How Civilization Falls, Part II: The Parasitic Effect

“Work smart, not hard” is a phrase I have recently come to understand in a greater depth than I have ever in the past.

parasite-king

I assumed it to mean when doing manual tasks work the most efficiently to achieve more with less energy. This is of course true but the meaning of this phrase I have found goes much deeper than that and accompanied with an understanding of our society, can unlock a much deeper understanding of who we are and where we are going.

As established in my previous article, we are living in a society with a great amount of excess wealth run by a group of people who are fundamentally out of touch with reality. Women have now become the controlling minds of our culture as in a society of easily and efficiently acquired resources the role of a man as a provider has been subsumed by the role of women as birth givers. With a high amount of easily available resources a man has no power of denial of resources while a woman possesses the power of denial of mating opportunities.

Traditionally women have had their decisions made for them. From who they should mate with to what they should think – women throughout history have had very little opportunity to make decisions for themselves. Culture and resource providing men have made near all the decisions in a womans life. A man having been selected for his adherence to objective reality made the right decisions for his woman and his offspring, or chosen poorly and had his lineage bread out. Women have not been selected for their ability to control objective reality but have been selected for their ability to control men and by virtue of this, control culture.

Those who do not adhere to the prevailing culture of their time and location are denied access to the pool of mating opportunities and produce less offspring. In an environment that requires a man to produce an excess of resources to maintain the good health of his family and woman, a culture develops, as a result of selection pressure, that puts high resource production males in a category of high desirability to women. This culture is a result of women who hold a high status, as a result of the high status males they partner with, signaling their wealth and lifestyles to other women in a hierarchical competition.

A woman’s ability to signal is greatly increased when the normal chores needed of a woman to maintain a household are accomplished (i.e. housekeepers, wet nurses, purchased food). This gives the woman more opportunities to signal their status – which is usually accomplished through parties and social gatherings, clothes, jewelry, furnishings, unnecessary cleanliness etc. In doing so, the desirability of high resource men develops and shapes the culture into one of extreme and healthy competition amongst men for greater and greater resources.

This culture of high resource selection produces a society flush with resources facilitated by the men who acquire them and the women who absorb them. The culture being primarily controlled by women who signal their status to one another only know how to promote themselves and not society. The men, being selected for high resource acquisition and not much else, work on increasing their efficiency and leave culture to the women. Women, never having to focus on maintaining or acquiring resources, shape the culture to favor their wants a needs and largely ignore the philosophical underpinnings of their culture.

Extreme excess resources, high efficiency males with little cultural control and low intelligence females with supreme cultural control creates an environment that is ripe for parasites. Competition for scarce resources is what every animal faces in their quest to survive and thrive but the environments they compete in shape every aspect of their nature. Most human cultures are based around agriculture, as growing your own food in a cyclical harvest allows for planning which in turn allows for plotting and improvement of efficiency.

Agrarian culture selects for a high trust society as every family is stationary and heavily relies on their community for support and trading. A family that does not align its self to the local culture develops a reputation and is favored less with resources. A reputation system forces people to behave in culturally acceptable ways or risk death or reduced mating opportunities. This type of community is skeptical of outsiders as the outsider does not understand or adhere to the local culture. In this way threats to the culture can be easily identified and removed.

With such a culture a time comes when the harvest is to great to be consumed by the locals and a market developes to maximize the value of the excess resources. In this environment another type of culture begins to develop: a merchant culture. A merchant culture requires a different arrangement and a different level of trust. One can not simply rely on reputation and local culture to maintain good relations – there must be commonly held rules and punishment for disobeying rules. This is where the state comes in.

I want to discuss in detail how the state arises and its complete effects but that will need to be in another article. For now we will stick to one idea. In a merchant culture there is a near constant need to deal with people who are not bound by reputation but by law. Selling your wares to just the people you know or are familiar with artificially limits the potential income that can be earned by any merchant, but selling to just anyone may put you at risk of theft and bodily harm. This is where a mechanism called the state maintains a stable environment to do business.

Easily understood followed rules allow people to interact and treat each other with the respect they expect will be reciprocated. The nature of an interaction in such an environment is assumed to be beneficial as bad actors would be removed by the state apparatus and good actors would benefit from the interactions. In exchange for this service the controlling state takes a share of the earnings for its part in maintaining the peace. In theory, everybody wins except the bad actors. This simplistic view of the state presupposes that it is a beneficial and essential mechanism for the smooth functioning of a market.

This is until however, someone figures out that they can make more from using the state than they can make from selling their wares. Government, by its very nature demands tribute at the cost of potential harm or death. One must appease the state or revoke their ability to interact with society and sell their wares. Although interaction with the state are generally minimal, every person doing business within its jurisdiction must pay for its “services.” This creates an environment that selects for those individuals who respect the role of the state and its function, as to do otherwise, would be to disqualify ones self from market participation.

With such a system in place of a reputation system, those who control what the state deems unacceptable behavior have the power to ostracize or remove actors that disagree with it’s decrees. Those that have control of the state also define what is acceptable as tribute and who deserves their “services.” In this environment those people who control the state can take from the state their compensation without competition.

“Work smart not hard” can be a good motto to live your life by but when the conditions exist so that you can live off the productivity of others without their consent, it makes more sense to live as a parasite. With the introduction of a state mechanism that allows (((the rich))) to compete for a controlling share, government becomes but another business – only one without competition that is wielded as a monopoly against the actual productive members of society.

See also: How Civilization Falls, Part I: Male vs Female