3 ms·
Young homo sapiens males have a natural instinct for war, which can be expressed or not depending on circumstances. Going to war is the historical high risk + h
by fab13n 13y ago
Young homo sapiens males have a natural instinct for war, which can be expressed or not depending on circumstances. Going to war is the historical high risk + high reward option: you might be killed, but if you survive, you have a good shot at becoming richer, more powerful, and having offspring (both by becoming a desirable husband/son-in-law, and through the pervasive rapes in which victors indulged after a won battle). Founding a startup is a modern incarnation of that instinct, appealing mostly to the same young males demographic, albeit skewed toward those with very favored socio-economical backgrounds.
So, the less hope people have to thrive the "regular" safe way, e.g. because of durable economical crisis and loss of upward social mobility, the more likely they are to respond well to jingoism.
As a side-note, polygyny and jingoism are strongly correlated. Indeed for each man with several spouses, there are unwilling bachelors. They're willing to take the high-risk road and fight battles to become patriarchs; as a bonus, war casualties increase the female/male ratio.
I recommend reading The Red Queen if you're interested by all aspects of mating strategies and risk acceptance, not limited to human beings nor even whole organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evolution_of_Human_Nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evol...).
- fit2rule 13y agoI think these sorts of glib 'truisms' are used to justify an awful lot of bad behaviour. Just ask the feminists if they think its an acceptable justification for young male misogyny .. its not going to help anyone if we justify continued transgression against our species with "natural law requires this 'natural' behaviour".
- fab13n 13y agoBeware not to get confused between explanation and justification. Whenever a social issue is worth struggling for, that's precisely because of the mismatch between how things are and how they ought to be, it's essential to have a fair assessment of things as they are. Those who suffer from mental confusion between how things are and how they ought to be, tend at best to be ineffective, and often to discredit the cause they wish to defend. As you hinted, some variants of feminism are confronted with such issues. Another kind of confusion to avoid is between "natural" and "legitimate". "Natural" means "spontaneous", it's almost the exact opposite of "civilized". Describing something as natural is certainly not justifying it. Some forms of populisms abuse the natural/legitimate confusion to manipulate masses, but that's no reasoning, let alone sound reasoning.