Mr. Jones

Despite all those fleeing looks of rejection and disappointing sales, a few people stayed on to discuss the book with me. Most of these were already convinced the United States is headed for collapse. This group was familiar with Jared Diamond's work, and wondered whether GSQ was a sequel. I told them it was not, as I view Diamond's Collapse as cultural anthropology and GSQ as political philosophy. They indicated they knew the reasons for the eventual disaster, and feel it will happen a lot sooner (!) than I or most writers expect. This was one of the few times in my life when I found myself behind the leading edge.

Among those not certain the United States would collapse, there was puzzlement about the causes. This is the group I found most interesting: they are Dylan's "Mr. Jones." ("You don't know what is happening, do you, Mr. Jones ...") I think these people cannot come to grips with demands to change their lives in order to avoid an unpleasant fate. They want all they have. They cannot give it up, or will not give it up easily, but fear their lifestyle leads to a desolate place. Short sightedness was volunteered by one person in this group as an American characteristic.

One fellow, apparently well versed in philosophy, tried me. I did not directly answer two of questions, so I would like to clarify those issues now.

Do people have a built-in 'will to power,' or an urge to be the top dog? Thomas Hobbes thought so. That was key point in his reasoning leading to acceptance of a Monarch. Many other philosophers and scientists have proposed the idea that humans are "killer apes," inherently aggressive, or born with "original sin."

I do not agree with that analysis, because it is, in the first instance, an analysis, not proven fact. I think the claims of genetically endowed male aggressiveness are overblown. I am a male, and have been one all my life. While I have occasionally enjoyed a physical game or two, such as tennis, I have never thought American football was fun. In fact, at least since I was 4 or 5 years old, I have found most sporting events either a crashing bore or horrifying examples of violence. On the other hand, I can get involved in a chess game. So, as an exception to the proposed genetic rule, I believe I may fairly assert that other factors than genes and sex are at work in aggressive behavior. While I hope this is not a universal solvent, I believe "culture," in the form of early training and "family values" has far more to do with aggressive behavior than genes.

Once upon a time, scions of noble houses were taught about their superiority to other people who were their subjects. In the Middle Ages, ordinary people were forbidden to learn reading and writing, but they were taught their inferiority to the Established Authorities. That combination allowed the nobility to abuse ordinary people in thousands of ways, including public humiliation. A peasant striking back risked a painful, tortured death. The same treatment was applied to slaves in the American South for centuries because it was effective in oppressing its victims.

Caste and class are very effective in channeling aggression. Social stratification depends critically on the acculturation of most or all participants in human society. It is not brought about and maintained by genes. On this basis, I reject Hobbes' thesis, as well as the other claims that Homo sapiens is naturally aggressive. Aggression - Nietzsche's 'will to power' - is an acquired trait.

The second question was proposed as an assertion: we should be satisfied that our representatives accomplish 90% of what is needed to be done. Thus, we should support the Lesser of Two (or however many) Evils. I reject that out of hand. The Lesser of Two Evils is simply a doctrine that comports with maintaining the ruling and elite classes. It denies any discomfort in the world: the 10% that is not done is not really harmful to anyone. Of course, the upper classes can afford to wait to fill the potholes in their streets. But, the  poor and disabled cannot wait for food or medical care that is the difference between life and death, or that relieves pain and suffering. Why do I immediately jump to such comparisons? Because "the system" always responds to the elites classes first, and to the unrepresented last. Thus, the undone 10% is almost always what most affects the lowest classes. The Lesser of Two Evils guarantees those most in need will never get.

That is a different argument than the standard observation that, whether lesser or greater, evil is evil. I think people should propose positive goods, not lesser evils. There are always circumstances in which we are reduced to triage and mitigation, circumstances such as catastrophes. But is feeding and clothing the poor, or providing adequate medical care to everyone, a catastrophe?

I believe people should imagine positive goals for which we strive, and judge the authorities accordingly.