Love of Money is Root of All Peace And Prosperity
One day, I was playing an age of empire game. There is this character called Genghis Khan. Genghis said that to unite Mongols they need to have common enemies.
Why they need common enemies?
The way we evolve is when we’re not at war, we’re in a race. When we’re not at war, we’re in peace. But peace means competition. Each male wants as many females as possible. When one male get plenty the other don’t get any.
So, when one male is successful, the other will get in the way. Most societies in the world then have various laws prohibiting success. Women prefer the rich, and hence the communists prohibit wealth. The religious conservatives also prohibit various free sex. That’s because freedom means competition and some people are simply not sexually competitive.
Each human want to maximize their gene pool proportion in their favor. That aspect of life is always a zero sum game. Hence, peace is not a more pareto optimal solution than war.
Imagine a country with 2 citizens, Bob and John. Say Bob is superior to John. During war, Bob will have better tactics, better strategy, and kill John. During peace, Bob will have better businesses, better stock prediction, more money, and attract more females than John. So, either in peace or war, Bob will survive in the gene pool.
Hence, there isn’t really any preference between Bob and John to support peace. The outcome of peace and war is the same anyway, the superior win.
Things get a little bit more complicated, and realistic, when people are superior in different areas. For example, say John predicts stocks better, and Bob fights better. Obviously Bob prefers war and John prefers peace if both care only about their gene pool survival.
During peace, John will make more money and attract more women. During war, Bob will beat the shit out of John and mate with more women. Because peace requires both to agree while war requires only the initiative of one side, war is then a more natural outcome.
That is why we have so many wars over so many strange reasons. People have been fighting due to different religious doctrines, intolerance of consensual acts, or a small piece of resources, such as land.
I call it a small piece of resources because the market value of the land is often much less than the amount of military expenditure spent to acquire it that no business minded political leader would invest for war campaign over the land. The true purpose of war is then to snuff off male surplus on those countries.
Yet there is hope. That hope is the desire for higher standard of living. Love of money, is then the root of all peace.
For evolutionary purposes, war and peace make little different. Some people will survive better in the gene pool anyway whether they are at war or at peace. In fact, many people will survive better in the gene pool through war than through peace.
However, war and peace make one big different. Peace leads to higher standard of living for both sides.
Here, even though Bob fights better, Bob would realize that he’ll have higher standard of living if he choose peace with John. That means he’ll survive less in the gene pool, but the higher standard of living may make up for it more. So Bob then want peace too.
3 Responses to “Love of Money is Root of All Peace And Prosperity”
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Jared Spurbeck
Said this at 10:58am:I think you’re a little confused. ^.^ The communists did not prohibit wealth, they encouraged it — but only for party leaders! Everyone else had to give them their money. I know this is not so in theory, but it’s what historically occurred every time.
“The religious conservatives” prohibit “free sex” normally because God commanded them to. But if you ask them to explain why God wants people to be married before having sex, they’ll usually say it’s because God loves his children, and doesn’t want their hearts to be broken. They might also say that a loving Heavenly Father knows what will make his children most happy, and that it’s a lifelong, loving relationship with a faithful, committed partner — giving, and getting, 100%.
If your analyses leave out the concept of love, and the knowledge that every human being is a priceless son or daughter of God — or even just a real human being, if you don’t believe in God — then they’re not very good analyses in my mind. They fail ethically, because they treat human beings as emotionless variables, and deem human loss to be acceptable. And they fail empirically, because the promiscuous Europeans are declining in population, while the Mormons are growing fast.
I’m sorry if I have offended you. Thank you for allowing me to respond to your website, and I understand that these comments may be moderated.
webmaster
Said this at 6:07am:Yes… Thanks for commenting. I agree with you. Disparity of wealth happens every where. It’s not due to capitalism. When people opposes capitalism, they got what they ask for, a precedent where the rich are the the politicians rather than productive businessmen.
My analysis leave out knowledge of love etc. because they’re politically motivated definition and has debatable scientific value.
I can have a loving relationship with many beautiful women and some religious bigot will say that it’s not love and somehow it’s not okay. That’s because for every pretty chicks I score with there is another male that don’t get any.
Jared Spurbeck
Said this at 5:49am:My analysis leave out knowledge of love etc. because they’re politically motivated definition and has debatable scientific value.
The fact that love exists, and has historically been the subject of countless speculations and captured innumerable human imaginations, makes it worthy of scientific study. To ignore its existence when deciding how best to survive is to neglect something vital, and is, in fact, an unscientific way of going about things. As a matter of fact, a great deal of research has been done into the nature of love; and, separately, efforts have been made to explain why human beings are less happy than ever now that we’re having more sex than ever before.
And accusing your opponents of being politically motivated is just a say of saying you refuse to address their charges, and is contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry.
I can have a loving relationship with many beautiful women and some religious bigot will say that it’s not love and somehow it’s not okay. That’s because for every pretty chicks I score with there is another male that don’t get any.
First, you are assuming that you are the only one in a relationship with these women. If you get lots of women, how come they don’t get lots of men?
Second, you are not letting the “religious bigots” speak for themselves. If you did, you might be surprised by their answers. In his book, “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” Joshua Harris writes about the importance of treating human beings of the opposite sex as sons or daughters of God, and of not taking anything from them — physical or emotional intimacy — that you are not yet prepared to match with an equal commitment.