some pleasurable (i.e. to be repeated)?

You may have already noticed that events which are “painful” lower your chances of survival/reproduction, while events which impart a feeling of pleasure increase them. It is almost as if pain and pleasure are the push and pull, applied from opposite directions, to move us towards the goals of survival and thereby reproduction.

THE PURPOSE BY PROXY:

Few people however, will explicitly realize that survival/reproduction is the purpose of life. The reason behind this discrepancy is that evolution has programmed a strong sex drive into humanity (more men that women, of which, more later) which brings about reproduction without us having to think about it. In other words, it is no coincidence that the act that is associated with so much pleasure is also responsible for reproduction; the pleasure we get from sex is the proxy of the reproduction urge. As you will have noticed, “pleasure” and “pain” are actually neurological cues which have been "programmed" into humanity to get us to do those things which promote our survival and reproduction (nutritious foods, peer approval, sex etc all give pleasure) or to avoid those that are detrimental to the same (physical injury, disease etc all cause pain). There is a logic behind what is pleasurable and painful.

(As an aside, these impulses are not infallible. For instance, the current epidemic of obesity and diabetes is a consequence of the neurological “pleasure” associated with consumption and storage of rich foods; this helped when food was scarce, but today when rich foods are plentiful, this has become a liability).

To sum up, while the fundamental drive, or purpose, of life is to maximise our reproductive potential, it has always been driven by a proxy, the sex drive, which brought about reproduction without explicit recognition of the real purpose.

DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE PURPOSE AND PROXY:

However, in recent times, the availability of contraceptives has enabled us to break the linkage between the sex drive and the purpose behind the sex drive. We can now get the high that comes from sex, while thwarting the result that this drive has evolved to bring about. This is conceptually identical to drug use; you get the feeling of pleasure, but without doing the work to deserve it. In effect, it is a short circuit. The consequences of the failure to realize this are evident in the demographic decline underway in much of the “developed” world; shrinking populations are now certain to result in a slew of undesirable outcomes, from increased poverty (more retirees, fewer workers), slowed technological and scientific development (the young are the most prolific source of invention and discovery) and even a takeover by more (re)productive outsiders. I'm hoping to contribute to the reversal and amelioration of these effects via this blog.

IMPLICATIONS:

Given that the purpose of life is to transmit one’s genes into the future, what does this suggest about how life should be led?

Broadly, the following seem important:

a) Having an optimal number of properly brought up children; about four seems a good number to me.

b) Ensuring that one leaves the world a better place than one found it; enabling one’s descendants and the world at large to progress into a bright and brave future. This includes devoting resources optimally, to science and technology development instead of counter-productive financial speculation, for instance (more about financial speculation etc later) or to education for all instead of conspicuous consumption.

There are a large number of issues that I have glossed over or ignored altogether for now. These include the evolutionary basis of morality, my application of these principles to current affairs such as the credit crunch and the torture of terrorism suspects etc. I hope to share my views on these topics over the next few weeks.

Lastly, if you find these ideas convincing or interesting, please do refer your acquaintances to this blog.