David Suzuki versus Justin Trudeau

[bush_cheney2004]

Read "The Authoritarians" by Robert Altemeyer.

And you can still download the pdf version for free: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Wow...nothing says Canada more than research about American authoritarians. This must apply to the Suzuki-Trudeau celebrity death match in some way.

[-1=e^ipi]

Btw. There is ZERO evolutionary mechanism by which humans would gain the ability to intuitively know how to make policy to maximize the well being of billions of people. That's why you need to use deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.

The solution to climate change isn't obvious. No matter how much people like ReeferMadness wish it were.

Edited October 3, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

Btw. There is ZERO evolutionary mechanism by which humans would gain the ability to intuitively know how to make policy to maximize the well being of billions of people.

Sure there is. Doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you, the formula for getting along, has been around a very long time now. Would you have liked it if someone had fouled the planet before you arrived on it? Of course not. So why on Earth would you do that to someone else?

There's nothing very complicated about this at all.

[Hydraboss]

Of course not. So why on Earth would you do that to someone else?

Because of an even older "rule" - taking care of oneself and immediate family before others. That one would go back to the very beginning of evolution.

There's nothing very complicated about this at all.

Nope. Not at all.

[cybercoma]

Because of an even older "rule" - taking care of oneself and immediate family before others. That one would go back to the very beginning of evolution.

Depends on the culture. The modern conception of a nuclear family was not always the way things were. The aristocracy rarely raised their children and married for political ends. Earlier hunter gatherer tribes often raised children communally and lived communally, keeping only semi-monogamous relationships. The nuclear family, some argue, is a result of capitalist culture. It's designed such that men, the only ones legally able to hold property at one point in time, could easily identify their heirs. This is also why even to this day it's such taboo for women to cheat on their husbands, while the philandering husband is looked at with relative indifference. The family institution has changed considerably over time just within our culture and is very different between cultures. So trying to find some universal axiom about "the family" is fruitless.

[Hydraboss]

All true, but look to the earliest of humans - the thought is that the "pack" protected itself. So when a poster makes the statement that there is no evolutionary reason for anyone to protect billions around the planet that they've never met, I tend to agree.

[-1=e^ipi]

Sure there is. Doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you, the formula for getting along, has been around a very long time now. Would you have liked it if someone had fouled the planet before you arrived on it? Of course not. So why on Earth would you do that to someone else?

There's nothing very complicated about this at all.

The moral principle of reciprocity is not enough to determine optimal policy.

And not only that but there are countless examples of moral systems that violate reciprocity, so I wouldn't call reciprocity intuitive for humans.

Tribalism, which leads to racism, is a trait that has clear evolutionary origins and in many cases is in conflict with reciprocity.

The KKK have a moral system in violation of reciprocity.

ISIS has a moral system in violation of reciprocity.

The caste system in Hinduism is in violation of reciprocity.

[-1=e^ipi]

This is also why even to this day it's such taboo for women to cheat on their husbands, while the philandering husband is looked at with relative indifference.

Evolutionary psychologists like Gad Saad would disagree with you.

The fact that societies are less accepting of female cheating than male cheating has origins in reproductive differences.

A women that makes a 'mistake' is stuck with 9 months of pregnancy and breast feeding, a man isn't. Given that human parents put years of their lives raising children, they have an incentive to ensure that their offspring find good mates and therefore make sure their children don't make mistakes. Since women have a higher biological cost of mistakes, parents have a stronger desire to make sure that their female offspring don't make mistakes.