4 Comments
User's avatar
Neural Foundry's avatar

Such a thoughtful take on evoconservatism and the limits of evolutionary arguments in political design. I particualrly appreciate your point that cognitive plasticity is itself uncertain, and using nature as a substitute for ideology can become just another form of dogmatism. The luxury good framing of inclusive morality is brilliantly insightful. Having wrestled with these questions in policy contexts myself, the balance you strike between realism and humility about what we actualy know feels exactly right.

Destiny S. Harris's avatar

Every time I read your comments, Neural, I feel like I'm back in one of my master's discussion assignments 🤣🤣

Destiny S. Harris's avatar

thank you for this piece, cyril

John Quiggin's avatar

To make the most obvious objection, nationalism is a political ideology that only arose, in its modern sense, in the 19th century and has been under continuous challenge since then. The claim that it is rooted in evolution doesn't stand up to even momentary scrutiny. If we start from the assumption that people have evolved to favour their immediate kin, and take nationalism (commly based on shared language as some kind of extension of this, there's no reason the extension can't go to some other group based on class or religion.