I don't really get the transition, not from a biological perspective but from a political perspective. It just seems like there's a better way, the old way, the natural way. Back when matriliny was the norm.
See, we are evolutionary creatures. What is evolution but the triage of the slowly mutating and the fast mutating. The DNA is stable, the RNA is volatile. The X chromosome is stable the Y chromosome is volatile. The self reproducing specie is the core, the Y branch is a strategy of adapting to changing environment quickly, cheaply, expendably, so that the core can choose based on its exquisite taste.
This was the equilibrium until the external shock of the bronze payoff function. Before bronze, bones and stone cannot actuate war. There were brawls and ritual sacrifices. During the stone age, Helen and Paris would have been sacrificed to end the blood feud. After bronze, the Trojan Horse became the all or nothing gambit. The capacity for total annihilation changed the payoff across the board. Every bronze faring civilization played or got played. Non bronze faring civilizations could only get played. The only exception was the Harrapan, who dissipated into the jungle to wait it out. They tried to explain it to Siddhartha... lose if you lose, lose if you win, only way out is not play... when the payoff changes (nuclear MAD era) see who wins... who has more children, more vitality, more life. As poor as their descendants look, they won or at minimum didn't lose that bet, in spite of millenia of enslavement.
Bronze is what made patriarchy make sense. The natural order became unsustainable because bronze made it unsustainable. The greatest patriarch in history understood this and thought he was above it, because he was above all the bronze-payoff civilization. Ghengis Khan gave his daughters the empire and his sons the periphery where they would fight or die. The local princes married INTO his daughters, in his name, his heritage, his X. But the page of his will detailing this plan was ripped out. His sons and their wives quickly murdered his daughters. He was too ahead of his time because in the bronze and steel world, his daughters couldn't survive.
But what's the alternative? The Rothschilds marrying their cousins? How did that work out? The easier way would have been: let the daughter inherit, let her invite in the best Ys in the world, strengthen the gene pool, and pass the contribution of those Y down to her daughter. In Chinese, this is called the Zhui Xu, the male-bride.
I'm not talking about girls are best or boys are best. I'm not talking about righting historical wrongs or some metaphysical sense of morality. I'm saying: two portfolio dynasties, 1) male inheritance, Y proliferation, diversification through X versus 2) female inheritance X continuity, diversification through Y... which portfolio wins after 10 generations in terms of Sharpe ratio and total return?
You don't need arms and armor anymore. Your intelligence is enough. The only thing you need to do is ask him: will you seed a child for me even if we don't get along forever? The only thing you need to ask your parents is: let me be the steward of your legacy, I have the intelligence, confidence, and strength to do it.
And if you want citation, read Laozi. "The cow wins through stillness. She lowers herself and becomes the receptive. The cow wins through competition. He lowers himself to be chosen. The only thing the cow wants is to enable and grow life. The only thing the bull wants is to participate and become part of life."
It's been almost a hundred years since the bronze payoff function flipped. It's time to see the 2000+ year old habits don't make much sense anymore. You felt it, but you didn't see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment