12,000 Years of Homo Sapien Development has resulted in: 

The State of Society 

By Anonymous 
 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Part I The Emergence of Civilization 

I. From Nothing to Homo Sapiens
II. The Birth of Society
III. Ancient Civilizations

Part II The Divergence of Civilization 

I. Crops, Animals, and Neanderthal DNA
II. The Eurasian Expansion

Part III The State of Society 

I. Modern Survival and Replication Strategies
II. The State of Society
III. Solutions
Part I The Emergence of Civilization
From Nothing to Homo Sapiens 
A long time ago, a super dense ball existed in space for an unknown period of time. This
ball was so dense and so hot that within it even the laws of physics did not exist. We do not
know much else about this ball. What we do know is that it exploded approximately 14 billion
years ago. In an instant our Universe was created. The Universe was hot and chaotic but it had a
significant quality - it followed the laws of physics. The Universe and everything in it began to
shape and form itself according to these laws. And that’s what happened for the next 10 billion
years.

Around 4 billion years ago a prokaryotic cell on our beloved planet Earth was created
(about half a billion years after the planet itself had formed). We do not know how or why this
happened. This single celled organism had two unique qualities: survival and replication.

After 2 billion years of prokaryotic cell survival and replication something else
happened. The eukaryotic organism. Life made the leap into the multicellular. While there may
have been a diversity of single celled organisms, the type and complexity of multicellular
organisms now rapidly expanded. Plant and animal life as we know it came into being.

However, life was not indestructible and at least 5 mass extinction events killed much of
the life on earth. The most recent of these is the Cretaceous-tertiary Extinction 65 million years
ago. An asteroid hit the earth which released a large layer of dust into the atmosphere. This
dust cooled off the planet which killed the dominant animal - the dinosaur. The death of the
dinosaurs lead to the rise of the mammals. Mammals have existed for the past 200 million
years but only became the dominant animal on the planet when the dinosaurs died off.

Around this same time the neocortex evolved in mammals. The neocortex is significant
because it allows for decision making. Mammals could learn from their experience to make
better survival and replication choices which was unlike every other animal that simply obeyed
the instincts found in their genetic code. To make changes to the genetic code a species
requires constant evolutionary pressures over thousands of life and death cycles, so an
organism that made decisions which could override its own instincts was a big survival and
replication advantage.

A certain species of these mammals discovered that they could not only learn from their
own experiences, they could also learn from the experiences of others. This communication
became so complex that today we call it language. Language increased their survival and
replication abilities so incredibly that they became rulers over every other species of animal on
the planet. That species was the homo sapiens, more commonly known as humans.

As language became more complex, some of the words that were created were used to
describe the past, present, and future. This innovation lead to an ability called “long term
thinking.” Long term thinking lead to the creation of the first technology - agriculture.
Agriculture began about 12,000 years ago. Agriculture requires time and planning, hence why
long term thinking is required for its production.

Within a thousand years of domesticating the plant, humans also began domesticating
the animal. Sheep and goats were first domesticated about 11,000 years ago.

Humans that began farming gave up their nomadic ways and become stationary. An
abundance of food from agriculture lead to an abundance of people living in one place, this
lead to the creation of cities.

People living in cities developed social structures to enforce peaceful behavior. Violence
would have lowered everyone’s survival and replication abilities. We call people living together
in a structured way a civilization. The first civilizations appeared about 5,000 years ago. People
living in civilizations increased in number whereas the population of nomadic hunter-gatherers
stayed relatively stable.

As the human population of people in civilizations grew so did the amount of knowledge
learned and shared amongst them. Fast forward to 400 years ago, this knowledge culminated in
the discovery of the laws of physics. This field of knowledge is called calculus.

Calculus lead to the industrial revolution (all the resources for the industrial revolution
had existed for thousands of years - what was missing was the math required to make
machines). The industrial revolution meant the creation of machines which relied on fuel to do
work instead of the energy output of humans and animals. The result was limitless food and
therefore exponential population growth which has continued ever since.

In summary:

The big bang lead to the laws of physics.

The laws of physics lead to the creation of life.
The creation of life lead to evolution.
Evolution lead to the neocortex.
The neocortex lead to the ability to learn.
The ability to learn lead to the development of language.
The development of language lead to long term thinking.
Long term thinking lead to the domestication of plants and animals.
The domestication of plants and animals lead to civilization.
Civilization lead to the discovery of the laws of physics.
The discovery of the laws of physics lead to the industrial revolution.
The industrial revolution lead to limitless food.
Limitless food lead to exponential population growth.

Here is another image of that exponential population growth.

 
   
The Birth of Society  
Pre-agricultural society consisted of tribes of nomadic hunter-gatherers. Food that is
hunted or gathered goes bad if not eaten right away so it was more advantageous to share the
extra food than to hoard it. If a hunter shares the extra food that he catches today, another
hunter might then share the extra food they catch tomorrow. If a hunter did not share their
food, not only would it spoil but they would also receive none of the food shared by others.
Additionally, people in these societies had nothing beyond the clothes on their back and what
little they could carry (especially before animal domestication). So the concept of personal
property did not exist and food was shared by all. This is similar to communism. The vast
majority of human history was lived in communist style-tribes.

In these societies, men were the primary providers of caloric intake because they were
the physically stronger sex, and thus more capable of hunting. A woman on her own might have
a difficult time providing enough food for herself, let alone her offspring, so women would take
a man to provide resources for herself and her children. Men have the replication instinct as
well so taking a wife and providing for her long term meant a greater chance that his children
would survive until adulthood. Because human children take so long to grow to adulthood
(much longer than the offspring of any other animal) parents had an incentive to stay together
for a long time. This is how the concept of marriage was formed. Marriages were typically
between one man and one woman or between one man and one or two women. One man
would not be able to marry more than a few wives because he would not be able to acquire
enough resources to provide for them or fend off the other men in the tribe.

Some implications of this are that there were not many unmarried men in society
because it would have been difficult for any one man to hoard a large number of wives. If a
man left a woman it could mean death for her or her children (inability to hunt meant inability
to provide caloric requirements) which explains the strong emotions women often feel if a man
leaves her. To increase the survival and replication fitness of her offspring, a woman might
secretly procreate with a stronger man whose child would then be raised unknowingly by her
provider husband. Women would also group together so that they might share resources
between themselves for mutual survival in case something happened to their husband.

These social structures changed with the invention of agriculture. Crop cultivation is a
labor-intensive and calorie-consuming activity. When crops are harvested, they can be ground
into flour and stored without spoiling. Sharing no longer lead to increased survival and
replication fitness as it had in the pre-agricultural days. The wholesale sharing of food was
replaced by the concept of personal property.
 Personal property lead to the advent of many completely new societal constructs such
as specialization. If one farmer was good at building farm equipment he might stop farming
completely and instead build and maintain farm equipment for others in exchange for some of
their crops. Someone else might find they are better at cobbling shoes than they are at farming
so they might exchange shoes for some of the crops. However the cobbler might want to sell
shoes to the builder but he has no need for farm equipment. Money was created so that they
could exchange their wares.

Further, if a farmer needs new equipment now but can’t pay the builder until after the
harvest, the farmer and the builder need a way of keeping track of this debt. So reading and
writing was developed. Now thanks to personal property, society has money, specialization,
and reading and writing.

One social structure that came from personal property was inequality. Someone who
wanted to increase their survival and replication fitness may want to further expand their farm.
So they would hire or enslave laborers. This lead to the advent of rich and poor. Rich men were
able to take on many wives and children while a poor man might not have any wives or
children. It would have been more difficult for a woman to acquire wealth for herself because a
woman does not have the equivalent physical strength of a man required for farming or the
time due to child-rearing. For these reasons a woman would get greater survival and replication
fitness from marrying a man with resources than attempting to accumulate them by herself.
Women might prefer to join a wealthy man’s harem instead of being the one wife of a poor
man. This also meant that agricultural societies would have a large number of unmarried men.

There are other significant differences between agricultural and hunter-gatherer

societies. In hunter-gatherer society, if the land was bountiful for many years in a row then the
population would increase. At a certain point the the bounty would no longer be able to
support the increased population. When this happened tribes would then fight each other for
food or starve until enough people died that nature and man reached equilibrium.

In a hunter-gatherer society, life had little value because greater numbers of people
meant more competition for food. If someone died that would increase the survival and
replication fitness of each person who was still alive. In an agricultural society, more people
meant more workers and therefore more food. If someone died in an agricultural society that is
one less worker which lowers the survival and replication fitness of each person. So people
began to develop to develop concepts such as “don’t kill” or “don’t steal” in order to increase
productivity. Morality and empathy were concepts first developed in agricultural society. In
hunter-gatherer society these concepts were simply not needed and even counter to survival
and replication fitness.

Inequality in agricultural society meant that instead of poverty for everyone, like in a
hunter-gatherer society, it was poverty for some and wealth for others with many gradients of
property ownership in between.

In a way hunter-gatherers experienced poverty - people did not own “stuff.”However, if

the land was plentiful then the hunter-gatherers had everything they needed and little work
was required to get it. If the land was in a drought, people experienced starvation and death. In
contrast, agricultural societies could survive droughts because of their ability to store food.

Some of those in agricultural society who owned much became kings. They ruled over
the lives of each person in their society whether those persons directly worked for him or not.
To enrich themselves, the kings created taxes on labor.

To increase taxes, kings needed to increase labor. So they made laws - written versions
of the previously mentioned social structures. The laws increased labor by protecting personal
property. These laws prevented subjects from stealing each other’s productive labor by laying
out a clear punishment for each crime. These laws were effective in agricultural societies
because people with long term thinking abilities were able to understand that their actions had
future consequences.

However, no king can police all personal property at all times. So organized religion was
created. The idea was that disobeying the king’s laws would always be prosecuted (by the deity)
whether the offender was caught or not. Organized religion served many other practical
purposes as well. Religion was used to call soldiers to arms, explain the mysteries of life, and
pacify unrest.

One feature of kingdoms is nationalism. Nationalism was a mutually beneficial idea held
by the kings and the men of society where if one man’s property was attacked by an outside
king, this was considered an attack on the kingdom and everyone collectively would come to
that man’s defense until the enemy king was no longer a threat to anyone’s property.

After reading this chapter, you should now understand the history and purpose of
communism, nationalism, religion, marriage, personal property, money, reading and writing,
law and order, and morality.
Ancient Civilizations
Let’s rewind and look at some specific civilizations. Although domestication happened
12,000 years ago, it took about 5,000 years for the population to grow large enough for the first
civilizations to start emerging. We know there were at least six ancient civilizations which
emerged independently of one another but about the same time.

The oldest civilization that we know of was

the Mesopotamian civilization which began
between 5,000-3,500 BC. In fact the oldest
written human records that exist are
Mesopotamian writings from 3100 BC. The
Mesopotamian people consisted of the
Babylonians and the Assyrians.
Mesopotamian civilization invented many
technologies including agriculture, reading
and writing, math, maps, sundials, time divided into 60 minute units, the wheel, and the
sailboat. The Babylonian King Hammurabi created one of the earliest surviving set of coded law
in human history, known as the Code of Hammurabi.

Ancient Egyptian society arose

around 3,150 BC. The Egyptians
developed agriculture, reading and
writing, money, ships, paper,
impressive architecture still visible to
this day, glass, the wheel, medicine, a
calendar, maths, sciences, astronomy,
hydraulics, and water wheels.

In modern day India, the Indus Valley Civilization began

around 3,300 BC. The Indus civilization had metallurgy,
hydraulics, reading and writing, ships, and granaries.
 In China, civilization began between 1900 to 1500
BC. The Chinese made advancements in agriculture, math,
science, astronomy, geology, and medicine. Over the
course of the next two thousand years they would invent
the kite, the compass, gunpowder, and paper.

In North America,
humans didn’t expand to every habitable corner of the
continent until 8,000BC. It wasn’t until around 5000 BC
that we have evidence of cultivation of food crops such as
maize, beans, and squash. This cultivation began in
Mesoamerica which is modern day Central America.
Around 3000 BC mesoamericans began grinding the
seeds from the Amaranth and the Marsh Elder into flour.
2,600 BC was the beginning of the Mayan civilization. The Mayan civilization had reading,
writing, mathematics, architecture, astronomy, and a calendar.

In the Central Andes, the Norte Chico

civilization emerged around 3,500 BC. There
was agriculture and urbanization and a
rudimentary form of reading and writing. They
also built pyramids and canals. We have no
knowledge that there was ever any
development in the maths and sciences.

Life in a civilization would have resembled the life you are accustomed to today.
Obviously there were no cars or electricity or mass produced goods but there was specialization
as the result of farming which meant doctors, engineers, teachers, accountants, houses, streets,
plumbing, courthouses, and products you could buy and sell.

Compare this to people who did not live in a civilization. Those people had nothing.
Every person in a tribe would have been involved in the search for food every day. During a
drought or famine, many people in the tribe would die. There was no doctor to care for
wounds. No books to pass on knowledge. No time to think about math and science and it
wouldn’t have helped a person who did. This is where we see the first diversion in human
evolution. Those who lived in agricultural societies began to experience vastly different survival
and replication pressures beginning 12,000 years ago.
 This is somewhat off-track but what were humans doing during those previous 200,000
years? Why did it take 188,000 years to develop agriculture? Did it simply take this long for
language to create words to describe the past, present, and future? Did divergence between
agricultural and non-agricultural humans only begin 12,000 years ago?

It is worth mentioning that during those previous 200,000 years humans were
competing with other hominid species such as the neanderthals and homo erectus. In fact,
after the eruption of the Toba volcano 70,000 years ago, there were only between 1,000 and
10,000 mating pairs of homo sapiens left. We do not know why all the other hominid species
died out.

What we do know is that as recently as 30,000 years ago three other hominid species
still existed - the Neanderthals, the Denisovans, and the “Hobbits” (Homo floresiensis). We
know that the Neanderthals wore clothes and interbred with homo sapiens (beginning about
45,000 years ago). The last non homo-sapien hominid species to die out were the hobbits
13,000 years ago. It is interesting that domesticated agriculture started about 1,000 years after
the last non homo-sapien hominid species died. Do you think these two facts might be related?
When I learned this, I thought that either these two facts are just coincidence or there must
have been a global cooling event. Why a cooling event? A cooling event would make farming a
more practical endeavor. A cooling event means food is not freely growing year round, so crops
are required so that food can be stored for the cooler seasons. Also, any species that couldn’t
adapt to a cooling event would die out. So I googled it and found out that an asteroid impact
did trigger such a cooling on earth 12,800 years ago.

This leads to another question - why did homo sapiens not develop agriculture during
previous cooling events (such at the eruption of Mount Toba)? We know that it doesn’t actually
take long to develop words to describe the past, present, and future. William Shakespeare
invented 1700 words by himself. We know that no civilization existed before human and homo
sapien DNA was combined. We know that every single ancient civilization did have the
combined homo sapien and neanderthal DNA. We also know that the poorest places in the
world today, where people still live like they did 12,000 years ago, are the places where humans
do not have neanderthal DNA. We can therefore surmise that neanderthal DNA is critical to
long term thinking abilities and living in a modern society. Which species is this? Sub-saharan
Africans. Yes, Africans do not have Neanderthal DNA. The only exception to this is the North
African species which you may remember is where the civilization of Ancient Egypt formed.1

1
North African Populations Carry the Signature of Admixture with Neandertals:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474783/
 Part II The Divergence of Civilization 
 
   
Crops, Animals, and Neanderthal DNA 
Not all crops are created equal. Not all animals are created equal. In Europe, we can
thank the expansion of the human population and the start of civilization to wheat, barley and
domesticated animals such as horses, cows, pigs, goats, sheep, and chickens. In Asian
civilization, the domesticated animals were the same but the primary food crop was rice.

In the Americas, civilizations had the potato, maize, squash, and beans. Their
domesticated animals were the llama, alpaca, turkey, ducks, and dogs.

How did these crops and animals affect the development of civilization?

The biggest difference between Eurasia and the Americas is the absence of large
domesticated animals. Neither the alpaca nor the llama can be ridden. Nor can either pull a
plow (an essential tool for agriculture). This means much more human effort was required to
grow a crop in the Americas than in Eurasia due to the absence of large animals such as the
horse and ox (a type of cow). This stymied population growth in the Americas whereas Eurasia
was much more populous.

The largest American population that we know of was the Inca civilization which had 12
million people. This is quite large but it encompassed the entire western half of South America.
It was an empire of subjugation not of common law. This caused it to fall apart in less than a
generation with the arrival of the Spanish. It would have been hard for the Incas to pass laws or
exist very long under external pressures because they did not have a system of reading and
writing. If you remember, the Mayans lived thousands of years prior and had reading and
writing. Technology in the Americas went backwards. How could this happen?

A written language is the result of agriculture - if a farmer needs to buy equipment now
but pay for it after the harvest he needs a system of keeping records. The tools needed to plant
and harvest wheat and barley are difficult to make. For example, a sickle requires metallurgy
and a plow requires wood for the body and leather or rope for the harness. Building these tools
required a system of exchange between the specialists who make them. To harvest
mesoamerican crops, no tools are required. Maize, beans, and squash can be harvested by
hand. Potatoes can be harvested with a small hand shovel. To prepare the soil, a plow was not
needed - fire for slash and burn agriculture which was used to clear land.

Because of the bountiful land, crops that could be planted and harvested by hand, and
absence of large domesticated animals, there was no external pressure on pre-colonial
American civilizations to advance. The innovations of the Mayans were forgotten. If pre-colonial
Americans had been left alone for another 10,000 years would technology have returned?
Would they have been able to advance? Why or why not? I don’t think anyone would have
gotten further than the Mayans. I don’t think there would be machines or electricity in the
Americas. Why? There is no industrial revolution without calculus. There is no calculus without
mass education in mathematics. There is no mass education without reading and writing. There
is no reading and writing without a need for it existing in the first place. Without an external
pressure for this to develop (such as trade) there is no written language. There was no need for
trade because the tools of agriculture were one’s own hands.

In the book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel” Jared Diamond asked, “Why did Eurasian peoples,
rather than peoples of other continents, became the ones to develop the ingredients of power
(guns, germs, and steel) and to expand around the world.”

The reason why the pre-colonial Americans did not develop these ingredients is because
there was simply no pressure on them to do so. This pressure did not exist of the nature of the
crops and animals at their disposal.

The Africans on the other hand had access to the crops and animals of the Eurasians so
why did the ingredients of power not develop there? Africa is close enough to the Europeans
and Asians to acquire the same crops and animals. The Nile makes it possible to easily transport
these deep into Africa. However in the case of Africa, it is climate that was the culprit. African
food grows so abundantly that there was no need to develop agriculture. To understand the
situation, here are several quotes from a New York Times article written by Brenda Fowler
published July 27, 2004 called ​African Pastoral: Archaeologists Rewrite History of Farming​:

Why Africans were relatively late to take up farming and where the domestication of
wild grains first happened are now the subjects of intense research. One theory is that
wild grain was so abundant throughout the continent that there was no need to settle
down to farming.

As Dr. Katharina Neumann, an archaeobotanist at the J.W. Goethe University in

Frankfurt, noted in the book ''Food, Fuel and Fields -- Progress in African
Archaeobotany,'' published last year, archaeologists at several sites across sub-Saharan
Africa have not found evidence of domesticated grains before 2000 B.C., suggesting that
until then, people collected wild grains and did not plant their own.

Archaeologists wonder why the idea of planting, if not the crops themselves, did not
catch on.
 Savannas, which cover 80 percent of sub-Saharan Africa, provided people with a vast
garden of Eden. Since they were so mobile, hunter-gatherers and pastoralists could take
advantage of many varieties of wild grasses, fruits, tubers and game.

So it appears, that except in periods of famine, the land in Africa is quite abundant and
therefore agriculture was not required. Another difference between the people in Africa and
the people elsewhere is that Africans do not have neanderthal DNA. Here is a quote from an
article published by George Dvorsky of Gizmodo on October 5, 2017:

Based on the new high-quality genome, modern populations carry between 1.8 to 2.6
percent Neanderthal DNA—that’s higher than the previous estimates of about 1.5 to 2.1
percent. More specifically, East Asians have about 2.3 to 2.6 percent Neanderthal DNA,
while people from western Europe and Asia have retained about 1.8 to 2.4 percent DNA.
African populations have virtually none because their ancestors did not mate with
Neanderthals.

Sub-saharan African civilizations that existed between now and 12,000 years ago did so
as the result of interaction with the outside world. Cities developed locally around trading
routes from Europe and Asia who came to acquire resources. In these places cities and
civilizations with written language and education developed. However, when those trading
routes disappeared, so did those civilizations. Africa did not develop the ingredients of power.

   
The Eurasian Expansion 
Prior to the fifteenth century, trade had occurred over land and over water to known
destinations. Land routes between the East and the West such as the Silk Road had existed for
millenium. Trade over water had occurred throughout the mediterranean and along nearby
coastal regions as far as back as the third millennium BC. However, new economic incentives
(because of growing agricultural populations) in the fifteenth century meant that the benefit of
transoceanic exploration was great enough to overcome the risk and uncertainty it entailed. A
trader who could find new routes by sea could become rich. It was this incentive that pushed
traders to become explorers. The populations in China and Europe both reached a tipping point
independently from one another and at about the same time in the early 15th century.

In China, Admiral Zheng He amassed a fleet of 63 ships and over 27,000 men. He took
this fleet throughout the Indian Ocean and established and protected new trade routes. In
Europe and on a much smaller scale, various traders began sailing southward down the Atlantic,
getting further and further down the coast of Africa each time. By the end of the century, one
of these traders had the idea of sailing west to reach the Indies instead of going all the way
south around Cape Horn. As you are probably aware, that explorer was Christopher Columbus
and in 1492 he reached the Americas.

Knowing this, you might wonder how the small groups of European sailors were able to
colonize when the massive fleet of Zheng He could not?

The title of a previously mentioned book gives away the answer: “Guns, Germs, and
Steel.” The early European explorers were using the arquebus (a predecessor of the matchlock
gun), they wore steel armor, and they brought disease with them. Diseases which they were
vaccinated against having lived in populated cities for generations. These three tools meant
they could establish colonies anywhere in the world and the local peoples could not stop them.

Did not the Chinese also have guns (firearms were invented in China as was
gunpowder)? Did they not have steel? Did they not have germs from living in big cities with
bigger populations than in Europe? Yes, they had all of these things.

So why did the Chinese not expand and colonize at the rate of Europe? Think back to the
only difference between Europe and Asia since the dawn of civilization. What is it? One
population grew around wheat and barley, the other grew around rice. How does this make a
difference in exploration? Good question. Here is an excerpt from Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers
(it is quite long but extremely descriptive):
 Here and there are the traditional khaki-colored mud-brick huts of the Chinese
peasantry. In the small towns, there are open-air markets: chickens and geese in
elaborate bamboo baskets, vegetables laid out in rows on the ground, slabs of pork on
tables, tobacco being sold in big clumps. And everywhere, there is rice, miles upon miles
of it. In the winter season, the paddies are dry and dotted with the stubble of the
previous year's crop. After the crops are planted in early spring, as the humid winds
begin to blow, they turn a magical green, and by the time of the first harvest, as the
grains emerge on the ends of the rice shoots, the land becomes an unend​ing sea of
yellow.
Rice has been cultivated in China for thousands of years. It was from China that
the techniques of rice cultivation spread throughout East Asia—Japan, Korea, Singa​pore,
and Taiwan. Year in, year out, as far back as history is recorded, farmers from across
Asia have engaged in the same relentless, intricate pattern of agriculture.
Rice paddies are "built," not "opened up" the way a wheat field is. You don't just clear
the trees, underbrush, and stones and then plow. Rice fields are carved into
mountainsides in an elaborate series of terraces, or pains​takingly constructed from
marshland and river plains. A rice paddy has to be irrigated, so a complex system of
dikes has to be built around the field. Channels must be dug from the nearest water
source, and gates built into the dikes so the water flow can be adjusted precisely to
cover the right amount of the plant.
The paddy itself, meanwhile, has to have a hard clay floor; otherwise the water
will simply seep into the ground. But of course, rice seedlings can't be planted in hard
clay, so on top of the clay, there has to be a thick, soft layer of mud. And the claypan, as
it's called, has to be carefully engineered so that it will drain properly and also keep the
plants submerged at the optimum level. Rice has to be fertilized repeatedly, which is
another art. Tra​ditionally, farmers used "night soil" (human manure) and a combination
of burned compost, river mud, bean cake, and hemp — and they had to be careful,
because too much fertilizer, or the right amount applied at the wrong time, could be as
bad as too little.
When the time came to plant, a Chinese farmer would have hundreds of
different varieties of rice from which to choose, each one of which offered a slightly
different trade-off, say, between yield and how quickly it grew, or how well it did in
times of drought, or how it fared in poor soil. A farmer might plant a dozen or more
different vari​eties at one time, adjusting the mix from season to season in order to
manage the risk of a crop failure.
He or she (or, more accurately, the whole family, since rice agriculture was a
family affair) would plant the seed in a specially prepared seedbed. After a few weeks,
the seedlings would be transplanted into the field, in care​fully spaced rows six inches
apart, and then painstakingly nurtured.
Weeding was done by hand, diligently and unceasingly, because the seedlings
could easily be choked by other plant life. Sometimes each rice shoot would be
indi​vidually groomed with a bamboo comb to clear away insects. All the while, farmers
had to check and recheck water levels and make sure the water didn't get too hot in the
summer sun. And when the rice ripened, farmers gathered all of their friends and
relatives and, in one coordinated burst, harvested it as quickly as possible so they could
get a second crop in before the winter dry season began.
"Rice is life," says the anthropologist Gonçalo Santos, who has studied a tradi
tional South Chinese village. "Without rice, you don't sur​vive. If you want to be anyone
in this part of China, you would have to have rice. It made the world go around."

Take a look at the following list of numbers: 4, 8, 5,3, 9, 7, 6. Read them out loud.
Now look away and spend twenty seconds memorizing that sequence before saying
them out loud again.
If you speak English, you have about a 50 percent chance of remembering that
sequence perfectly. If you're Chinese, though, you're almost certain to get it right every
time. Why is that? Because as human beings we store dig​its in a memory loop that runs
for about two seconds. We most easily memorize whatever we can say or read within
that two-second span. And Chinese speakers get that list of numbers—4, 8, 5, 3, 9, 7,
6—right almost every time because, unlike English, their language allows them to fit all
those seven numbers into two seconds.
That example comes from Stanislas Dehaene's book The Number Sense. As
Dehaene explains: Chinese number words are remarkably brief. Most of them can be
uttered in less than one-quarter of a sec​ond (for instance, 4 is "si" and 7 "qi"). Their
English equivalents — "four," "seven" — are longer: pronounc​ing them takes about
one-third of a second. The memory gap between English and Chinese apparently is
entirely due to this difference in length. In languages as diverse as Welsh, Arabic,
Chinese, English and Hebrew, there is a reproducible correlation between the time
required to pronounce numbers in a given language and the memory span of its
speakers. In this domain, the prize for efficacy goes to the Cantonese dialect of Chinese,
whose brevity grants residents of Hong Kong a rocketing memory span of about 10
digits.
It turns out that there is also a big difference in how number-naming systems in
Western and Asian languages are constructed. In English, we say fourteen, sixteen,
sev​enteen, eighteen, and nineteen, so one might expect that we would also say
oneteen, twoteen, threeteen, and five- teen. But we don't. We use a different form:
eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fifteen. Similarly, we have forty and sixty, which sound like
the words they are related to (four and six). But we also say fifty and thirty and twenty,
which sort of sound like five and three and two, but not really. And, for that matter, for
numbers above twenty, we put the "decade" first and the unit number second (twenty-
one, twenty-two), whereas for the teens, we do it the other way around (fourteen,
seventeen, eighteen). The number system in English is highly irregular. Not so in China,
Japan, and Korea. They have a logical counting system. Eleven is ten-one. Twelve is
ten-two. Twenty-four is two- tens-four and so on.
That difference means that Asian children learn to count much faster than
American children. Four-year-old Chinese children can count, on average, to forty.
Ameri​can children at that age can count only to fifteen, and most don't reach forty until
they're five. By the age of five, in other words, American children are already a year
behind their Asian counterparts in the most fundamental of math skills.
The regularity of their number system also means that Asian children can
perform basic functions, such as addi​tion, far more easily. Ask an English-speaking
seven-year- old to add thirty-seven plus twenty-two in her head, and she has to convert
the words to numbers (37 + 22). Only then can she do the math: 2 plus 7 is 9 and 30 and
20 is 50, which makes 59. Ask an Asian child to add three-tens- seven and two-tens-two,
and then the necessary equa​tion is right there, embedded in the sentence. No number
translation is necessary: It's five-tens-nine.
"The Asian system is transparent," says Karen Fuson, a Northwestern University
psychologist who has closely studied Asian-Western differences. "I think that it makes
the whole attitude toward math different. Instead of being a rote learning thing, there's
a pattern I can fig​ure out. There is an expectation that I can do this. There is an
expectation that it's sensible. For fractions, we say three-fifths. The Chinese is literally
'out of five parts, take three.' That's telling you conceptually what a frac​tion is. It's
differentiating the denominator and the numerator."
The much-storied disenchantment with mathematics among Western children
starts in the third and fourth grades, and Fuson argues that perhaps a part of that
dis​enchantment is due to the fact that math doesn't seem to make sense; its linguistic
structure is clumsy; its basic rules seem arbitrary and complicated.
Asian children, by contrast, don't feel nearly that same bafflement. They can
hold more numbers in their heads and do calculations faster, and the way fractions are
expressed in their languages corresponds exactly to the way a fraction actually is—and
maybe that makes them a little more likely to enjoy math, and maybe because they
enjoy math a little more, they try a little harder and take more math classes and are
more willing to do their home​work, and on and on, in a kind of virtuous circle.

When it comes to math, in other words, Asians have a built-in advantage. But it's
an unusual kind of advan​tage. For years, students from China, South Korea, and
Japan—and the children of recent immigrants who are from those countries—have
substantially outperformed their Western counterparts at mathematics, and the typical
assumption is that it has something to do with a kind of innate Asian proclivity for math.

*The psychologist Richard Lynn has even gone so far as to propose an elabo​rate
evolutionary theory involving the Himalayas, really cold weather, premodern hunting
practices, brain size, and specialized vowel sounds to explain why Asians have higher
IQs. " That's how we think about math. We assume that being good at things like
calculus and algebra is a simple function of how smart someone is. But the differ​ences
between the number systems in the East and the West suggest something very
different—that being good at math may also be rooted in a group's culture.
*On international comparison tests, students from Japan, South Korea, Hong
Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan all score roughly the same in math, around the
ninety-eighth percentile. The United States, France, England, Germany, and the other
Western industrialized nations cluster at somewhere between the twenty-six and
thirty-sixth percen​tile. That's a big difference.
*Lynn's claim that Asians have higher IQs has been refuted, con​vincingly, by a
number of other experts, who showed that he based his argument on IQ samples drawn
disproportionately from urban, upper-income homes. James Flynn, perhaps the world's
leading expert on IQ, has subsequently made a fascinating counterclaim. Asians' IQs, he
says, have historically been slightly lower than whites' IQs, meaning that their
dominance in math has been in spite of their IQ, not because of it. Flynn's argument was
outlined in his book Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ (1991).

The most striking fact about a rice paddy—which can never quite be grasped
until you actually stand in the middle of one—is its size. It's tiny. The typical rice paddy is
about as big as a hotel room. A typical Asian rice farm might be composed of two or
three paddies. A village in China of fifteen hundred people might support itself entirely
with 450 acres of land, which in the American Midwest would be the size of a typical
family farm. At that scale, with families of five and six people living off a farm the size of
two hotel rooms, agriculture changes dramatically.
Historically, Western agriculture is "mechanically" oriented. In the West, if a
farmer wanted to become more efficient or increase his yield, he introduced more and
more sophisticated equipment, which allowed him to replace human labor with
mechanical labor: a threshing machine, a hay baler, a combine harvester, a tractor. He
cleared another field and increased his acreage, because now his machinery allowed
him to work more land with the same amount of effort. But in Japan or China, farmers
didn't have the money to buy equipment—and, in any case, there certainly wasn't any
extra land that could eas​ily be converted into new fields. So rice farmers improved their
yields by becoming smarter, by being better manag​ers of their own time, and by making
better choices. As the anthropologist Francesca Bray puts it, rice agriculture is "skill
oriented": if you're willing to weed a bit more dili​gently, and become more adept at
fertilizing, and spend a bit more time monitoring water levels, and do a better job
keeping the claypan absolutely level, and make use of every square inch of your rice
paddy, you'll harvest a big​ger crop. Throughout history, not surprisingly, the people who
grow rice have always worked harder than almost any other kind of farmer.
That last statement may seem a little odd, because most of us have a sense that
everyone in the premodern world worked really hard. But that simply isn't true. All of
us, for example, are descended at some point from hunter- gatherers, and many
hunter-gatherers, by all accounts, had a pretty leisurely life. The Kung bushmen of the
Kalahari Desert, in Botswana, who are one of the last remaining practitioners of that
way of life, subsist on a rich assort​ment of fruits, berries, roots, and nuts—in particular
the mongongo nut, an incredibly plentiful and protein-rich source of food that lies thick
on the ground. They don't grow anything, and it is growing things—preparing, planting,
weeding, harvesting, storing—that takes time. Nor do they raise any animals.
Occasionally, the male !Kung hunt, but chiefly for sport. All told, !Kung men and women
work no more than about twelve to nineteen hours a week, with the balance of the time
spent dancing, entertaining, and visiting family and friends. That's, at most, one
thousand hours of work a year. (When a bushman was asked once why his people
hadn't taken to agriculture, he looked puzzled and said, "Why should we plant, when
there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?")
Or consider the life of a peasant in eighteenth-century Europe. Men and women
in those days probably worked from dawn to noon two hundred days a year, which
works out to about twelve hundred hours of work annually. During harvest or spring
planting, the day might be longer. In the winter, much less. In The Discovery of France,
the historian Graham Robb argues that peasant life in a country like France, even well
into the nineteenth century, was essentially brief episodes of work followed by long
periods of idleness.
"Ninety-nine percent of all human activity described in this and other accounts
[of French country life]," he writes, "took place between late spring and early autumn."
In the Pyrenees and the Alps, entire villages would essentially hibernate from the time
of the first snow in November until March or April. In more temperate regions of France,
where temperatures in the winter rarely fell below freezing, the same pattern held.
Robb continues:
The fields of Flanders were deserted for much of the year. An official report on
the Nièvre in 1844 described the strange mutation of the Burgundian day-laborer once
the harvest was in and the vine stocks had been burned: "After making the necessary
repairs to their tools, these vigorous men will now spend their days in bed, packing
their bodies tightly together in order to stay warm and eat less food. They weaken
themselves deliberately."
Human hibernation was a physical and economic necessity. Lowering the
metabolic rate prevented hunger from exhausting supplies People trudged and
daw​dled, even in summer After the revolution, in Alsace and the Pas-de-Calais, officials
complained that wine growers and independent farmers, instead of undertak​ing "some
peaceful and sedentary industry" in the qui​eter season, "abandon themselves to dumb
idleness."
If you were a peasant farmer in Southern China, by contrast, you didn't sleep
through the winter. In the short break marked by the dry season, from November
through February, you busied yourself with side tasks. You made bamboo baskets or
hats and sold them in the market. You repaired the dikes in your rice paddy, and rebuilt
your mud hut. You sent one of your sons to work in a nearby vil​lage for a relative. You
made tofu and dried bean curd and caught snakes (they were a delicacy) and trapped
insects. By the time lahp cheun (the "turning of the spring") came, you were back in the
fields at dawn. Working in a rice field is ten to twenty times more labor-intensive than
working on an equivalent-size corn or wheat field. Some estimates put the annual
workload of a wet-rice farmer in Asia at three thousand hours a year.
Think, for a moment, about what the life of a rice farmer in the Pearl River Delta
must have been like. Three thousand hours a year is a staggering amount of time to
spend work​ing, particularly if many of those hours involve being bent over in the hot
sun, planting and weeding in a rice paddy.
What redeemed the life of a rice farmer, however, was the nature of that work.
It was a lot like the garment work done by the Jewish immigrants to New York. It was
meaningful. First of all, there is a clear relationship in rice farming between effort and
reward. The harder you work a rice field, the more it yields. Second, it's complex work.
The rice farmer isn't simply planting in the spring and har​vesting in the fall. He or she
effectively runs a small busi​ness, juggling a family workforce, hedging uncertainty
through seed selection, building and managing a sophisti​cated irrigation system, and
coordinating the complicated process of harvesting the first crop while simultaneously
preparing the second crop.
And, most of all, it's autonomous. The peasants of Europe worked essentially as
low-paid slaves of an aristo​cratic landlord, with little control over their own destinies.
But China and Japan never developed that kind of oppres​sive feudal system, because
feudalism simply can't work in a rice economy. Growing rice is too complicated and
intricate for a system that requires farmers to be coerced and bullied into going out into
the fields each morning. By the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, landlords in central
and Southern China had an almost completely hands-off relationship with their tenants:
they would collect a fixed rent and let farmers go about their business.
"The thing about wet-rice farming is, not only do you need phenomenal amounts of
labor, but it's very exact​ing," says the historian Kenneth Pomerantz. "You have to care. It
really matters that the field is perfectly lev​eled before you flood it. Getting it close to
level but not quite right makes a big difference in terms of your yield. It really matters
that the water is in the fields for just the right amount of time. There's a big difference
between lin​ing up the seedlings at exactly the right distance and doing it sloppily. It's
not like you put the corn in the ground in mid-March and as long as rain comes by the
end of the month, you're okay. You're controlling all the inputs in a very direct way. And
when you have something that requires that much care, the overlord has to have a
system that gives the actual laborer some set of incentives, where if the harvest comes
out well, the farmer gets a bigger share. That's why you get fixed rents, where the
landlord says, I get twenty bushels, regardless of the harvest, and if it's really good, you
get the extra. It's a crop that doesn't do very well with something like slavery or wage
labor. It would just be too easy to leave the gate that controls the irrigation water open
a few seconds too long and there goes your field."
The historian David Arkush once compared Russian and Chinese peasant
proverbs, and the differences are striking. "If God does not bring it, the earth will not
give it" is a typical Russian proverb. That's the kind of fatal​ism and pessimism typical of a
repressive feudal system, where peasants have no reason to believe in the efficacy of
their own work. On the other hand, Arkush writes, Chi​nese proverbs are striking in their
belief that "hard work, shrewd planning and self-reliance or cooperation with a small
group will in time bring recompense."
Here are some of the things that penniless peasants would say to one another as
they worked three thou​sand hours a year in the baking heat and humidity of Chinese
rice paddies (which, by the way, are filled with leeches):
-"No food without blood and sweat."
-"Farmers are busy; farmers are busy; if farmers weren't busy, where would grain to get
through the winter come from?"
-"In winter, the lazy man freezes to death."
-"Don't depend on heaven for food, but on your own two hands carrying the load."
-"Useless to ask about the crops, it all depends on hard work and fertilizer."
-"If a man works hard, the land will not be lazy."
And, most telling of all: "No one who can rise before dawn three hundred sixty
days a year fails to make his family rich." Rise before dawn? 360 days a year? For the
!Kung leisurely gathering mongongo nuts, or the French peasant sleeping away the
winter, or anyone else living in something other than the world of rice cultivation, that
proverb would be unthinkable.

_________________
 From this we see the answer to the original question - Why did European colonization
succeed whereas Asian colonization did not?

To increase one’s survival and replication value in a rice culture a person must work
hard as well as memorize and monitor production variables. Acquiring more land does not
make one richer because that is simply more work. Less land can support more people.

To increase one’s survival and replication value in a wheat culture, one must increase
the size of their fields, use creativity to get more harvests from better tools, or gain power over
one’s peers to work and collect a harvest. War may have been more common in Europe for this
reason.

(Gladwell also put in a blurb about African culture which confirms that food is plentiful
and thus farming was not required.)

For a Chinese person to go to war and take over another Chinese person’s rice crops
makes no sense. A rice farmer can only farm so much land. It is so much work to farm even a
small amount of land. A European on the other hand could increase their wealth through
acquiring more land. An individual European relied on creativity to grow more food, weapons to
protect himself, and long term thinking to store food over long winters. An individual Chinese
relied on memorization to grow more food, extremely hard work to grow more food, and family
to help him grow more food. This explains why the Chinese are to this day much more
communal and respectful of the elderly (whose knowledge of rice could help them live or die)
and the Europeans are more individualistic.

The Chinese had more people, the Europeans had more time. This is why once the
European population grew enough, tremendous amounts of information was being created and
shared - much more so than in China. When this happened, European innovation far surpassed
that of the Chinese. Initially, most of the early innovation came out of China because the much
larger size of their population simply meant more people were educated. Gunpowder, firearms,
ships, the compass, and so on. However, the extra time that people living in a wheat economy
had lead to the Renaissance: composers such as Mozart, inventors such as Leonardo da Vinci,
bankers such as the Medici’s, artists such as Michelangelo and more. Soon the printing press
appeared, and then later in Britain, Isaac Newton invented calculus. Obviously the Industrial
Revolution began in England and western civilization catapulted ahead.

What about some of the other areas of the world? If you remember, the oldest
civilization from which we have written records is the Mesopatamia. This was located in
modern day Iraq and could generally be thought of as Arabic society. How was their progress
coming? They had been making significant progress. As the crossroads of Europe and Asia they
were in a prime position to take advantage of cultural exchange. They invented Algebra which
comes from the Arabic word Al-jabr which was invented in the year 830. They had stitching for
wounds. The first degree-granting university with courses in mathematics and chemistry was
developed in Arabic civilization. They also developed the reading and writing of music - musical
notation. So what happened to their progress? Why did this development stop when at one
point they lead the world in technological progress?

The Arabic civilization was taken over by Islam. Islam began in 610 with Muhammad.
From there Islam spread by conquest until the rulers of the Arab world were all Islamic rulers.
Islam placed a focus on religion rather than innovation. Power was acquired not through
creating better tools to grow more crops but through religious expansion. We can see what
happened in modern day Iran when it went from a secular Arabic society to an Islamic one
(beginning with a CIA coup in 1953 that displaced democratically elected Mohammed
Mossadegh with the religious leader known as the Ayatollah).

A city street in Iran before the Islamic Revolution

A few other differences between exploration from the two continents is that the size of
the Atlantic meant it was much easier for a European explorer to discover the new world then a
Chinese explorer sailing the Pacific. Both continents first colonized Africa but only the
Europeans got to the Americas for probably this reason. We really don’t know how far East any
Chinese explorers got. We do know that after Zheng He’s death in 1433 the exploratory
voyages stopped. This is the result of the top down communal approach to exploration - only
wealthy emperors could finance these voyages. The European method - a bottom up approach
where individuals competing with each other sought to acquire wealth - is what lead to
European colonization. A wealthy Chinese emperor could not add much to their personal
wealth with a large expensive fleet, a small independent European explorer could. Christopher
Columbus had 86-89 men on 3 small ships - and as you remember Zheng He had 27,000 men
and 63 ships. Although the Chinese invented the firearm, the Chinese explorers did not carry
these with them nor were the ships equipped with cannons. European explorers had cannons
and firearms. No doubt this was a result of far more frequent wars within Europe.

Finally upon reaching the Americas, why was it so easy for Europeans to expand across
the North American continent and not anywhere else? They established colonies in South
America, Africa, and China. So why is South America not as filled with white European
descendants as North America? The answer is because the population of people in North
America was quite low. There were perhaps only 16 million Native Americans living in all of
North America. Of these European disease spread like wildfire and killed an unknown number
of this already small population. Some estimates say as high as 90%.

So although Eurasian colonization started nearly simultaneously, the European

colonization efforts far exceeded those of the Chinese. Now you know why. You also know why
no other peoples such as the South Americans, the Africans, or the Arabs began expansion.

   
 Part III The State of Society 
   
Modern Survival and Replication Strategies 
I have mentioned how survival and replication strategies for Europeans meant activities
such as creativity (such as building more effective tools) and increasing their possessions (such
as landholdings).

I have also mentioned the Chinese increased their survival and replication value by hard
work, memorization, and reliance on family (particularly elders to provide important
information about rice).

What is important is that both civilizations heavily relied on long term thinking as they
planned their agricultural strategies.

What about African survival and replication strategies? Africans did not require long
term thinking, they did not require creativity, they did not require memorization, nor did they
require hard work to increase their survival and replication value. What did they require?
Primarily having children and fighting off other tribes are the two most important survival and
replication qualities to pass on one’s genetics in a land where food is naturally plentiful. The
Africans don’t have to worry about raising children, they just have to have them and most will
survive into adulthood because of abundant food. If there are too many people for the land to
support, Africans starved or fought and killed each other until they had enough food again. To
fight off other tribes the Africans developed high testosterone, aggressive and intimidating
physical qualities, and hormone driven behaviors. Because there was little difference in gender
roles the Africans experience far less sexual dimorphism (distinct differences in size and
differences between the male and female genders). How do you think Tyler Perry can play so
many male and female characters?

Another important quality is empathy. The ability to feel another’s suffering and care
about helping them. In European society, if the blacksmith ran out of food and died, who is
going to make your tools? If the blacksmith dies, you could die. So empathy developed to keep
people alive. If you care for your neighbor when times are tough, it directly improves your
survival and replication value.

In Asia, there is simply no need to care for one’s neighbor. It does not affect your rice
crop. There are no tools your neighbor is producing that help you grow rice. Empathy did not
evolve in Asians the way it did in Europeans.
 In Africa, not only was empathy not needed, but the more people there were, the less
food that was available. If you kill someone, your survival and replication value improves.

These are distinct qualities each group developed over the past 12,000 years of human
evolution. We can observe individuals from these societies by their phenotypes. Europeans
have white skin, red, brown, blonde, or black hair and colorful blue, brown, and green eyes.
Asians have yellow skin, black hair, and black eyes. Africans have black skin, black eyes, and
wirey hair. Skin color is a gene, not something caused by being in the sun. Europeans that have
lived in South Africa for the last three hundred years are not any darker than their European
cousins. Africans that have lived in North America for three hundred years are not any less
black. Inuits have lived in Northern climates for thousands of years but share the phenotypic
qualities of their Asian cousins.

The survival and replication strategies employed today are similar to those in the past.
Asian culture still revolves around hard work. European civilization has created the vast
majority of technology we enjoy today and relies on innovation. Europeans in Europe and
America are empathetic to a fault - if not to their own destruction - by letting millions of
Africans into their societies. The Africans behave as they always have taking from the land (in
this case from their European hosts) and behaving aggressively (this translates to a much higher
crime rate). It is easy to see how European society may one day be destroyed by the behavior
of non-europeans.

The white populations are decreasing sharply and the African populations are increasing
rapidly. Europeans provide the continent of Africa with a steady diet of free rice. The Africans
have as many children as possible (just like before) and are predicted to have a population of 4
billion by 2050. As an anecdote, an Uber driver from Africa once told me he was one of 74
children. Another African man I worked with for a time in the United States had 13 children.
Meanwhile the native European population does not even replace itself. Asian society does not
have the same overzealous empathy gene that the Europeans have, and immigration to China is
not even legal.

So the survival and replication of Europeans is in danger. Do the Europeans realize this?

Yes, I believe they do however one of the popular political viewpoints actually
encourages this and wants this to happen. Why? This political viewpoint is less philosophy and
more evolutionary strategy. I will explain:

In evolution there is something called Selection Theory.

 R Selection Theory stands for reproductive focus - the rabbit strategy of pumping out
lots of cheap offspring and having as much sex as possible. It’s a response to abundance. The
more offspring a man has with a larger variety of women, the greater chance one’s genetics will
pass on.

K Selection Theory stands for competitive focus - the wolf strategy of mating for life and
raising pups together, teaching them to hunt and integrate socially with the pack. It’s a
response to selective pressure for individual excellence. The fewer offspring, the more time and
resources one can invest into making them better than they are.

Negro sub-saharan Africa is R Selective. Fecundity rapidly populates the land to carrying
capacity. Above carrying capacity black homo sapiens starve to death or kill each other.
Individual achievement makes an individual a soft target. A farmer who attempts to build or
save will be attacked by neighbors because he has extra food and no way to protect an entire
farm. There is no law and order to protect him because it was never needed for survival and
replication in the first place.

White glacial Europe was K Selective. The smart survived. The dumb froze or starved.
Fecundity focused on stable, slow growth. Hence, white neanderthal homo-sapiens evolved the
capacity for forethought and in group loyalty. This is why a European-descendant person will
attempt to get along with others.

The R Selection Group therefore also believes in free sex (gay, straight, tranny), free
abortion, free rights for everyone. This way they can produce more like themselves which is
their strongest driving factor. This is classified as the liberal philosophy.

The opposite of this is the conservative philosophy which focuses on family values,
individual power, and preservation of society.

In one view, the benefits of society are given, in another they are earned.

If the K Selection Group did not acquiesce to the demands of the R Selection Group, the
R Selection Group could die. Without free food, free healthcare, and free money, how would
the R Selection Group survive? They couldn’t possibly have individual responsibility could they?
When the R Selection Group takes these things from the K Selection Group, the K Selection
Group could themselves die although they are much more hardy (which is why they are in the K
Selection Group in the first place).
 The R Selection Group blames their own problems on the K Selection Group. They do
not believe in taking personal responsibility and solving their own problems. If they did, they
would be in the K Selection Group. If someone is poor, it could not possibly be because of their
behaviors! It is because of their environment, they are powerless to change it! The R Selection
Group believes the K Selection Group should provide more money to help the poverty of their
group. This is why it is so important to the R Selection Group to use words like “privilege” and
“oppressed.” An example of this is the odd alliance between liberals and muslims. Although the
beliefs of muslims and progressive liberals are diametrically opposed, the liberals support the
muslims. When muslims move to white European countries they have less status and power
than the K Selection Group so the R Selection Group uses this as another excuse to take
(money, influence, political power) from the K Selection Group.

In western society, the power between these two groups is exchanged non-violently,
because violence would hurt both groups (especially the R Selection Group who cannot fight).
This nonviolent process is called voting. To sway the votes, the R Selection Group attempts to
bring in more people to the R Selection Group. This is called immigration. The K Selection Group
attempts to bring more voters into the K Selection Group by reducing taxes so there is a greater
incentive to work. The R Selection Group hates it when the K Selection Group reduces taxes
because that means there is less money for them.

Are there survival and replication strategies of any other groups in the modern world?

There are a few others worth noting. One is that of the Academic class. Research is not
guaranteed to create a return on investment, so their work is subsidized. This means a
percentage of the Academic’s income is handouts from the government. The political group
that increases handouts is the R Selection Group. Therefore most professors are in that group
whether science supports this position or not. They do not research genetic differences
between races of people because that would provide support to the K Selection Group. Doing
this would make the R Selection Group end their subsidies. Professors that have done this
research face severe retribution.

Another influential group is the Jews. The Jews are one of the oldest surviving people
groups in the world and still exist because they actively support a worldview of themselves as
superior and non-jews or “goyim” as inferior. No in-group can survive for millenia if they see
themselves as equal to those of the out-group. This has resulted in the Jews being exiled from
over a hundred countries in their past and experiencing a genocide known as the holocaust.
Because of this the Jews are always worried that another holocaust or deportation is right
around the corner. To protect themselves they take actions to weaken their host nation, so that
society cannot unite to hurt them. Significant areas of Jewish influence include communism,
feminism, and Hollywood. Having survived in hostile areas for millennia, the Jews are quite
adept at influence and manipulation and thus have leaders in both the K Selection Group and
the R Selection Groups. Modern day, a major leader of the far liberal left is the jewish Bernie
Sanders. Two major jewish leaders of the far conservative right are Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben
Shapiro. It is possible that the homo sapien race with the highest level of intelligence is the
Jews.

Ultimately, the Asian survival and replication strategy works quite well in Asia, the
African survival and replication strategy works quite well in Africa, and the European survival
and replication strategy works quite well amongst Europeans. Unfortunately, the Asians and
the Africans are taking advantage of a loophole in the European survival and replication
strategy called empathy, and it is currently destroying European society.

Finally, the elite have a survival and replication strategy called “stay elite.” In order to
achieve this they need two things: more ways to make money and a compliant population (who
will not try to take their wealth). To achieve a compliant population, the masses are given just
enough to survive. Too much, and they will have time to think for themselves. Too little, and
they will go hungry and revolt. The elite use several methods to achieve this. They support
globalisation which means more markets to sell goods, lower costs to produce goods, and
immigration which lowers salaries and increases real estate values. The elite also support
handouts (which they don’t pay for - that comes from the taxes of the middle class) so that
more people are reliant on them. Another way a compliant population is achieved is through
control of the news media. In 1983, 90% of American media was owned by fifty companies.
Today that same 90% is controlled by six companies: GE, Disney, Newscorp, Viacom, Time
Warner, and CBS.
  
   
The State of Society 
Now that you know how we got here, as well as the major survival and replication
strategies, let’s review how each society is currently doing.

First let’s start with the largest population of humans, the Asian population. Currently,
the Asian population doing is fine. Poverty is decreasing, wealth is increasing, and the quality of
life is going up for the average Asian.

Shanghai, China - Before and After photos taken 25 years apart

Additionally, the population of Asian countries is quite stable. China does not allow
immigration. Japan does not allow immigration. Until 2003, Korea allowed only a trickle of
immigration and foreign nationals composed only 1% of Korea’s population. Now they compose
3% which is still extremely small composed to European countries and countries with European
heritage where whites are almost below 50% of the population in each one.

Asian populations are expanding quickly into European countries especially Australia,
Canada, and the United States. (Obviously these countries are not located in Europe but the
native populations are European descendant).
 Asian populations are also colonizing Africa and sending resources back to Asian
countries. In summary, Asian society is doing quite well. The Asians should be quite happy with
their progress.

African society is slowly improving in progress but rapidly growing in population. Africa
is given free rice by the United Nations and the population has doubled in the last fifty years
and is estimated to climb to 4 billion people by 2050. Additionally, Africans are pouring into
Europe at the rate of millions per year. However, there is no evidence that their behaviors have
changed from contact with the advanced Europeans.

Interestingly, there are a few examples of Europeans living in African countries. The
country of Rhodesia was an African nation dominated by Europeans. For this reason, it was one
of the wealthiest nations in Africa. They had an elected government and the requirement of
literacy in order to vote. The United Nations hated that and applied sanctions to the country of
Rhodesia until unrestricted voting was allowed. Rhodesians finally caved and the result was that
non-educated Africans were allowed to vote in elections. This lead to the death and destruction
of every European living in that country (who did not flee). Women and children were raped,
men were gutted, households were burned. The Rhodesian Africans then took over the farms
and made the money that once went to the European settlers. Well, actually that last sentence
is not true. The Africans tore apart the farms to sell the tools and scrap metal. This resulted in a
huge famine in Rhodesia, which was re-named Zimbabwe, and resulted in the UN giving the
country massive amounts of aid. We can see the result of 12,000 years of evolution from this
interaction. With the Europeans, long term thinking resulted in farming and widespread food
for the entire country. With the Africans, they destroyed their own country in order to make a
quick profit selling the property of the Europeans.

A similar situation occurred in Haiti. Haiti was a

French colony in the Caribbean. As such they had
African slaves who were under European control.
The Africans rose up against their masters and drove
out or killed every white European. Haiti then
proceeded to become the poorest country in the
region. After an earthquake hit Haiti in 2010, white
Europeans rushed to their aid. However, the country
is still in shambles.

This type of backwards movement can also be witnessed in cities as well. For example,
before and after pictures of Detroit reveal the same situation.

In European countries, the white populations are shrinking. The populations of

European descendant countries are told that the aging population means immigration is
required. Europeans are told not to be proud of their heritage. They are told it is racist to think
they are in any way superior or even different than the Asians and Africans. In the case of the
United States it is the Mexicans - a people who are a hybrid of Native American and Spanish
intermarriage.

The Africans that move to European countries take welfare money and commit crime.
Sweden which was once rated the most peaceful country in the world, now has the highest
number of rapes. They also experience weekly grenades attacks, sometimes multiple in the
same night.

The Asians that move to European countries are generally much more peaceful. Their
intelligence from the rice farming heritage lets them contribute to math and science in a
productive way. However, when a large community of Asians gathers in one place, it digresses
to essentially the same behaviors they had in Asia. In Vancouver, wealthy Asians from China are
displacing the native Canadians. A small 2 bedroom house can sell for over a million dollars. The
Asians do this because their quality of life is so much higher when the live amongst Europeans.
Otherwise they would not move in the first place.

Both Asian and African peoples emigrate to European countries at a tremendous rate.
Europeans generally do not move to African and Asian countries. The reason, as mentioned
before is because the quality of life is so much better in European countries. That quality
diminishes as more Asians and Africans move in. Europeans countries will eventually look much
like Asian and African countries unless this flow of people is stopped.

This decline of the European population and movement of non-European populations

into Europe countries is because of the policies of the R Selection group. Simply look at San
Francisco in the United States. It is the wealthiest area in the country. As such, the abundance
means almost everyone is in the R Selection group. Being so wealthy is it a beautiful, glistening
city? No it is not. In a survey by the local NBC Bay Area news group, 96 of 153 city blocks had
human feces and 41 of these blocks had needles. The R Selection group enables and
encourages this behavior. They then move from their cities (out of disgust) and instead of
learning from their past mistakes, they recreate their policies elsewhere.
   
Major Trends & Solutions
Everything we have today exists because someone created it. The reason we no longer
live in mud huts is because of engineers. Engineers are people who design and invent products.
Every inventor is technically an engineer. If we want the future to be better than the past,
innovation must be encouraged and continued.

For innovation to occur, several factors must be present.

First is that property ownership lead to specialization which lead to innovation. In Asia
and in Africa, owning property did not help one increase survival and replication value. Only in
Europe did property ownership matter. This may explain why China was communist or why
much of Africa is impoverished. The good news for innovation is the capitalistic tendencies of
Europe have spread across the world in the age of globalization and now people in every
country are trying to acquire property (money).

So it would seem as though property ownership is increasing globally. This is true. Is

property ownership threatened in some way? Yes, by taxation and by theft. When something is
taxed, less is produced. So the first solution is this: The fewer taxes the better.

What about theft? Law and order is in place to protect against theft and is generally
effective although it still does still occur at the rate of over $75 Billion a year in the United
States. Probably more should be done to reduce theft, such as public flogging instead of prison,
but as long as law and order remains in society, innovation will continue.

The third system required to increase innovation is the free flow of information. Just as
the printing press was a precursor to calculus, the internet can be credited with an unknown
plethora of innovation. We live in an incredible age for information. This must not be hindered.

Finally, because the vast majority of innovation has been accomplished by white
Europeans and almost none by black Africans, it is important that we increase the population of
white Europeans.

One way to increase property ownership, increase law and order, and increase the
number of white Europeans, is by decreasing the number of black Africans. To do this, the
welfare system should be phased out. Right now, Lafawnda the African has ten kids and gets a
bigger welfare check for each one. Even if she lives in Africa, the UN gives her more rice for
each kid. By decreasing welfare payments, this will decrease the number of Africans. (Perhaps
we should incentivize African abortion? Would a three thousand dollar payment per African
abortion save welfare money or backfire and create more African pregnancy?)

Ending the welfare system would disproportionately affect Africans but it would also
affect people of every race who rely on taking instead of producing.

Until any of these solutions get put into place through peaceful legislative means, the
best thing a person can do for society is produce more European children.

The Europeans must stop all immigration from other countries. They allow immigration
because the R Selection Group wants it. The K Selection Groups in these countries expect that
the immigrants will be grateful and behave like themselves. Instead, the immigrants commit
crime against their hosts and generally behave the way they did in their prior country. The
countries these immigrants come from are a mess because of their behaviors and if too many
immigrants enter European countries then those countries will also become a mess.
Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.

There is a common argument which states “the aging European population needs
immigrants.” The problem is, populations ebb and flow. They cannot increase forever.
Therefore European society must take care of itself without relying on others. If the population
decreases the following will happen: Real estate will become cheaper, the supply of workers
decreases which means wages go up, and more opportunities will arise from the lack of other
workers to compete with. Big corporations want you to believe that whenever there is a need
for workers we must allow immigrants. However, if the supply of workers is low, wages will
increase because demand for workers will increase. In the United States, the 1965 Immigration
and Nationality Act allowed people from all over the world to enter the United States (without
any focus on assimilation) and wages have stagnated ever since. This is great for big business
but bad for everyone else.

The final major problem in the world is that most of those in the white European K
Selection Group are unaware of manipulation from the other groups. There is only way for this
problem to be solved: free speech. Particularly, the component of free speech called mockery.
No person or group should be above being mocked. Why? Any organization that is above being
mocked experiences extremism and corruption. If their problems cannot be discussed, this is
the natural result. When Christianity could not be mocked there was the Spanish inquisition
and the persecution of gays. The R Selection Group media in European countries puts forth a
tremendous effort when it comes to mocking Christianity - so great an effort that when a
Christian baker doesn’t bake a cake for homosexuals, this is national news. However, on
extremism in Islam, the media is silent. This has lead to enumerable acts of terrorism, rape, and
violence against everyone - including the people in the R Selection Group. Yet when victims in
the R Selection Group complain about this - they are quickly silenced by others in their group.

An example of this is the extremism and corruption that occurred in the R Selection
Group’s major political party in the United States. During the 2016 state primaries, one R
Selection Group candidate was promising more free things than another R Selection Group
candidate and thus received more votes in many of those primaries. Despite getting more votes
this candidate lost those elections. This should have been a major scandal but it was hardly
reported because the R Selection Group will relentlessly protect their own to prevent losing
members to the K Selection Group.

Another example of this is when the gay muslim Omar Mateen shot up a nightclub in
Orlando, Florida killing 49 people. The next day I saw R Selection Groups in the news holding
signs against “Christian hatred”, because a few unknown Christian pastors had criticized Islam
in the wake of this event. I have seen a report of a 12 year old girl getting raped in Sweden by a
muslim and I have seen facebook posts by the feminists defending the rapist! According to
these feminists, the girl had asked for it and the muslim was the true victim. The R Selection
Group will not give an inch in their battle against their true enemy - the K Selection Group.

There are many stories such as this. Most are heavily censored and probably don’t make
it to the news. However, just today I saw another one where a group of arabic immigrant men
in Hamburg video recorded and raped a 14 year old girl and left her for dead. Their
punishment? None - they walked free. The judge said, “They appeared repentant and no longer
presented a danger to society.” The R Selection group is only against that which harms the K
Selection Group.

The solution to this is mockery. The K Selection Group must learn how to mock sacred
groups and the sacred beliefs held by the R Selection Group. Blacks, muslims, and jews can all
be mocked - just as Christians are so regularly mocked. You can mock black laziness, crime, and
stupidity. You can mock Jewish greed and subversion. You can mock and openly oppose Islam.
You can oppose immigration. I do not recommend losing your job over it but when in the right
place and time where it will not hurt, it is something a K Selection Group person should be able
to do. Without mockery of those subjects, those previously mentioned problems will increase.

In summary, this is the State of Society. The major problems and solutions to those
problems you now have. To learn more about any of these subjects I discuss you can find me
and many others like me on one of the few websites which actually supports free speech called
4chan.org/pol.