[MG] Need a new word

[Scott Raney]

What is the opposite of "humanism"?
the only answer I have to this is individualism seein as a political
clination value

There is something related to this in there, but
individualism/collectivism I tend to see as an orthogonal dimension to
what I'm talking about. What I'm trying to get at is the acceptable
*sources* of behavior, not its ultimate benefactor:

spiritualism/deism: you're supposed to abdicate control to god/fate

humanism: decisions should be made based on rationality but the
philosophy also relies on some sort of innate goodness

replism: it's OK to go with what your genes tell you to do

Replism is definitely not the same as individualism because protection
of the group and even sacrifice for the group is a common outcome
(tribalism). And humanism is not necessarily incompatible with
individualism either: individual achievement is certainly encouraged
by most humanists.

Spiritualism/deism is only selectively incompatible with replism with
rules coming from prophets and other amateur social engineers about
which replism-derived behaviors must be suppressed. The problem being
that those amateur social engineers are usually more concerned with
preserving their own power than in what's best for The People overall
and so they let things like replism-based tribalism run free and even
encourage it in many cases.

Humanism and replism are also only partially incompatible because
replism assumes these innate sources are naturally good whereas
humanism would at least impose some constraints based on rational
decisionmaking on them. Most Humanists do seem to assume that most of
these innate behaviors are "good", though, mostly I think because
humanists are just another variety of amateur social engineers and so
don't even consider all the ramifications of allowing each Clination
to be expressed unimpeded.

Matchism would therefore be classified between spiritualism/deism and
humanism: It takes from the former a definite concept that "good" is
to be defined independently of instinctive behavior and enforced by
establishing a set of rules (laws and policies) that people must
follow. It takes from the latter that the rules should be derived from
rational analysis (albeit collective rational analysis) rather than
the proclamations of amateur social engineer religious leaders.
Matchism doesn't make the assumption of innate goodness that humanism
(and even deism to some extent) relies on: Everything is subject to
negotiation depending on the environmental and technological
conditions under which the decisions will be made. It is therefore the
only philosophy that fully rejects the "innate good" aspect of
replism.

I think this means I'm settling on "replism" as the name for this
concept. What does "replism" mean to you?
Regards,
Scott

Peace J

[max stalnaker]

Science fiction is often useful.

In one story, we did not be allowed to be "wild humans" (since we had
pretty much killed ourselves)

In another all rhe original style humans were kept in a planet sized zoo
and left not quite unsupervized. I think we would call them heirloom
humans. Not very nice but the winners really really knew they were the
best most flexible smartness most rurhless and unbeatable and also knew
that just maybe they were wrong.

In any case I think you are ignoring data that human evolution has speeded
up at when we became civilized. Even without GMO humans and without
considering lamarcism influences, the selection pressure is intense.

What is the opposite of "humanism"?
the only answer I have to this is individualism seein as a political
clination value
Peace J

We need a new word. The definition is something like "The belief,
often implicit, that there is inherent value in behavior that evolved
to facilitate gene transmission". It's highly correlated with racism,
nationalism, protectionism, imperialism, tribalism, etc. and of course
with conservatism in general. But it also covers beliefs and behaviors
related to child rearing (i.e., children as possessions, inheritance,
high birth rates, etc.) insofar as it's clear that particular beliefs
and behaviors are designed not so much to promote the well-being of
the child or the parent, but merely to facilitate propagation of the
genes for which they are the vehicles (a la Dawkins' The Selfish
Gene): For example, adoption is rare in small-scale societies and in
most animal species because it specifically works *against* the
propagation of one's own genes. The new term would also would cover
acceptance of a large range of anti-social behaviors (discrimination,
violence, lying/cheating/stealing, etc.) that facilitated replication
of one's own genes over those of competitors during EEA.
It's sort of an antonym for humanism and rationalism, but applies at a
lower level (i.e., it applies to the genetics, not culture).
Curiously, there aren't any antonyms listed in the thesaurus for
either of those either, although I'd have listed "barbarism" and maybe
"spiritualism" in that category (What is the opposite of "humanism"?)
I'm aware that there are some Clinations that we will probably choose
to retain (parent/child bonding, expressions of romantic love,
competitiveness in general, etc.) that will be examples of this
concept, but the crucial distinction is that we will *choose* to
retain them rather than keep them merely as a result of some inherent
value we ascribe to them.
So far I've come up with propagism (or propism), replism
(replicationism?), and geneism (or genism), though the latter only
captures half of the meaning. Vestigialism also partially overlaps
with this concept but doesn't really capture the "value" part of it
(and vestigialism is barely a word itself, since there are only about
400 hits on google for it). Any other suggestions or root words we
should look at?
Regards,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_
metagovernment.org

[Anthony Dunn]

It's sad because I can think of antonyms for humanist, but the most fitting
one, fascism, is already so damn misunderstood/loaded I think we might be
better off just creating one. A-humanist? Inhumanist?

Post by max stalnaker
Science fiction is often useful.
In one story, we did not be allowed to be "wild humans" (since we had
pretty much killed ourselves)
In another all rhe original style humans were kept in a planet sized zoo
and left not quite unsupervized. I think we would call them heirloom
humans. Not very nice but the winners really really knew they were the
best most flexible smartness most rurhless and unbeatable and also knew
that just maybe they were wrong.
In any case I think you are ignoring data that human evolution has speeded
up at when we became civilized. Even without GMO humans and without
considering lamarcism influences, the selection pressure is intense.

What is the opposite of "humanism"?
the only answer I have to this is individualism seein as a political
clination value
Peace J

We need a new word. The definition is something like "The belief,
often implicit, that there is inherent value in behavior that evolved
to facilitate gene transmission". It's highly correlated with racism,
nationalism, protectionism, imperialism, tribalism, etc. and of course
with conservatism in general. But it also covers beliefs and behaviors
related to child rearing (i.e., children as possessions, inheritance,
high birth rates, etc.) insofar as it's clear that particular beliefs
and behaviors are designed not so much to promote the well-being of
the child or the parent, but merely to facilitate propagation of the
genes for which they are the vehicles (a la Dawkins' The Selfish
Gene): For example, adoption is rare in small-scale societies and in
most animal species because it specifically works *against* the
propagation of one's own genes. The new term would also would cover
acceptance of a large range of anti-social behaviors (discrimination,
violence, lying/cheating/stealing, etc.) that facilitated replication
of one's own genes over those of competitors during EEA.
It's sort of an antonym for humanism and rationalism, but applies at a
lower level (i.e., it applies to the genetics, not culture).
Curiously, there aren't any antonyms listed in the thesaurus for
either of those either, although I'd have listed "barbarism" and maybe
"spiritualism" in that category (What is the opposite of "humanism"?)
I'm aware that there are some Clinations that we will probably choose
to retain (parent/child bonding, expressions of romantic love,
competitiveness in general, etc.) that will be examples of this
concept, but the crucial distinction is that we will *choose* to
retain them rather than keep them merely as a result of some inherent
value we ascribe to them.
So far I've come up with propagism (or propism), replism
(replicationism?), and geneism (or genism), though the latter only
captures half of the meaning. Vestigialism also partially overlaps
with this concept but doesn't really capture the "value" part of it
(and vestigialism is barely a word itself, since there are only about
400 hits on google for it). Any other suggestions or root words we
should look at?
Regards,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_
metagovernment.org

[max stalnaker]

The inhumanity principle was coined by jeffers. He is usually called a
fascist but more an isolationist and a deeply distrustful person concerning
civilization. Personally, I doubt that he held a high opinion of any
extant or even archaic political system in the last ten millenia. That he
is sensibe we can note that few of those political systems are successful.

I enjoyed his poetry. Would that the only political commentary must need
be in rhyme

Post by Anthony Dunn
It's sad because I can think of antonyms for humanist, but the most
fitting one, fascism, is already so damn misunderstood/loaded I think we
might be better off just creating one. A-humanist? Inhumanist?

Post by max stalnaker
Science fiction is often useful.
In one story, we did not be allowed to be "wild humans" (since we had
pretty much killed ourselves)
In another all rhe original style humans were kept in a planet sized zoo
and left not quite unsupervized. I think we would call them heirloom
humans. Not very nice but the winners really really knew they were the
best most flexible smartness most rurhless and unbeatable and also knew
that just maybe they were wrong.
In any case I think you are ignoring data that human evolution has
speeded up at when we became civilized. Even without GMO humans and
without considering lamarcism influences, the selection pressure is intense.

What is the opposite of "humanism"?
the only answer I have to this is individualism seein as a political
clination value
Peace J

We need a new word. The definition is something like "The belief,
often implicit, that there is inherent value in behavior that evolved
to facilitate gene transmission". It's highly correlated with racism,
nationalism, protectionism, imperialism, tribalism, etc. and of course
with conservatism in general. But it also covers beliefs and behaviors
related to child rearing (i.e., children as possessions, inheritance,
high birth rates, etc.) insofar as it's clear that particular beliefs
and behaviors are designed not so much to promote the well-being of
the child or the parent, but merely to facilitate propagation of the
genes for which they are the vehicles (a la Dawkins' The Selfish
Gene): For example, adoption is rare in small-scale societies and in
most animal species because it specifically works *against* the
propagation of one's own genes. The new term would also would cover
acceptance of a large range of anti-social behaviors (discrimination,
violence, lying/cheating/stealing, etc.) that facilitated replication
of one's own genes over those of competitors during EEA.
It's sort of an antonym for humanism and rationalism, but applies at a
lower level (i.e., it applies to the genetics, not culture).
Curiously, there aren't any antonyms listed in the thesaurus for
either of those either, although I'd have listed "barbarism" and maybe
"spiritualism" in that category (What is the opposite of "humanism"?)
I'm aware that there are some Clinations that we will probably choose
to retain (parent/child bonding, expressions of romantic love,
competitiveness in general, etc.) that will be examples of this
concept, but the crucial distinction is that we will *choose* to
retain them rather than keep them merely as a result of some inherent
value we ascribe to them.
So far I've come up with propagism (or propism), replism
(replicationism?), and geneism (or genism), though the latter only
captures half of the meaning. Vestigialism also partially overlaps
with this concept but doesn't really capture the "value" part of it
(and vestigialism is barely a word itself, since there are only about
400 hits on google for it). Any other suggestions or root words we
should look at?
Regards,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_
metagovernment.org

[Jacopo Tolja]

I see replism as an abstract form of survivalism, I consider most succesful
system as proof that survivalism is the key to create a continuum.
As tecnology shift and ICT become mature survivalist are the one that are
better in being able to adapt. And they are searching for solution
Politically is just a matter of sufficient means to survive in the short
term, while a survivalist plan the long term. Survivalist can shift from
fascist to leftist, to centeright ect.ect. but they are looking to give
answers to solve problem.
Once survivalist will "take over", and I belive will eventually happen.
then a new era will begin. They will implement sostenibilism as a rule and
all decision will become entangled in the process. I believe that the new
era will become a reality, but maybe I will not be here to see it happen.
Am I a dreamer?
peace
j

Post by max stalnaker
The inhumanity principle was coined by jeffers. He is usually called a
fascist but more an isolationist and a deeply distrustful person concerning
civilization. Personally, I doubt that he held a high opinion of any
extant or even archaic political system in the last ten millenia. That he
is sensibe we can note that few of those political systems are successful.
I enjoyed his poetry. Would that the only political commentary must need
be in rhyme

Post by Anthony Dunn
It's sad because I can think of antonyms for humanist, but the most
fitting one, fascism, is already so damn misunderstood/loaded I think we
might be better off just creating one. A-humanist? Inhumanist?

Post by max stalnaker
Science fiction is often useful.
In one story, we did not be allowed to be "wild humans" (since we had
pretty much killed ourselves)
In another all rhe original style humans were kept in a planet sized zoo
and left not quite unsupervized. I think we would call them heirloom
humans. Not very nice but the winners really really knew they were the
best most flexible smartness most rurhless and unbeatable and also knew
that just maybe they were wrong.
In any case I think you are ignoring data that human evolution has
speeded up at when we became civilized. Even without GMO humans and
without considering lamarcism influences, the selection pressure is intense.

What is the opposite of "humanism"?
the only answer I have to this is individualism seein as a political
clination value
Peace J

We need a new word. The definition is something like "The belief,
often implicit, that there is inherent value in behavior that evolved
to facilitate gene transmission". It's highly correlated with racism,
nationalism, protectionism, imperialism, tribalism, etc. and of course
with conservatism in general. But it also covers beliefs and behaviors
related to child rearing (i.e., children as possessions, inheritance,
high birth rates, etc.) insofar as it's clear that particular beliefs
and behaviors are designed not so much to promote the well-being of
the child or the parent, but merely to facilitate propagation of the
genes for which they are the vehicles (a la Dawkins' The Selfish
Gene): For example, adoption is rare in small-scale societies and in
most animal species because it specifically works *against* the
propagation of one's own genes. The new term would also would cover
acceptance of a large range of anti-social behaviors (discrimination,
violence, lying/cheating/stealing, etc.) that facilitated replication
of one's own genes over those of competitors during EEA.
It's sort of an antonym for humanism and rationalism, but applies at a
lower level (i.e., it applies to the genetics, not culture).
Curiously, there aren't any antonyms listed in the thesaurus for
either of those either, although I'd have listed "barbarism" and maybe
"spiritualism" in that category (What is the opposite of "humanism"?)
I'm aware that there are some Clinations that we will probably choose
to retain (parent/child bonding, expressions of romantic love,
competitiveness in general, etc.) that will be examples of this
concept, but the crucial distinction is that we will *choose* to
retain them rather than keep them merely as a result of some inherent
value we ascribe to them.
So far I've come up with propagism (or propism), replism
(replicationism?), and geneism (or genism), though the latter only
captures half of the meaning. Vestigialism also partially overlaps
with this concept but doesn't really capture the "value" part of it
(and vestigialism is barely a word itself, since there are only about
400 hits on google for it). Any other suggestions or root words we
should look at?
Regards,
Scott
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mail
man/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_
metagovernment.org

[Scott Raney]

Post by Jacopo Tolja
I see replism as an abstract form of survivalism, I consider most succesful
system as proof that survivalism is the key to create a continuum.

Hmm: it seems survivalist has a completely different meaning here in
the US. Here a survivalist, often called a "prepper", is someone
preparing for the end of civilization (guns, bunkers, long-term food
storage, developing hunting and fighting skills, hording gold, etc.)

Post by Jacopo Tolja
As tecnology shift and ICT become mature survivalist are the one that are
better in being able to adapt. And they are searching for solution
Politically is just a matter of sufficient means to survive in the short
term, while a survivalist plan the long term. Survivalist can shift from
fascist to leftist, to centeright ect.ect. but they are looking to give
answers to solve problem.
Once survivalist will "take over", and I belive will eventually happen. then
a new era will begin. They will implement sostenibilism as a rule and all
decision will become entangled in the process. I believe that the new era
will become a reality, but maybe I will not be here to see it happen. Am I a
dreamer?

"sostenibilism" is another problematic term: There doesn't seem to be
any English equivalent for that, but it seems to translate to being a
proponent of sustainable economics.

But it looks to me like the opposite is happening: The left,
especially in the US, is dying and as I said a few posts ago there are
very few people actively working on new ideas or systems to replace
those that arose out of the civil rights and antiwar movements of the
1960s. Trump's inability to function I think will push the pendulum
back toward that a bit (e.g. Fox News has fallen behind both CNN and
MSNBC for the first time), but overall the movement seems to be toward
nationalism (tribalism) just about everywhere. You may not live to see
the new order, but unfortunately you (we) may all live long enough to
experience the chaos that will lead to it...
Regards,
Scott

Post by Jacopo Tolja
peace
j

[Scott Raney]

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Anthony Dunn

Post by Anthony Dunn
It's sad because I can think of antonyms for humanist, but the most fitting
one, fascism, is already so damn misunderstood/loaded I think we might be
better off just creating one. A-humanist? Inhumanist?

I just discovered Mussolini's manifesto, which I hadn't run across
before. Not a great piece of work (maybe a bad translation?) but I
think it is worth dissecting:
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

It certainly fits with your claim of it being anti-humanist, at least
so far as it applies to the cultural/political level. In a sense
fascism is a derivative of replism at least as far as you could claim
that the social and organizational directives of replism that
benefited genes in the EEA still apply in the modern world. That
manifesto even treads into social engineering territory a bit, with a
strong prescription for conditioning to ensure that The People are
properly shaped cogs to be working components in the fascist machine.

Unfortunately it's less useful when you try to apply it to individual
behavior that doesn't directly relate to support for the State. For
example, that manifesto contains strong support for religion
(Catholicism) but primarily as an organizational tool, not as a source
of moral code. To the extent the chosen religion conflicts with the
needs of the State, the religion is the one that would have to change.
To the extent that it's directives don't concern an individual's
relationship to the State, *any* religion would work as an organizing
mechanism. In that sense fascism is agnostic WRT the source of a moral
code that would apply to relationships between people rather than
between the individual and the state.

That manifesto has a lot of confusing, contradictory, and even
provably wrong things in it, though. I had to laugh at this one, for
example, which is a weak (and totally wrong) analysis of what is
sometimes called "group selection theory":
"The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of
the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with
nature's plans, which care only for the species and seem ready to
sacrifice the individual."

I also had to scratch my head at the coining of the term
"authoritarian democracy", which is possibly an oxymoron but at the
very least is not at all the decisionmaking system he seems to be
proposing: Fascism as he describes it, and as it has always been
implemented, is a form of oligarchy, not democracy.

But back to the main topic: I don't think fascism is the opposite of
humanism. In fact if you read the humanist manifesto, there's only
thing in there that is actually directly contradictory to fascism
(humanism contains a prohibition on violence whereas fascism would
seem to endorse the use of violence against targets outside the
State):
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto3/

This I think says more about the amateur social engineering
foundations of humanism than anything about its relationship to
fascism. It's an exclusive (as opposed to inclusive) philosophy
because it lacks any mention of individual differences (some of which
cause people to have different goals and to exhibit behavior
incompatible with the "rules"), the source or source of control over
individual behavior (i.e. who decides what is "good", and how, and
what are the consequences of failing to do "good"), any specificity
about the form of government or decisionmaking, or what the Goals of
the People should be, how they should be determined, and what
compromises are allowed in achieving them. Mussolini's fascism at
least takes a stab at all of these things, even though in most cases
it's SDAPs that end up making the decisions to suit themselves (as
"Democratic Authoritarians", I guess ;-)
Regards,
Scott

[Scott Raney]

Post by max stalnaker
In any case I think you are ignoring data that human evolution has speeded
up at when we became civilized. Even without GMO humans and without
considering lamarcism influences, the selection pressure is intense.

But can you make a useful prediction about what changes are occurring
and what effect that will have on the optimal system for human
government? My theory is that things are getting worse WRT
oligarchy/misrepresentative democracy/dictatorship because selection
pressures that would have eliminated problematic individuals
(particularly SDAPs) from the population are no longer operating
(psychopaths in particular probably rarely reached adulthood 10,000
years ago). And the reproductive success of some of these individuals
is astounding: For example it's been reported that 10% of men in
Mongolia carry Genghis Khan's Y-chromosome. An interesting related
fact is that the murder rate in Mongolia is almost 10 times that of
China...
Regards,
Scott