You can’t eliminate behavioral sink behavior unless you eliminate behavior sinks.
That means for one drug “addiction”.
Addiction in a behavioral sink
The abortion/gestation question comes to mind.
Many [female rats] were unable to carry pregnancy to full term or to survive delivery of their litters if they did. An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep. The social organization of the animals showed equal disruption. […]
It is more than obvious that the two parties represent the two ends of the spectrum and you are not going to eliminate the behavioral sink party until you eliminate behavioral sinks. And efforts to change behavior by politics are for the most part useless. And I might add counterproductive.
The party that claims to be so in touch with natural law is for the most part ignorant of it.
Here is an article that discusses the issue from a thermodynamic viewpoint.
What is my conclusion relative to politics? Both political parties are right about the proper way to live. In their ecological niches.
A look at the Weimar Republic:
What people leave out of the Weimar experience and IMO its foundation is the lack of men – killed in the war. We are doing something similar with our divorce laws. And our drug war on the Black Community.
And the 60s? Similar. Look up the M/F ratios.
When there are not enough men you get loose women. Culture dives when the M/F ratio is out of whack.
If only the two parties had some understanding of each other politics might not be quite so rancorous.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Update: More discussion at Talk-Polywell
Comments
10 responses to “Behavioral Sink Behavior And Thermodynamics”
So let me get this straight… If you put rats in a box, they become addicts. If you put humans in cities, they become leftists. Thus the obvious conclusion is that socialism is a noxious drug, and leftists are its addicts.
I too believe that your conclusion in the Red and Blue article is correct, that the organization of society along classical liberal lines would reduce much of the stresses which produce both the drug type and the political type of addicts.
Rats in a low density box with plenty to occupy themselves with do not become addicts. It is only when they are “caged” that they take to the opiates.
And cities are quite useful for interchange and development. Goods and technology.
The thing to recognize is that they are radically different habitats. Ecological niches if you will. Behavior appropriate to one is not appropriate to the other.
Rules should be made as locally as possible. Top down pronouncements (a feature of both parties) will not work.
So why does socialism develop in cities? I have a theory: derelicts on the street demoralize the citizens. But I have no proof.
“If only the two parties had some understanding of each other politics might not be quite so rancorous.”
The problem is that Socialism destroys cities. Detroit. Watts. Dinkins’ New York. Jane Byrne’s Chicago. Buffalo. Rochester. I could go on. Once the city has destroyed its own resources, it must rely on tribute. The bread and circuses of imperial Rome, using grain and slaves confiscated from the provinces. In the U.S., block grants and matching funds to support big-city graft.
What I see is one party that openly lives on theft, and another party represented by politicians who pretend to be against theft.
Neil,
If we understood things better we might have better solutions.
I’m attempting to correct that lack of understanding.
What we have now is two parties preening about their superior “morality”. When it is not a moral question. It is an ecology/habitat question.
Simon-
Yeah, leftists destroyed their habitat like overpopulated deer, and now want to branch out to destroying everyone else’s just to keep the party going a little longer.
I understand their position. They understand mine. That’s why we fight.
Neil,
What ever you think of cities it will do no good to destroy them. They are symbiotic with the countryside.
Just because your heart and liver are diseased it makes no sense to get rid of them until you have a replacements that can function at the required rate.
Having a mouse liver and heart ready as replacements is not going to do the trick.
And fighting is the stupidest thing to do. What you need to do is to change their minds by offering something better. Attraction works better than repulsion. Cheaper too. And more difficult to defeat.
You might want to read B.H.L. Heart’s “Strategy” – the chapters on social change are especially instructive. He advises against frontal assaults. He suggests finding an indirect approach.
To find that better approach you need to study the ecology. Why do they behave as they do. And not just the rulers. You need to also be sympathetic with the citizens.
What is my indirect approach? Attack drug prohibition. It is the lynch pin of a lot of shenanigans and is now looking to be defeatable.
Trouble is a LOT of Republicans (in theory your allies) support it.
I also support cannabis as medicine. Lots of juice tied up in that one.
Look at this video:
http://classicalvalues.com/2013/11/the-union-the-business-behind-getting-high/
And to keep your viewing time short start at 1 hour 20 minutes in.
Simon,
Actually, I am sympathetic to their plight. I hear your complaint, too–we have to offer hope for everyone, and there’s no reason that we can’t.
The problem is that right now the other side sees no reason to listen. The core alliance of the wealthy with the poor is now cemented. They believe they have, or soon will have, the raw power required to simply take what they need, which is so much nicer than all that messy compromise. The first order of business must be to disabuse them of that notion.
I’m a compromiser by nature, so I came to this conclusion reluctantly. But there are some negotiations that end in failure, and walking away is the only answer. At the moment, the best solution is to do in reverse what the president did. Peel off just enough of the other side’s voters to win some important political battles. Happily, that is getting easier as more people become aware that they are on the list of targets for confiscation of property.
I would like to see the drug wars end, but I’m not sure there’s a constituency for it at the moment. I think experience shows that the Progressives will not do so in any meaningful way–they’ll end it de jure, but leave in place regulation and enforcement that is de facto prohibition. Their project requires the votes, money, and muscle of law enforcement, and the arbitrary nature of the anti-drug laws.
On the other side, as you have pointed out, I suspect you lose as many votes as you win by coming out for legalization. That may be changing as the government targets the middle class with the tactics previously reserved for lower-class blacks and hispanics.
I would like to see the drug wars end, but I’m not sure there’s a constituency for it at the moment.
58% want pot legalized.
75% to 85% want med pot.
The votes are there but if the Rs went for it the core R voters would peel off. But it would also peel off a fair number of D voters.
We are so screwed.
[…] I did some articles on the thermodynamics of politics: A thermodynamic explanation of politics and Behavioral Sink Behavior And Thermodynamics. A recent post I did Politicians Are Deficient In Endocannabinoids got me to thinking more about […]