The Irony of Short-Term Economic Pain

 

In the current US political landscape, where the wealthy elite don their suits and deliver impassioned speeches, a recurring theme emerges: the promise of long-term prosperity through short-term pain.

This narrative is championed by figures like Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur who assures us that reducing government spending will lead to a brighter future. Musk often speaks of “temporary hardship” as a necessary evil on the path to “long-term prosperity.” He assures us that the economic pain resulting from his cost-cutting proposals will be short-lived and ultimately beneficial.

The same message is echoed by President Trump. In a speech to Congress, he mentioned that there would be a “little [short-term] disturbance” from his plan to impose tariffs on billions of dollars in goods, but he confidently asserted that it wouldn’t be long before the larger benefits of tariffs set in.

As we listen to this rhetoric, one can’t help but marvel at the irony of such statements coming from those least likely to feel the sting of economic hardship. After all, what’s a little disturbance when you’re sitting on a mountain of wealth?

The irony here is palpable. Billionaires with resources beyond the reach of most people speak of economic pain as if it’s a minor inconvenience. Perhaps they imagine that the average person can simply dip into their vast reserves of wealth to weather the storm.

But let’s be real: the economic pain resulting from such policies is unlikely to affect billionaires in any meaningful way. Instead, it will be ordinary citizens who bear the brunt of these changes. The lower one is on the wealth ladder, the worse the pain of this “little disturbance” will be.

What’s missing from these statements is any mention of the wealthy offering their own resources to mitigate the pain felt by those most in need.

Imagine an alternate universe where billionaires put their money where their mouths are and used their wealth to support those struggling through the period of hardship. Instead of preaching about the virtues of short-term pain, they could provide tangible assistance to help people get through the tough times until the promised long-term benefits materialize.

So, the next time we hear billionaire politicians being poetic about the virtues of short-term pain, let us take a moment to appreciate the irony.

One more thought — since when anything in the future is assured to go certain way or is guaranteed to be a “little disturbance.”

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Can Positive Human Attributes Scale with Group Size?

 

When you scale up a complex system, you’re not just multiplying what you started with by some constant factor; you change the system’s dynamics — Geoffrey West

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: At microscopic levels, quantum mechanical forces dominate, while classical mechanics accurately describes macroscopic scales, and therefore, for the physics of the system scales matter. Similarly, are positive attributes like sharing, caring, also scalable? Despite these attributes’ evolutionary advantages, their benefits do not proportionately scale with increasing group size because certain challenges hinder the seamless transition of positive attributes from small to larger groups.

Scales, and what forces are important at different scales, matter.

In the realm of physics, the concept of scaling plays an important role in deciphering the complexities of natural phenomena. Scaling involves the study of how different physical quantities change with size, and it can significantly simplify our quest for understanding the workings of various systems. When studying the dynamics of a system, certain forces can often be ignored at one scale but become important at another.

At microscopic scales, quantum mechanical forces dominate, and classical mechanics often falls short in providing accurate descriptions. For example, the behavior of electrons in an atom is governed by quantum mechanics, and ignoring quantum effects would lead to erroneous conclusions. However, at macroscopic scales, classical mechanics suffices to describe the motion of objects, and quantum effects can be safely neglected.

In the context of scaling, our previous discussion focused on the possible scalability of positive attributes such as sharing, caring, and empathy from small groups of humans to larger ones. We discussed whether these attributes would continue to prevail as small groups of hunter-gatherers expanded in size. The key points of our discussion can be summarized as follows.

In a small group of hunter-gatherers living in the wild, positive attributes such as sharing, caring, and empathy offer distinct advantages for both survival and reproduction. During a hunt, having someone who is vigilant and protective significantly improves the chances of survival.

As positive attributes provide survival and reproductive advantages, they would result in small groups of hunter-gatherers expanding in size. If these attributes were to scale proportionately with group size, the prevalence of wars and social upheaval throughout human civilization would not be there. We would live in harmony that mimics what happens in small hunter-gatherer groups.

Nevertheless, as societies evolved from smaller groups into larger entities such as tribes, villages, and nations, it did not happen. Somewhere along the way the evolutionary benefits of positive attributes lost their edge. In going from smaller to larger groups, additional (negative) factors must have counteracted the advantage of positive attributes.

What occurs when transitioning from an isolated small hunter-gatherer group to larger groups? Why does the benefit of positive attributes not scale upward with increasing size?

There are two primary challenges associated with scaling the advantages of positive attributes from small groups to larger ones: (i) the inverse correlation between empathy and degree of kinship, and (ii) the impact of random fluctuations on the physical, cognitive, and psychological traits of individuals within a group. These factors pose significant obstacles that must be overcome to successfully scale positive attributes with increasing group size.

The influence of kinship on the development of positive attributes is most pronounced among close relatives who share a common genetic background. As the degree of kinship between individuals decreases, the intensity of positive attributes also decreases.

Random variations in physical, cognitive, and psychological attributes can also influence the cohesiveness of larger groups. This occurs as certain individuals, because of random variations, having superior capabilities are better at securing more resources. Random variations, therefore, can benefit a subgroup within the group. Furthermore, it is more difficult to manage competitive tendencies driven by randomness in larger groups because the moderating influence of kinship is less prevalent compared to that in smaller groups.

It is important to acknowledge that the influence of kinship degree and randomness are unavoidable. The decrease in positive attributes with a reduction in kinship is inevitable, as the cultivation of such attributes necessitates time and energy, which are limited resources that cannot be allocated to numerous individuals within the group. Additionally, the impact of randomness on creating variations in physical, cognitive, and psychological attributes is also unavoidable.

The bottom line is that the influence positive attributes have in keeping negative attributes in check for small groups do not scale up as quickly with the size of the group as negative attributes do. Consequently, for larger groups the influence of positive attributes takes the back seat.

The dynamics that work in a small group are different from those for a larger group.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Will Humanity Evolve to Embrace Kindness?

 

Human nature is not black and white but black and grey — Graham Greene

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary With wars and deceit dominating the headlines, and our fascination with the negative outcomes of human actions, it’s natural to wonder if humanity could ever evolve into a species where kindness, empathy, generosity etc. become the norm. What are the chances of us transforming into a society where wars and deceit are relegated to a mere historical anomaly? Unfortunately, chances of that seem slim to none.

Throughout history, humanity has endured countless wars, each leaving behind a trail of devastation and sorrow. These conflicts, driven by various motives, have shaped the course of civilizations and influenced the trajectory of human progress. Yet, amid the chaos and destruction we so often create, glimmers of hope persist in the acts of kindness and solidarity people extend to one another. It’s no surprise that during natural disasters — hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, and the like — your neighbor often becomes your greatest ally in the fight for survival.

What are the chances that, as we evolve, positive attributes of human nature — kindness, empathy, generosity etc. — will become the norm and will be an innate part of us as a species? Could natural selection eventually lead us to a kinder, gentler self and help us build a civilization where wars are merely a regrettable chapter in our history, one we had to endure to achieve a better future?

Let us consider the possibility.

According to the principles of natural selection, species evolve over time by acquiring traits that enhance their ability to secure a larger share of available resources in their environment. For a characteristic to eventually become an innate trait, it must pass the litmus test of enhancing the chances of survival and reproduction.

Following this principle, humanity’s potential to improve with time will also depend on whether the positive attributes that we want to see become permanent, and the dominant fixture of the human race will enhance our chances of survival and reproduction. If they do then there is a possibility that over a period, they might become innate traits.

To consider the possibility of this happening, let’s start at the very beginning when interaction among humans started. Let us consider if the positive attributes we want us to acquire might have helped their survival and reproduction.

Within a small hunter-gatherer group, the trait of caring for one another was crucial for survival. Over the course of evolution, such traits have shown that fostering psychological attributes like empathy, cooperation, and kindness improves survival chances for individuals within these groups. The jungle is a harsh environment, and being alone offers no advantage.

What happens when a small group, aided by positive traits, starts to thrive and grow larger?

As small groups evolved into larger social structures such as tribes, villages, kingdoms, and nations, it becomes important to consider whether the same attributes that benefited a small group will continue to be effective as the group size increases.

In thinking about that possibility, we must take into consideration other forces that may come into play and could potentially disrupt the dynamics that once helped small groups of hunter-gatherers survive and thrive. Let us delve into what those forces are.

As the size of a group increases, maintaining feelings of sharing, kindness, and camaraderie with individuals who are not closely related becomes more challenging. The influence of kinship diminishes with distance, making it harder to empathize with individuals who are farther removed. In larger groups, the distinction between “us” and “them” becomes apparent and can lead to friction, where negative feelings associated with them may begin to outweigh positive ones.

Another influencing factor that comes into play is a feature that is constantly nudging the working of the universe; that feature is randomness.

Due to inherent randomness, individuals within a hunter-gatherer group exhibit variations in physical and cognitive abilities, as well as differing psychological traits. Some members of the group may possess superior strength, speed, and hunting skills, and demonstrate greater proficiency in resource gathering. These physical disparities can result in differential survival and reproduction rates, potentially causing inhomogeneities that lead to friction and negative emotions such as jealousy and rivalry.

Random physical differences are not the sole factors at play. A more significant contributor is the variation in psychological and cognitive attributes and the subtle impacts these have on survival and reproduction.

In an expanding group of hunter-gatherers, the initial balance of equality, sharing, and empathy could be disrupted if an individual realizes that cheating can be advantageous for survival and reproduction. An individual with superior cognitive abilities might recognize the benefits of using them to manipulate others. Similarly, an individual in better physical condition may be viewed as attractive and sought after as a partner. These differences, although random in origin, can lead to disparities and potential conflict.

The point is that as the size of groups become larger, natural inevitability of physical and psychological differences (caused by randomness) could easily lead to runaway amplification of negative attributes and outweigh the beneficial effects of positive attributes we would like to see evolve with time.

One could try to argue that the size of the original group would always be contained as splinter groups of smaller sizes emerge. The problem of conflict, however, does not go away. The conflict to enhance chances for survival and reproduction, and amplification of negative attributes, will continue among the splintered groups.

In conclusion, the inverse correlation between empathy and degree of kinship, along with the impact of random fluctuations, presents significant challenges that must be addressed for the potential amplification of positive attributes. The inherent randomness in nature, combined with the complexities of human behavior, results in marked inequalities that erode social cohesion typically found in smaller groups. These disparities heighten tensions, fuel conflicts, and impede the enhancement of positive attributes.

Conflict tends to increase more easily and can overshadow positive attributes. Conversely, positive attributes face challenges in increasing similarly due to opposing forces.

In conclusion, the chances of positive attributes to become innate traits are slim to none.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.