setting the stage?

what if the degree/type of relatedness between the members of a society affects the selection pressures on those individuals?

what i’m thinking is: if my little hypothesis is correct that europeans quit being tribal because we started (and continued) outbreeding, what then? which individuals will do well (and succeed reproductively) in the new environment as opposed to the old?

the old, tribal social environment was one in which family/clan units were tightly knit and social stuff (like who gets to punish a lawbreaker, for instance) was based on the family/clans.

the new, corporate social environment is one in which clan units disappeared to be replaced with individuals/nuclear families as the basic units in society, and social stuff (like who gets to punish a lawbreaker) is based on the corporate groupings of a bunch of individuals (in the case of enforcing the law, the state).

so, who’s going to do well in such a society? what, for instance, personality traits might be selected for (or against, for that matter)? one possible example i thought of: might the “genes for” reciprocal altruism (whatever they might be) be more frequent in a corporate society than in a tribal one? makes sense to me. conversely, maybe the “genes for” altruism towards family members (whatever they might be) are more frequent in a tribal society.

just some thoughts.

previously: and so my next question naturally is…

(note: comments do not require an email. happy monday morning!)


  1. My guess is the tribalists will outbreed the anti-tribalists. Tribalists who move into the West and maintain their tribal ways will make more babies.

    Second the suggestion to read Fairwell To Alms.


  2. the exogamous can compete almost effortlessly with the endogamous. europeans imperialists took over almost the whole planet as an after-thought of their competition with each other. i’m not saying this as a good thing simply that it shows the degree of difference in the efficiencies of the two kinds of society and the levels of surplus they can create. when competing *at the borders* there is simply no competition. it’s a walkover. however the exogamous can’t compete with the more endogamous internally at all. then it’s a walkover in the other direction.

    what this means is billions are going to starve if and when the endogamous over-run the west and the level of surplus inevitably plummets *unless* the north east asians are at the point where they can take up the slack (and assuming they’d want to).


  3. @g.w. – “however the exogamous can’t compete with the more endogamous internally at all.”


    @g.w. – “what this means is billions are going to starve if and when the endogamous over-run the west….”

    kinda ironic, isn’t it?

    @g.w. – “…and assuming they’d want to….”



  4. […] the medieval era, which forbade consanguineous marriages throughout much of western Europe [see setting the stage? | hbd* chick]. Like I said earlier. You only need hundreds of years to see a noticeable […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s