(First Published at The Spearhead)

I have a problem with Evolutionary Psychology.  Specifically, I have a problem with how some members of the Game community interpret Evolutionary Psychology.  Evo-Psyche is used to define what it is to be a Man.

Evolutionary Psychology is a scape-goat science being used to market a product.

Once upon a time, men turned to God for explanations.  God lives in the gaps.  Then Man discovered the Scientific Method.  In the search for Truth, Man applied logic and reason to natural phenomenon and gradually the need for God dwindled.

“God works in mysterious ways,” became Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Science began filling in the gaps in Man’s understanding of the world.  As methods improved, scientific credibility grew.  Then the scientific community developed a tragic flaw: hubris.

As recently as last year, scientists were suggesting that men were a dying breed.  Fifteen minutes ago, scientists announced that they were wrong.  Eggs are good, eggs are bad.  You too can lose weight eating nothing but bacon.

Science had long abused its credibility to push biased, misinformed, and under-investigated theories.  People listened because they wanted to believe what they were being told.  All they needed were the relevant statistics so they could plead authority.

Then Climategate broke and the wheels came off.

Evolutionary Psychology is not an exact science.  It is controversial, meaning debatable, and therefore far from perfect.  Before you quote Dawkins at me, understand what I’m saying.  I am not arguing that Evo-Psyche has no merit, nor am I arguing that it is not an advancing field.

What I am arguing is that Evolutionary Psychology is not grounds for making broad, deterministic statements about the nature of human beings.

When I read statements like “humans evolved to . . . ” or “nature intended”, the thinking part of my brain short-circuits.  Humans did not evolve to do anything.  Nature has no plan.  The idea that survival and replication are Nature’s/Evolution’s goal is quaint foolishness.

This may only be a trick of the language.  These kinds of statements may only be poor wording that conveys an unintended meaning.  Then again, they may be an extension of Argumentum ad Naturam.  Humans evolved that way, natural selection allows only the best, therefore people should behave according X,Y,Z.

Evolution is a process of happy accidents.

Humans did not evolve with opposable thumbs so that we could survive better.  We evolved with them because having them didn’t get us killed.  The fact that our thumbs are useful is only a bonus.

Evolution happens by kludging.  For every million or so harmful mutations, one comes along that happens to be benign, perhaps even useful.  There is no purpose behind it, humans “read” purpose onto Evolution.  We invest it with our own meaning.

Science is supposed to be about observable facts.

“Humans have forward looking eyes, a trait common to predatory animals,” is a valid scientific observation.

“Humans have forward looking eyes because they evolved to be predators,” is not.

Using Evolutionary Psychology to define Manhood makes it easy to reduce men to polyamorous breed machines.  Extrapolating how men are “supposed to be” from a series of lower level physical properties, however factual, is nothing more than reductive determinism.

Meanwhile, a generation of men emasculated by feminism and the Sexual Revolution mope around, dick-hurt about their clumsy love-lives and willing to blame anyone but themselves.  They turn to Game because the people marketing it wave a magic wand and say, “Science!”

Does Game work?  Sure it does . . . but I suspect that its success has more to do with the confidence a systematic approach instills in men than with the credibility of its scientific underpinnings.

Before you dust off your pitchfork and burn a cross on my lawn, think aboutwhy men want Game to be a Scientific Fact.  Men want sex.  Game promises them that.  If Game truly is the magic bullet, then anyone can land the girl(s) of their dreams and all they need is a little practice . . .

While you indulge this thought, which sounds like the male equivalent of a Cosmo cover article, consider how other scientifically proven products have benefited you.

Has your magic powder increased your natural testosterone 1500%?  Did that magic pill increase the size of your penis?

Did Xenedrine and Hydroxycut make you ripped?

If so, I’ve got some magic beans you’re gonna love . . .

“Everyone leaves everyone else alone.”

That being said, there are certain issues that we feel very strongly about.  Not the least of these is Overpopulation. If ever the Government were going to stick its nose into our business, this is the place to do it.  Which brings me to some news from England.

“Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.” – The Times Online

(You might notice that this “Friday” post is written about an article from the following Sunday.  I’m playing catch-up, fuck off.)

The fight over Global Warming is not one I like to engage in for a variety of reasons.  First, Global Warming is real.  The planet has been heating up for about 18,000 years, after the last Ice Age passed the peak of its glaciation.

As for Man’s impact on Global Warming, I find it highly suspect that it reaches an appreciable level.  However, that is a debate for a later date – so if you’re getting ready to write me an e-mail laden with Statistics, hold off for a few days.

As long as gasoline is affordable, I couldn’t give less of a fuck about the planet.  I’d fill up on 110 leaded ethyl and burn down a brand new set of drag radials before I’d lift a finger to help the environment.

The real axe I’m grinding is this issue of baby farming.  After reading about Nadya Suleman, the human birth factory who shat out 8 kids last week (adding to the 6 she had already collected), a debate about population control was inevitable.

Here is a woman who was born infertile.  Through the miracle of modern science her embryos were fertilized and implanted in her womb.  According to Angela Suleman, her daughter Nadya has long been obsessed with bearing children.  Her husband left before Nadya went through with the treatments that lead to the octuplets, leaving Suleman single and responsible for 14 children, all under the age of 10 – one of whom is autistic.

What is it that makes some women think that they are genetically entitled to have children?  I broached this subject when I went off about marriage in general, but Nadya Suleman illustrates my point at its extreme.  This is a meaty issue, so I’m going to break it down into two parts.

School Taxes.  From what I understand, Suleman is a home-owner, which means she pays school taxes.  Somehow I doubt that her taxes are calculated to compensate for having the roster of an entire Little League team.  This means that the bulk of her “school tax expense” will be covered by other property owners, regardless of whether or not they have kids.

When it comes to education, I believe in a Use Tax.  That is, if you have kids you pay per-each.  People with children often argue with me on this point, stating that even single people should shoulder the burden of school taxes “so that they can live in a society of educated people”.

If that’s the case, then I want a say in the education standards.  They should include firearms training and a Combat Competence coarse.  Kids should leave high-school knowing the difference between deontology and teleology.  When I’m through revamping the system, 12 year olds will know so much about evolutionary microbiology and “kludging” that anyone who believes in Intelligent Design will be laughed off the playground.

“Birth – Right“.  How Nadya Suleman expects to pay for 14 kids is beyond me.  According to some calculations from the US Department of Agriculture, the cost for raising a child to the age of 18 is about $200,000.  I’ve heard estimates as high as $300,000, depending on location.

Suleman’s future earnings are speculative at best, excepting child support and probably alimony for the children she had with her ex-husband.  She’ll likely make the talk-show circuit, and perhaps she’ll get a book ghost-written for her to tell her story.  In any case, she’s still looking at a total bill of around $2.8 Million – minus help from her ex-husband for his share of the herd and whatever he’s already provided for those children so far.  Calculate in Interest in this recessionary economy and the number only goes up.

Just because you have the ability to do something does not mean you have the “Right”.  I suppose you could argue that she does in the sense of a sort of pre-Social Contract Hobbesian “Right of Nature” – where people have a “Right to All Things”.  I’m fine with that.  I would prefer that, in fact, because that would mean I’m entitled to inspect her little babies, Spartan-style, and pitch them over a cliff if I find them lacking.

What do you suppose the over-under is on me finding her 1 lb incubator babies lacking?  Don’t even get me started on the austistic kid . . .

If she can’t afford to support them, she can’t have them.  Period.  End of argument.

This brings me full circle, back to John Porritt.  Porritt argued that if the debate about the environment and global resources is to be fully responsible, it must include the issue of overpopulation.  I agree with this.

As societies grow larger and stronger the number of non-hackers increases.  The Sioux and the Seneca weren’t towing along many feeble children.  The kids they had were running the forests killing things with weapons as soon as they were old enough to pick one up.  Children now aren’t weened off the tit until they finish college.  Some of them have Graduate Degrees and can’t even fix a flat tire or balance their checkbook.

I call this the Thinning of the Blood.  It means that the relative strength of our civilization has allowed for Entropy.  Entropy is the amount of energy in a system not available for work.  Gearheads know it as parasitic power loss.  What it means is that the stronger a society grows the more weakness it begins to tolerate.  Eventually, something has to give.

How about offering tax incentives to Single People, or couples who don’t want to breed?  What’s the math on the strain that they take off the system by not exercising their right to “Be Fruitful and Multiply?”  If we don’t start turning the ship now, the public debate will shift from “abortion and contraception” to Manditory Sterilization.  Barring that, Nature will do it for us when Influenza mutates into an untreatable strain and culls the herd.

If you don’t want a future where you will have to apply for a Government permit to exercise a right that you’re “born with”, then start doing something Right Now about people like Nadya Suleman, who are over-using it.