More Civilization Fractals

I slowly came upon this theory like pouring molasses in January.  (After reading everything I have written, can you tell that I am hugely influenced by Michael Crichton?  And yes, I only first became aware of the existence of the concept of fractals after reading Jurassic Park.  No, I did not have knowledge of their existence before the early 1990s.  I was a tween, so sue me already.)

My theory slowly took form.  And as it did, nearly everything that humans have done, or have had done to them, has fallen neatly into place.  This theory is supremely complex, sure.  But it is simultaneously clean, straightforward.  It manages to explain so many things.  It appears to answer several burning questions about human history, about scientific discovery and creativity, about human developmental psychology, even about lack of scientific discovery and creativity.

Anyway.  I had been reading on the internet about "racism" and all the tandem accusations spewed like slop, and I was getting a headache from the aggravation and the frustration. Of course not only because of the internet, since "racism" has been around longer than the internet.  There is always nattering blather about how America is obsessed with "racism" and racial identity and racial politics, and always has been, ad nauseum.

Apparently there is a lot of conflict within the black community because there are shades and gradients of black -- brown, tan, beige, dark brown, etc.  This produces a subset of racism called "colorism."  I have known since at least my middle school days that black people, especially black girls and women, are particularly sensitive about their hair.  Their hair length, texture, thickness, silkiness, softness-v-coarseness, resemblance to "white people's hair," natural vs. styled, weaves, sewn-in styles.  In all honesty, I had known about the "colorism" since middle school also.

It seems that "colorism" causes as much aggravation and strife within the black community as racism does without the black community.  I read this and I was rolling my eyes in frustration because I wondered why they have to get so upset and make such a big deal over something that is not really dire.  And I realized that while I can sympathize with them -- this was not really my problem.  They need to figure this out on their own.  That has to be their learning experience, their evolution, their growth.

But I was astounded to learn that most populations of Asians *are* racist, and they are *okay* with this fact.  They have come to terms with it.  It does not cause crime, mugging, r--, gang activity, riots, violent protests.  It does not cause emotional strife, it does not cause depression, anxiety, identity crisis, complaining about brown light-skin vs. dark skin.

Looking back through my memory, I realized that this was true.  Indians, my own Bangladeshi, Chinese, Taiwanese, Indonesian, Malaysian, take your pick.  Whatever Asian culture we are talking about, there has always existed a brand of colorism.  Asians prefer to marry and mate light-skinned Asians within their country.  There are shades and gradients of yellow, brown, yellow-brown, tan, wheatish, fair, et al.

Of course, a given person can only mate with someone that will accept him or her.  This is universal throughout the human race.  Which means that only the lightest will be privileged with marrying the lightest, the next lightest will get to marry anyone darker than that, and on and on down the color line.

Full disclosure, I have always been fine with this.  This makes sense.  The light-skinned people are not obligated to hook up with anyone darker than them.  Not out of any nonsense notion of "equality" or "fairness," and not for any reason unless one is truly madly deeply head over heels in love with another one.  In which case, go have a crazy over-the-top wedding and have lots of marbled babies.

But to claim that colorism is "evil" is exaggerated, hysterical idiocy.  Come off it.  Marriage and romance are about whom you are most comfortable with, not about who is most politically correct.  The darker brown ones can bitch and moan and groan all they want.  But the fact remains, light-skinned people are not under any moral obligation whatsoever to raise dark-skinned people's self-esteem by having sex with them.  Light-skinned folks should not be forced to include dark-skinned folks in the popular crowd.  The dark ones got rejected by the light ones.  Get over it.

Asians do not obsess over this "racism" as a national pastime.  There are no "national conversations about race" that need to occur.  It has already been settled.  Yes, we're racist, we're over it, that's old news, move on.

This was breathtaking discovery for me.  This was fascinating.  I am forever grateful to fate, destiny, etc. that I stumbled upon this.  So you are saying it is possible for people to be keenly aware of racial differences, and yet not abuse and flagellate and torment themselves over it?

When I say racism, I do not mean a harmless innocuous being proud of one's own family and cultural heritage.  That is not racism.  I am talking about actively engaging in behaviors that indicate that one feels that certain ethnic groups are more fit and acceptable than others.  This would include the act of only socializing with people that one feels most comfortable with.  This means promoting a particular race as more well-suited to particular careers and livelihoods.  And yes, this includes romancing and marrying someone that one deems acceptable for oneself to marry.

Now, I am NOT saying that hate crimes are okay.  Crimes are crimes are crimes.  Doesn't matter what the motivation is.  Lynching, r--, gang-beating, what happened to Medgar Evars.  Those are sick and filthy and vile, and just because I am slightly racist in terms of human intimacy and comfort does not mean I am okay with the existence of crimes against humanity.  Colorism is not even close to advocating violation of a human being.

A criminal that violates a person's right to bodily autonomy, should be charged with the same crime as any non-racially-based or non-sexually-based crime.  Black people, dark-skinned Asians, whoever we are talking about must have the same individual freedoms and rights of any group of people, no argument there.  Do not take my words out of context.

Anyway.  You cannot imagine the relief I felt when I chanced upon this revelation.  It felt like I could finally let go of a breath I had not even realized I was holding.  A huge burden was lifted from my shoulders.

I detected a parallel between this peculiarity of Asian culture, and the fact that adults tend to be okay with their flaws, whatever the flaws may be.  If they can learn to live with it and still function in society just fine, then this is not a problem.  I have grown to accept it. I have learned to accept myself for who I am. I am a colorist. I have made my peace with this fact.  I have accepted it, and I am moving on.

Hmm, interesting.  What other ways have Asians demonstrated that they are more progressed along the timeline of civilization development?

- The above information combined with the high mean IQ of Asians,
- As well as the vast expansive history that spans several millennia back into the past


I hold a similar, if more impatience and vehement, view towards western women and women's rights issues.

A pandemic number of western society first-world females proclaim themselves so oooo confused about their role and lot in life because, gosh darn, they are just so trailblazing, capable, independent, and glass-ceiling-busting that traditional women's roles just don't fit them anymore.

As we have all heard, western society women claim that they are now emancipated, feministed, empowered, liberated, modern young women free from the shackles of an outdated oppressive patriarchal regime.  They claim that because of this newfound freedom, the traditional social roles of men and women are now topsy-turvy y and confusing as all get out, and therefore the old answers and approaches to life don't work anymore.  They have declared traditional societal roles as "obsolete."

___relationships, baby-daddy situations, (These liberal females are too chicken to use the word "marriage."  "Marriage" is a dirty four-letter word in the liberal feminist lexicon; it is the worst foul-language curse that a liberal female could possibly utter.

they are still trying to figure out how
oh it is all just so confusing, }}}insp, insppp||||

What the hell is so Goddamn confusing about this?
I'm not really following.  What the hell is so damn difficult to understand?
What is do damn confusing about this?

|||||these females say that "society" expects them to act like dumb bimbos... erm, let us examine this accusion towards "society" a bit more carefully.||||

Notice that when these females say that "society" expects them to whore themselves out for pleasing the crowd, they do not actually mean society.  They actually only mean the entrainment media:  hollywood/pnr.

This is because actual society, as in flesh and blood human beings, do NOT tell them this, and in fact have never told them this.  Their families, their genuine friends, teachers and other people at school, church groups -- none of these normal human beings ever advised the aforementioned young ladies that they had to be dumb bimbo xsluts in order to make their mark in life.

The truthful account is that the dumb sluts chose of their own volition to discard common sense and morals.

-----

Several years ago I wrote an essay that drew from everything I knew, at that time, of the human experience.  I drew from facts of economics, international trade, history, different cultures, general social progress, and individual progress.  I constructed a theory that cleanly but complexly wove all this complex information together into a coherent tapestry.  There, I had theorized that civilizations rise and fall in cycles.  I remarked that we in this society are fortunate enough to be living in the Golden Age of the United States.

However, now that I am a bit older, I realize that I did not have all the necessary information back then.  Crucial pieces of the puzzle, heretofore unseen, are now revealing themselves.

Now I am seeing more sociopolitical patterns that still fit that same previous theory of mine -- but which add massive mountainous strata.  Not to mention, the angle of my vantage point has completely revolved.  I see that the puzzle of human past and future is far more complex, and far larger than I previously even knew existed.  It is as though I were a Flatlander before, being conscious of only two dimensions.  And now the cloak has dissolved, and I see in three dimensions.  I revel in their saphenous nature.

In my defense, I like to think that my previous theory was not simply a matter of youthful hubris.  I think that at the time, events truly had not progressed which might have offered some insight into human history.  I think that a tiny little bit of time has passed, enough for humans to experience what happens next in the timeline.  And I realize I have to amend my previous theory.

I suppose it is strange that a live-wire topic such as racism was the gentle nudge that led me to this theory.  Then, everything clicked into place.

Micro-scale Cognitive Development is Reflected in Macro-scale Cultural Progress

This is a theory I've been churning over in my mind for a while now.  Like most of my theories, it is correct.  Forgive my arrogance; I do not believe in false humility.

Micro-scale psychological development in a human mortal's lifetime is reflected in macro-scale cultural/civilization progress.

There exist phases of civilization, also known as macro-scale collective consciousness, that are reflected in any given human's lifespan on a micro-scale. The older and more advanced a civilization is, the more it displays grown-up, responsible sensible behavior.  A more evolved civilization houses citizens that have better logic and reasoning capabilities, as well as empathy and compassion.

You've heard of the theory of collective consciousness?  An entire culture or nation can grow, and there will be a superimposed consciousness, or a train of thought pattern that will start to develop.  Sociologists and anthropologists talk about the collective consciousness of China, for example.  Supposedly, they all seem to be of one mind, not a whole lot of individualism going on, yada yada.

There are three major distinct phases in a human's life and cognitive development.  We shall briefly review them first.

1)  Infancy/childhood;

Children are naturally inquisitive.  They are curious, they want to learn about the world around them, and they are fascinated by everything.  They want to explore and discover.  You will notice that if it is a good kid who is kind and intelligent, they want to help do things.  This applies for boys and girls both.  They can thrive in this environment, with this behavior, as long as the adults guide them within a framework of rules that keeps them safe.  Parents can encourage and cultivate this character that little children have, combined with implementation of rules.

2)  Rebellious adolescence;

This is the notorious phase, whereby the subject eschews all perceived authority in a bid to assert so-called independence.  They think that any authority is bad simply by dint of being the authority.  Individuals at this stage of mental development do not even know what they don't know.  They believe themselves to be learning from history, they believe themselves to be learning from their past mistakes and from others' past mistakes, when in fact they are not.  They also believe that they are trailblazers, renegades, revolutionaries, etc.  (Hehe, "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" has parodied this conceit.  Aunt Zelda once said, "Oh look, Hilda.  Sabrina is going through that charming, 'To assert my independence, I'm going to make myself as ugly as possible' phase.")

It should be noted that the rebellious stage is not necessarily limited to the teenage years.  Many people that are legally adults are still trapped in the same mindset of a teenager.  Not all, but many 21-year-olds and 22-year-olds are there with their kegstands, promiscuity, failing their exams, racking up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, with their parents' co-signature paying for all of it.

3)  and Grown-up.

At this stage, individuals realize that all those societal rules and regulations, which had been imposed on them as children, were not just arbitrary.  They arrive at the revelation that those rules and societal mores were in fact upheld for good reason.  Lo and behold, parental enforcement of rules meant that parents cared enough to keep their child in full possession of all their limbs and extremities, while also fostering the child's curiosity.  Indeed, the rules that parents implemented for their teenage children also were for good reason.  When active, those rules had kept society whole, healthy, and functioning.  Often, these grown-ups are now wise enough to know that they should raise their own children in a similar manner.

----

Here are the stages of civilizations as they are analogous to human psychology.

1)  Infancy/childhood:

Ancient civilizations took shape as a male-and-female two-person union stayed together with shared offspring they biologically produced.  Different members of the family took on specialized roles.  Ancient cultures became stabilized based upon a structure similar in concept, which extended to the greater community.  Specialized roles were delegated to those people who had natural affinity for them.  The earliest estimate of human settlements in ancient Asian cultures date as far back as ___

As people learned more about the natural world, they developed methods to utilize it to their advantage.  They devised techniques for manipulating the natural for their own well-being.  The learned to benefit their own medical health as well as their standard of living.  In many ways, they already had done this.  They graduated from being hunter-gatherers, who by definition could only depend on what already existed on the land.  Because of this, hunter-gatherers cannot secure anything beyond basal bare survival.

The citizens of these ancient cultures learned to become farmers and gardeners, who can work the land to their advantage.  They can settle on the same plot of land and can maximize both the usage of the land as well as their own work efforts.  They optimized farming, harvesting, and gardening efficiency to make full use of what the land offered to them.

Women's work, as you might have guessed, centered around the family, the hearth and the home.  Women flourished in their traditional roles of raising the children.  They took on the task of cooking food that provided essential nutrients including protein and fiber, flavoring it with healing spices that lowered blood pressure, improved circulation, and boosted the immune system.  Women were midwives, providing labor and delivery aid to a woman in the task of childbirth, which is tumultuous but upon which survival of the human species revolves.  Women prepared herbs, soaps, and distilled plants for healing, and they took care of the sick and the elderly.

The cultures of far east Asia as well as the Indian subcontinent are renowned for their many spices that have subtle pharmaceutical properties.  Ginger, cinnamon, also garlic, onions, turmeric, cumin, galangal, star anise, nutmeg, cloves.  (People in modern times sometimes complain about the aroma of Indian food, but the fact is that it is healhty.  So too is traditional Far East Asian cooking healthful.)  Rice was their staple carbohydrate crop rather than wheat or other gluten-based foods.  Their cooking methods and recipes fostered longevity.

So, women were heavily involved in nutrition, administering healing spices, and midwifery.  Women were also nagging and controlling and bossy, and made sure their families obliged.  (Admit it, ladies, that is how we are.)  They were the ones that primarily handled these responsibilities.  What does that translate into?  Medicine.  That's right, folks -- medicine has always been the bastion of women.   Women in ancient civilizations were the precursors to modern-day medical doctors.

It is annoying that so many liberals are offended by and livid about this fact that women were homemakers who nurtured and healed.  Libs are basically saying that women's contributions to society are unimportant.  They are saying that women's work is not worth anything unless it is identical to men's work.

The reverse angle is also true.  Men's work was equally as essential to the foundation of civilization.  Just because men did not "pitch in" and help women do the housework, does not mean their contributions should be ignored.  The menfolk did the primary amount of construction work.  This means they had to fashion equipment to obtain lumber, and they had to invent specialized tools to Two-parent family units were living indoors and were no longer relegated to surviving in mud huts and sleeping on the ground.  Men built the homes, and later on when the civilization became a little more developed, men built places of business, as well as schools.  Men also did much of the farming, driving cattle along the lands and tending to the crops.

Men were tasked with these jobs that required grueling labor, for the plain reason that they have more musculature and physical capability than women.  This is a fact, folks; there is no point in becoming offended over it.  Women did help with a lot of the planting and harvesting of crops.

Men paved the roads, and built infrastructure, and they founded small businesses.  They established early versions of commerce, by trading one man's expertise in metal smithing with another's expertise in hunting.  Bartering for goods and services gradually allowed for a standard of living to be sustained, with some rudimentary comforts of life such as furniture.  Whole new industries sprang up into being, such as the textile industry.  India and China were well-known for their beautiful, diaphanous silks and other fabrics.

Eventually in this environment that assured safety and stability, the people's cognitive abilities increased even further.  They began dabbling in more complex and abstract occupations of time, such as studying the natural sciences.  They produced theories that represented laws of the natural world, including physics and chemistry.  The viewed the sciences, that is, the theoretical study of the natural universe, as a sort of mysticism.

They developed holistic, homeopathic remedies to ailments; a well-known branch is Ayurvedic medicine.   They devised naturopathic herbal medicines.  The works cited do not mention women founding pharmacological treatments.  However, I find it very difficult to believe that women, who have a natural tendency to be nurturing caretakers, and would have to draw from this to take care of children and husbands, did not make any medicinal discoveries.  I am positive that women contributed a great deal to the culture's understanding of health maladies and the approach to healing.  The Asian cultures

They wove these intellectual disciplines together into aa [[[____]]] including philosophy.

The Asian cultures enjoyed artistic pursuits that might not have served any practical life-and-death purpose, other than to daydream and think and create.  Indian and Asian cultures are famous for their classical music including invention of musical instruments; their paintings, sculptures, and woven tapestries; their performing arts.  They decorated with bright, festive colors simply because it looked pretty.  There is the somewhat fanatic, excessive, mystifying pantheon of Hindu gods and goddesses.  Whatever you religious or philosophical leanings, you have to admit this is certainly creative.  Their peculiar religious beliefs drove much of their visual and performing arts.  The Far East Asian cultures had brands of spirituality that were not centered around theism.  However, they still valued meditation and prayer, and they did believe in spirits or energies that circulate human consciousness.  Taoism and Shintoism, for example, were very much steeped in values of nourishing the soul.

Eventually Asian civilizations progressed to the point that they built post-secondary institutions of higher learning.  They began to devote so much time and effort to academic pursuits, that they decided it would behoove them to found institutions specifically for this purpose.  They did original research of a rudimentary sort.  They decided that they would need centers, that is, buildings in physical locations, where they could cultivate this [[drive, curiosity]]] complex thought patterns such as the scientific method.

Let us relate this information with what we know about the psychology and capacity of children.  Recall that children are healthiest, psychologically and physically, if they are allowed to learn and grow within a set of rules.  For example, if a child helps with cooking, the adult parent must supervise at all times.  The rules ensure that children are not harmed as they learn about the world.  The need for protection from harm serves a twofold purpose:  one, obviously it protects the child from harm, and two, the child will be encouraged to continue to learn and grow.  If a child feels secure and safe enough, they will then be free to think and dream and create.  They might start drawing or painting, or writing poems, or playing dress-up.

Now back to the social rules of ancient civilizations that men and women followed.  Where did these "rules" originate?  What was regarded as the "authority?"  Answer:  instinct.  Both men and women are the children in this analogy.  This is because both halves of the human species followed these rules.  Women were healers, nurturers, and child-rearers.  Men were providers and protectors.  This instinct eventually came to be known as "tradition."

It needs to be emphasized that this is not the fake evpysch that pseudoscience-purveyors tried to foist on the unsuspecting public in the past.  These were not caveman days wherein males were promiscuous deadbeat abandoners or wmn were helpless single mothers that can't study math.

This is evpysch that truly pertains to growth of the human species and psychological peace of mind.  This is *social* evolution that genuinely denotes progress and does not kowtow to base biological urges.  This is where these traditions and inclinations originate.  THis theory draws from evolutionary psychology (the kind that revolves around improvement ansd is applicable to modern Homo sapiens), history, IQ and intelligence, and what we know about innovation and technology.

The reason those roles worked for the betterment of society is that the people performing those jobs were good at them.  Women had natural skills for healing and nurturing and, yes, nagging (which is very closely linked to medicine), owing to the fact that they have very complex physiology.  It was crucial for them to be well-versed in chemistry and nutrition and to be adept at fussing over people so that they could take care of their families and themselves.  Men excelled in their roles as business entrepreneurs, builders, and setting the groundwork for____  They had to take advantage of their natural gifts for developing the skilled labor trades, owing to the need to and providing for and protecting their families.

The citizens in those ancient civilizations probably did not know "why" they followed these societal roles.  They did not necessarily know the practical reasoning nor the abstract philosophy.  All they knew is that this worked to keep society in fairly good order, safe, and healthy.  This is why those cultures [[[____]]]]]]]]

This, too, has positive effects on society, for it fosters creativity.  This lays the groundwork for philosophy, for deep thought.

Let us look at an analogy that is closer to home.  Back when America was in its infancy, it actually flourished.  The economy grew, new trades and industries came into being.  This is because, like an infant's life, there were rigid structural rules placed on its behavior and conduct.  Businesses sprang up, medicine, scientific discovery, so much technological innovation.  The culture thrived.  If you read their scientific research literature, you will see that they were surprisingly non-ignorant.  They knew a lot more about microscopic as well as molecular biological processes than you would think.  Recall what I wrote earlier about women being natural doctors.  They were in fact the first doctors of medicine to be licensed in the United States.

The fields of science and technology underwent rapid [[improvements, changes,]]] evolutions of their own.  The 1800s were not primitive.  The people invented telephones, steam engines, electricity, photographic cameras, typewriters.  There was social pressure to conduct oneself with dignity and decorum at all times.  And people abided by this societal code because they thought this was the right thing to do.  People adhered to social mores because it was considered polite and civilized.  They knew instinctively that this was good for them and for their neighbors.

That was the norm from the nation's inception in the 1600s all the way up until about the mid-1950s.  Then the liberals with their woefully misguided social changes forced in an era of rebellion against any type of perceived authority.  Jack Kerouac, beatnik poetry, then the hippies in the 1960s, distaste towards working for a living, etc.  This leads us into the next phase.

2)  Rebellious adolescence:

Thus far this theory may be called Asian-centric.  When I write "may be called," this means "it is allowed" or "one has permission to," and not a euphemism for "it might be called."  This theory seems Asian-centric because it is.

During a long expanse of time, not a whole lot of noteworthy [[[things]]] came out of India or China.  Many modern-day scientists and historians have been scratching their heads over this puzzling phenomenon, including myself.  Both civilizations have the intellectual capacity to again flourish as centers of innovation, medicine, business, and trade.  Remember, IQ encompasses intelligence, empathy, morals, self-restraint, compassion, and the ability to organize.  This had been true throughout their ancient histories.  So what on earth happened?

Sometime in the slightly-less-ancient histories of Asia, somebody or possibly a group of somebodies must have decided that the traditional roles offered to men and women were stifling and undesirable.  They cast the so-totally-uncool rules of being family-oriented, goal-oriented, moral, and decent out into the river.  The women decided they wanted to stop being nurturing, much less taking care of their families.  Then men decided they wanted to stop being strong, much less protecting or providing for their families.  People began to break free from the social rules that evolutionary psychology had set forth for them.  They thought that they could simply discard the values and morals that were the fabric of society and held it intact for so long.  They thought they might be happier if they eschewed any semblance of order.  This has been the [[[main occurrence ]]] over the past several hundred years.  This was not a smart move.

That began the embarrassing timeframe during which social diseases popped up like weeds.  People threw themselves into many, many regrettable behaviors with gusto.  When I first learned about the sort of things that went down during a long stretch of time, I didn't even know how to react.

Sure, a lot of the Asian countries nowadays are third-world, violent, with trash strewn everywhere, and are the pickpocket capitals of the world...  But that's all that is happening, right?  Surely they did not have social problems culminating in ill-advised and downright abusive personal choices, like drug/alcohol addictions right and left, a nasty history of prostitution, or forced prostitution, i.e., ra--, pedophilia, venereal diseases, abortions, freebasing street drugs, sexual assault, murder and then dumping bodies in the river, gang activity, violent crime, women having no choice but to abort their growing fetuses, or unwanted carried-to-term babies being abandoned?  Right??

Unfortunately, it turns out they did.  Decadence always disintegrates into disrepair.  Just ask Babylon, the Roman Empire, and America on a miniature timescale in the 1930s.  And, just ask Asian countries.  The preposterously bad decisions had an annihilating impact on society.  This soon dissolved into a general, overwhelming, cross-continent dirge of malaise and apathy.  The absolute disintegration of people having any respect for themselves led to people losing respect for each other.  People lost personal morals and boundaries about basic things such as hygiene and a sense of privacy.  Forget family values.  What's the problem with shooting up heroin or catching syphilis when there's not a whole lot to live for?

These once-majestic cultures that invented mathematics and medicine in their ancient past, now don't even have running water reaching all corners of the map.  They do not have clean running water that one can safely drink straight out of the tap.  Nor do they have reliable, round-the-clock electricity with sufficient voltage.  Their regal history is now no more than an ancient long-forgotten legend, relegated to the arcane archives, merely a mythical, faded, spectre fae otherworld realm.

This abject disregard against structure and order, against the stable nuclear family unit, forced those civilizations to slip into the dregs, producing very few honorable___

If you could not tell, I am very proud of my Bengali-Asian ancestry.  I am proud of the nerdy Asian stereotype, I am proud of our culture and traditions, I am proud that my own immediate and extended family consider education to be one of the utmost priorities in life.  During my lifetime, I have known all stable Asian families wherein there were absolutely no drug addictions or vices.

When I found out that all the above mess lurked in the dark past of my ancestral homeland, I was disgusted.  "B-b-but we are Asian," I thought, "we are supposed to be smart, we are supposed to be wise, we have family values, we are supposed to be good people."

The Indian civilization fell into disrepair so dramatically that they stammered and rolled over dead when a completely foreign people from thousands of miles away happened to come along.  Those foreigners managed to topple over and rule the once-great land, within a mere few generations.

Why were the British even able to colonize Indian subcontinent <<at all>>??  This is the same land that had established some of the oldest universities on the planet.  This is the same land that bore philosophical [[[tribute, like a tribute to a person, for he's a jolly good fellow__]]]]]]]]

And yet for the longest time,  they could not organize themselves enough to cast off the silly palefaces that had delusions of grandeur.  Why did it take India nearly four hundred years to produce a leader who had the intelligence and the wherewithal to lead the nation back into independence?  Why were the people not able to band together for so long, as if they had forgotten the legendary empire they once were?

No European conquistadors even made it as far as China or the Far East.  And yet, still China hovered in the doldrums for hundreds of years.  The Chinese did not make many major contributions to human progress during recent history despite being a culture that is thousands of years old.  And despite the fact that said culture flourished way back in the day, very few major discoveries came out of China during more recent times.  Other than some pretty paper lanterns and the Dowager Empress, China was not known for making a whole lot of helpful technological breakthroughs during that time.  China was veritably left out of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s.

Out of the Indian subcontinent, the most newsworthy attributes have been extreme poverty and violence.  Good god man, it was cringe-inducing when earlier this year I saw internet photos of dumped carcasses decaying and decomposing in the Ganges River.  Mercifully, at least those were pictures of murdered adults.  China has not fared much better with its horrible human rights violations.  The two biggest things to emerge out of China during this time period were communism and abortions.  India murdering baby girls; China murdering baby girls only earlier.  Other Asian countries including Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, and Myanmar were sort of floating on rafts.  India and China, now in Anno Domini 2013, are still currently reeling from their rebellious adolescent eras.

So many scientific and historian pundits have demanded why the Chinese did not invent vaccines, transistor radios, or steam engines.  My only response before now was...  Ahm... I don't know.  I truly had no idea.  That is a really good question.  So I was left scratching my head, because I too was stymied.  [[[[mystified.]]]]]]]]

Let us look at where the civilization of America stands in this developmental [[progress___]]]]]].  It is important to note that currently America is not in its infancy, even though chronologically the established political nation-state of the United States is a very young country.  On the timeline of societal development, America is in the early stages of adolescence.  Obvious is the rebellious attitude, the refusal to listen to reason, evidence, or experience.  There is the pervasive notion that people want to do what they want to do, logic and consequences be damned.

Teenagers often experiment with rebellion against common decency, and with disregard for authority or wisdom.  They sometimes engage in behavior that is downright dangerous and self-destructive.  Just like a teenager, precisely *because* it is in its adolescence, America doesn't seem to realize that it is not learning from history.  It thinks it is learning and that that is why it is rebelling.  But then it turns out that that is not what's happening.  America is in fact repeating exactly what has happened, exactly what has come to pass before.  It thinks it is doing things differently, when in fact it is not.  The European nations are currently in a similar situation.

An individual human life is on a minuscule miniature ratio timescale.  Let me reiterate:  America is in its rebellious "teenage" era.  You will notice that an astounding number of individual persons in this society seem stuck in a perpetual adolescence.  This is despite the fact that age-wise they are legal, literal, old-enough adults.  This is true whether they are black or white, and even a very teeny tiny fraction of Asians have gotten thrown into the mix.  In terms of developmental milestones, they have not matured to the stage of realization where they are responsible for their own actions, nor have they progressed to awareness that actions have consequences.  They refuse to believe that they need to learn how to take care of themselves rather than assuming the government nanny state or other people's money has any obligation to provide for them.

3)  Grown-up:

Just a few short years ago, we began hearing a flurry of news reports about how China is a sleeping giant, and was now a slowly waking dragon.  This was about fifteen years ago.  Now more recently, we know that America is massively in the hole, in debt to China.  China is thus far being a very kind breed of lender, and has not yet called in for America to start repaying its loan amount.  The recent tech boom of India, that of computer programmers et al., is also well-known.]]]

This was all well and good, and this made me tremendously, unprecedentedly happy for those people.  Finally, at long last, my brethren and sistren are wising up and realizing that the abject poverty and hopelessness needs to stop.  But this still did not really make sense when considering that those cultures already had their golden age.  I shook my head in incredulity, for I was thinking, "Wait a minute.  This does not jive at all with my theory of civilizations rising and falling in cycles.  China and India already <had> their chance, they <had> their shot."  (Like "Ian Malcolm" opined about dinosaurs.)

How come they are suddenly, <now> of all things, <now> of all times, lifting themselves out of the doldrums?  After floundering for so long and forgetting the values of hard work, intellectualism, and morals that made their ancient civilizations great, now recently they realized that they need to get their act together.

This honestly makes no sense either.  It is a mystery to me.  It remained a mystery to me...  That is, until I thought about it a bit more profoundly, and reconsidered it in terms of a macro-scale that coincides with a human lifetime.  When framed within the context of what we know about human psychological development, the picture becomes very clear.

The Asian cultures have been in existence the longest of any on this planet.  Chinese civilization has been in existence for thousands of years.  Indian civilization has been in existence for thousands of years.  So it stands to reason that a culture with that extensive a history has already been thru all the epochal cycles.  Those populi have already experienced all the growth cycles that are messy and depressing, but which still happen on the path for a culture (or consciousness) to grow up.

It appears that they have finally seen the error of their ways.  They are now trying to redeem themselves.  They are trying to repair the havoc that was wrought due to generations and generations of spectacular, wanton disregard for tradition, or family values, or education, or medical health.  I am sure that a lot of Asian people have read the ancient history as well as the near-history of their cultures.  Either that or they subconsciously know that at some point in their history, rebellion nearly decimated their respective cultures.  That is precisely why they go to great lengths to distance themselves from that type of behavior.  They are too acutely aware of the severe social problems that have unfortunately reigned for almost half a millennium.  In this day and age, many educated modern families still do arranged marriages.  They often marry young, right out of college, presumably to cut down on the number of unwanted babies.

Look at the modern-day demographics of medical doctors, as well as PhD and Master degree holders as chemists, engineers, college professors in those fields of math and science, clinical lab specialists, biochemists, and physicists employed in this country.  They are disproportionately *overrepresented* by people of any Asian nationalities.  So we know for a fact that at least some of us Asians have the mental acumen necessary to be fluent in highly technical subjects.  They are pretty conservative socially and morally.  Any Asian kids growing up in this society are simultaneously exasperated by -and- secretly ever-grateful that their parents bugged them to study and work hard all their lives.

There are men as well as women who are doctors, engineers, economists.  When I discuss "traditional roles," I do not mean that women should only be pregnant housewives and aspire no greater than that.  Nor do I mean that only men should be allowed to work outside the homes or that they should be burdened with supporting the family alone.  I know many, many Bengali, Indian, Chinese, and Vietnamese women who are scientists -- clinical lab specialists, biochemists, microbiologists, computer programmers, histotechnologists, at least one industrial engineer.  ALL of the ones of the generation before my own are married, and together with their husbands they raised wonderful kids.  Many of the women chose to be stay-at-home moms during their children's formative years.  Essentially all of them are the archetypical fussy, overprotective Asian parents.

That is what I mean when I say "conservative."  These Asian families believe in success and in morals.  They have seamlessly reconciled conservative family values with education and professional development for both women and men.  They are oddly enough socially conservative.  Maybe they already went through that mess, realized that it didn't work, that it does in fact erode society and causes the foundation to collapse and crumble, and then decided to wise the eff up and resume normal society.

That is an excellent start.  At long last, we are back on the right path.  They are slowly now making their paths back to enlightenment.

reclaim its rightful post as a beacon of social evolution and progress.

Part 4:

Here is a surprise Easter egg.  This is a hidden little gift to you.  If anyone still does not entirely believe this theory, here is more proof.  Thus far we have covered the human history in terms of evolutionary psychology.  But what about evolutionary biology?

Before the Homo sapiens species, there were several precursor species that came before us on the evolutionary timeline of the entire span of living creatures on this planet.  Obviously, they cannot be counted allegorically as part of the developing human psyche.  But those are all still with merit.  What about all those branches of the evolutionary tree?  What possible analogy is there to those species-precursors within the human lifespan?  Excellent question.

Answer:  The developing human fetus.

I remember reviewing my introductory Biology notes several years ago.  I noticed that there were several parallels between the historical progression of single-celled organisms, evolving over billions of years into multicellular organisms, then into ever more complex species -And- the maturation process of the human fetus from zygote, to blastula, to ____.  The human fetus gradually passes through progressively more complex stages.

Even a neonate, infant, or very small child has psychological capacity, temperament, and intelligence quotient comparable to Cro-magnon.

Evolution Is So Overrated

I do mean "evolution" only as a talking point is overrated.  You can never have too much of evolution, as in the concept itself.

I read this somewhere on the interwebs:  "Homosexuality is pro-evolution because it allows a community to control for overpopulation."  What?  That's bullshyte.  Being homosexual does not prevent the ability to produce children.  How many people are gay and still fathered or mothered children back in the days before they realized they were gay?  Answer:  a lot of them.

When the subject of state rights for married couples is brought up, a common conservative response is that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.  And the gay response is that infertile couples and elderly couples cannot produce children, so how come they are given state benefits.  I have to concur with that, that is a pretty good comeback.

But if this is true, then how exactly does being gay help with evolution?  Again, how does homosexuality align with evolution?  Answer:  it does not.  No, the most effective natural means of controlling for overpopulation is infertility.  You see both these facts mentioned everywhere, and yet gay right activists don't seem to be able to reconcile these two facts with each other.

Homosexuality is supposedly an answer to overpopulation?  This is a common gay activist answer any time anyone asks if homosexuality aligns with evolution.  But wait, what?  That's not true.  Back in ancient Greece and other long-ago cultures, they had gay people.  The earth was young and abundant, there was no lack of resources.

The point is, stop trying to justify everything in the name of evolution.  Not everything that happens on the planet is in line with evolution.  For god's sake, there are other fields of intellect.  Some examples are hormone and other protein production, art, string theory, economics, thermodynamics, classical music, and computational linguistics.  Stop knee-jerking with the stock response of "evolution."

Evolution as a sociopolitical defense argument is so overrated.

Then you have the other extreme.  There are the dumbasses, the armchair evolutionists that have probably never taken a biology class their whole entire lives, that say that evolution does not necessarily mean better, that evolution does not indicate any direction, that it does not mean improvement of any kind.

Bullshyte.  Of course it does, dummy.  That is the definition of evolution:  advancement, improvement.  Otherwise, why would we say that humans are more evolved than gorillas and other apes?  Why would we say that humans (multi-celled eukaryotes) are more evolved than single-celled eukaryotes?  And that single-celled eukaryotes (complex single-celled organisms such as protists) are more evolved than prokaryotes (bacteria, which are comparatively simple)?  Why would we say that evolutionary advantage gives some species fitness, better chance of survival, over other species?

Why would there be such a concept as an evolutionary advantage in the first place? If evolution were directionless and aimless, then it would just be called "mutations."

Then again, thinking about it a little more, I realize that I should not waste time being offended by their claims that evolution does not exist, or whatever.  In pretty much every sphere of discussion, you always see a few weird fringe, unhinged, screws-loose lunatics that are usually ill-informed.

You see violent crime apologists.  You see gang apologists.  You see rape apologists.  You have people that insist that all street drugs should be legalized.  You have people that insist that marriage is just a relationship that has been co-opted by the government and that they don't need a piece of paper to declare their love.  Or that marriage as an institution should be done away with completely.  You have people that insist that animals, as in non-humans, should be represented in government and in the democratic process.  Yes, I really, honestly have read this, but only on the internets, thank goodness.  So, ah well, just another day on the interwebz.

Getting back to "evolution" and how it is overrated.  Biology means biology -- the physical and natural science that can be observed conclusively and unequivocally.  Gene mutations result in a genotype of an organism different from the genotype that was present in the previous generation.  The genotype will be expressed as the phenotype, which is essentially what the organism looks like, although they do not always match exactly.  Phenotype is the physical growth and appearance of an organism -- protein structure, cell structure, organs, tissues, conditions of all parts (e.g., kidney function, any heart conditions).

Phenotype might not turn out exactly how the genotype had dictated in the current generation.  But with the genotype having changed due to a mutation, the groundwork is there for possible expression of the genotype as phenotype in future generations.  Let me repeat, all of that is evolutionary *biology.*

The people that call themselves evolutionary biologists but are in fact trying to apply biological principles to psychological whimsy, need to stop calling themselves scientists.

It is pure speculation that it is possible to justify abstract, odd, often baffling behaviors by using biological explanations.  There is no biological imperative for personalities, for character flaws, for unwanted behaviors.  Biology does not make anyone consciously *do* anything.  It does not manifest itself as actions taking place through time.

If you want to study biology, then study biology.  Don't study fantasy, legends, and opinions and then try to apply biological principles to them.  Those are fields that are by definition subject to flawed human interpretation.

You are not an evolutionist.  Get over it.

A More Evolved Method of Evolution

It was probably true -- cavemen might have been violent, savage r-ists.  They were brutal pillagers and looters, they regarded women as property objects.  If one bigger, stronger caveman successfully killed a weaker one, he could take that one's food and dwellings, as well as that one's female baby factory.  That is precisely why r-- is *not* considered evolution.  Physical urges do not make anyone more evolved.  And they sure as hell do not indicate fitness over someone who is not prone to as many physical impulses.  It is baffling that there are still people out there, including editorial writers, that are under the impression that r-- is due to evolution.

That's funny, I thought true evolution was determined by the level of humanity that is prevalent in a society.

True evolution is indicated by actions that show compassion, empathy, equality for all humans, and good judgment.  True evolution is the triumph of logic and reasoning, nonviolent conflict resolution, and morality.  This is sort of a continuation of my Cooperative Gene essay.

The following is a list of much more useful and accurate factors for evaluating a society's advancement.  You will notice that all of it is a matter of behavior and conscious choices.

No biological markers to speak of, such as heritable medical diseases, are present in this list.  This is for obvious reasons.  Heritable medical conditions, for example heart disease or diabetes, are determined genetically and have very little to do with the degree of civilization that can be attained by a person or by a society.  To think that medical condition has anything to do with how a person is as a human being is eugenics, which is immoral, unethical, vile, abhorrent.  Attempting to create a master race by sheer accident of biology, civilization is not.  Beginning the list.

*Treatment of women in the society.  I have said this many times before and I will continue to say this many times again.  This should always be considered first and foremost.  The way a society regards women, that is, fifty percent of the population, is the greatest and most precise indicator of the extent of civilization of a society.

Does a nation have laws that recognize violence against women for the crimes that these acts are?  Does the nation enforce these laws?  Are all educational and career opportunities open to women?  What is the public's general sentiment towards women?  What are individuals' personal sentiment towards women?  How do men behave towards women?  How do women conduct themselves?  How do women behave towards other women?

*Literacy rates.  *Or rather, education being prioritized.  Even if a culture does not have a written language, they still must value passing down oral traditions, historical legends.

*Standard of living.  Cleanliness, hygiene.  Do people know about personal hygiene and the fact that attending to this can prevent a number of diseases?

*Treatment of widows and orphans, as well as homeless men.  If widows and orphans are simply thrown to the streets, leaving them to the mercy of abusive violent opportunists that would only exploit and take advantage of them, rather than the society as a whole showing mercy to them, this is proof that the society is not evolved.

*Any and all medical advancements that lead to an improved quality of life -- with the exceptions of those that treat the most complex illnesses.  Medical advancements indicate evolution to a certain degree.  Vaccinations.  Medications, antibiotics, even home-grown herbal remedies can count if they work.  Treatments for simple things like bug bites, cuts and scrapes, mild illnesses.  More importantly, to what extent does a society know about the preventability of a certain illness.?  If they do know, then to what extent are they practicing said preventability?  (To what extent are they actively implementing these preventative strategies?)  Treatment for conditions like heart disease, cholesterol, diabetes are not quite as complex, so these are counted.

I am not including more complex diseases that are not well-understood such as cancer and Alzheimer's.  Because those are not necessarily preventable, and as I said they are much more complicated to contract than simply sitting in stagnant water and catching mosquitoes.  Also, complicated illnesses do not exist in every culture.  Again, this goes back to hygiene and cleanliness, which can prevent a lot of diseases.

*Birth control, which prevents a pregnancy from occurring in the first place.  As opposed to abortion and infanticide.  That's right, I am asserting that abortion is a primitive, savage method of controlling population numbers.  I strongly feel that abortion is violence against women.

*Rate of infant survival, whether death is due to illness, poverty, or infanticide.

*Delaying having children until one is psychologically mature enough to raise children.

*The extent to which a society is guided by logic and reasoning as well as emotional connections, over physical dictates.

*Treatment of minority races within the larger society.

*Limit childbearing to a small number rather than shooting for the absolute maximum number one can churn out.  Place value on quality over quantity.  The reasoning behind this is that smart parents would have only a few children and invest all their time and energy into those few.  They will put in a lot of investment in emotional and educational development, resulting in maximum fitness per child.

By contrast, if an individual has as many offspring as possible with as many different people as possible, then they are doing so as a probability game, in hopes that one of the numerous children will turn out safe and will survive to pass on the parent's genes.  This would result in maximum possible fitness of physical genes as opposed to emotional development and maturity for a given individual child.

This is usually a sign of low degree of evolution.  This is how animals in the wild that are often prey do it, such as rabbits, turtles, and fish.  Hell, even predators such as sharks, eagles, and bears do it.  Kinda like that Cole Porter song, but with a really macabre take on it.

Evolved humans are smart enough to realize it cannot be relegated to mere biological urge.  Parents must actively grow their children in terms of social breeding.

*This does mean the extent that the society encourages sustained, long-term, committed couples raising their children together in a two-parent home. (Preferably married even though that is oh so un-PC nowadays.)

*A culture -- art, music, literature, theater, creativity.  Stuff that is explicitly there to grow a soul and is not based on any physical urges or on basal survival.  And not necessarily based on logic either.  Imagination.  The ability to think, dream, create, be lost in thought, daydream.  Also it needs to be stated the people must be fully aware that this stuff is imagination and is not real.  The extent to which a person is governed by more abstract thought rather than basal instincts.

*A criminal justice system.  Ethical laws against violent crime.  (By "ethical" I do not mean going easy on criminals.  I believe in strict punishments.)  Enforcing the law.  Prosecution of criminals.  Not letting people get away with murder.  People have to be held accountable for their actions, and pay the legal consequences.


*I am only including some technology as an isolated factor for evolution.  Only technology as far as it contributes to quality of life.  As in standard of living, everyday maintenance of good health, medical contributions again, life expectancy.  Also work productivity, efficiency.  The reasoning for this is straightforward:  Technological advances alone do not necessarily indicate a more evolved society.

In a lot of cases technology just creates more efficient ways to deploy primitivity.  War, slavery, child pornography, forced prostitution (i.e., rape), child soldiers -- technology can and has aided all of that.  Ergo, technology in and of itself does not prove evolutionary superiority.  Japanese are arguably the most technologically advanced in the world, yet they still treat women as sex objects, property, and crap like that.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/02/why-women-only-transit-options-have-caught/1171/

Islamic terrorist groups use cell phones to communicate within the group and with other extremist groups.  They have access to computers, internet, and streaming video.  They have access to complex weapons and machinery.  Polygamist compounds with their incest and pedophilia in the United States have members that drive SUVs, use cell phones, and have fully functional electricity.  Raw technology does not automatically equate to being an evolved species.

Now, technology up to a certain point does indicate evolutionary superiority.  You can think of technology as a continual spectrum, starting at using sticks to pick up bugs, and going on until whatever we have somewhere on the planet in the given present day.  But there is an optimal zone.  After a certain cutoff point, no more technology produced will make a society any more evolved.

Medical advancements that increase quality of life are great.  Refrigerators and freezers.  Communication devices are great.  Cars and airplanes are great.  Clocks, plastics, heaters and air conditioners, electricity, increases in food productivity, cleaning solutions.  I'm not being facetious, I really do like all those things.  Plus, I'm hardly what you would call an environmentalist.

But does having a computer for every person in the house mean they are more civilized?  Does having the ability to follow celebrities on twitter mean a society is more civilized?  Does having 1,500 satellite channels on a 72-inch TV mean a person is more civilized?  Does being chained to the internets all the time mean someone is more evolved?  What about frozen premade meals loaded with preservatives?  That is definitely technology.  And of course there are those Japanese people who apparently have too much time on their hands and more money than they know what to do with, who create mechanized dolls that look and act like real people.  Then there's that gigantic indoor ski mountain that has been built in the arid, baking desert of UAE.

Just because a culture embraces raw technological advancement, this is not proof of a civilized society.  There are video games available all over the planet that have no higher purpose than to coddle the ape hindbrain vestigium of particular humans.  These video games are technically categorized as technology, certainly.  They have programmers that make the games, they use ever higher screen resolution and pixelation to get better graphics.  They use the internet to advertise their wares and offer streaming video of screenshots of the games.  But -- look at the driving factor of the so-called humans that developed those video games.  Were they motivated by altruistic reasons of making the world a better place?  No.  They just wanted to feed off the degenerate pathetic nature of the type of people that patronize this crap.  They wanted to make unevolved criminal types feel that their violent urges are perfect okay to indulge, most likely because the video game makers themselves wanted to feed their ape brains.

Now, although you could not tell from that rant, I do like technology.  I'm not going to sit here and say we should get rid of computers.  I'm on my computer all the freaking time, I have a cell phone, I've had all my vaccinations.

Having technology to attain evolution is analogous to having money to attain happiness.  I concretely, fervently believe that a certain amount of money will bring happiness.  Or rather, it will bring peace of mind.  No amount of argument from anyone will change my mind on this.  This is because it is simple logic.  A person is much more likely to be happy if they can afford a safe, clean place to live, healthy food to eat, and clothing for whatever weather is there.  A person who can afford all that is going to be much happier than someone who lives in poverty.  Money is needed for survival, like it or not.  But after a certain point, obtaining stuff for the sake of obtaining stuff will not make anyone happier.

That is analogous to technology being used as a barter to being evolved.  A certain amount of technology, such as medical advancements and standard of living, do indicate the degree of civilization of a society.  But after a certain point, more technology will not make anyone more civilized or happy.

Regarding my list, it is obvious that no society on the planet is quite all the way there yet.  But economists, sociologists, demographers, psychologists the world over, The US Department of Health and Human Services, and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all agree with me that these tenets are the guideposts of a truly civilized, evolved society in which the population is healthy and better off.