Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Study: Criminals More Reproductively Successful in the Modern Welfare State

Sad but true (ht: Chateau Heartiste):
From an evolutionary viewpoint, criminal behavior may persist despite adverse consequences by providing offenders with fitness benefits as part of a successful alternative mating strategy. Specifically, criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships. We linked data from nationwide total population registers in Sweden to test if criminality is associated with reproductive success. Further, we used several different measures related to monogamy to determine the relation between criminal behavior and alternative mating tactics. Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy. [emphasis mine]
Reading this, I see more evidence in support of Glubb's cyclical Fate of Empires hypothesis: when a society becomes too successful, they forget the habits that got them there, and adopt new behaviors that reverse the civilizational arc. It's not malicious or even intentional; rather, it is natural for a people to want to enjoy the fruits of their labors once they've "arrived".  In doing so, however, they come to take for granted their successes and foresake dynamism for cautiousness, thrift for extravagance, hard work for dissipation, personal responsibility for public obligation. Liberalism it seems is the hemlock that apex societies drink when they no longer want to live; the welfare state a symptom of a people who no longer desire to care for themselves but be cared for.

Specific to this case, the social welfare state weakens the forces that steer the energies of men and women in socially productive directions.  From all, monies are seized to meet the wants of mothers in need, who, in turn, receive greater sums the greater their need. This redistribution redirects the focused paternal investment of socially upstanding husbands in their own families and children toward women who are not their wives and children who are not their offspring--a kind of societal cuckoldry, or a kind of compulsory polyandry, depending on your perspective--while simultaneously  insulating women from the adverse consequences of otherwise unwise reproductive and marital choices.  For their part, these dependable yet boring men are increasingly rejected by women in favor of more exciting men whose antisocial behavior inter alia means they are less disposed to invest in their children and society as a whole.

In short, government distortion of the SMP and MMPs through welfare and socialism means that dependable and upright behavior of delta providers is maladaptive.

I've written before that while marriage may domesticate men, it civilizes women. Married women tend to make choices that are socially constructive, unmarried women left to their own devices--and especially when those devices are subsidized by government--do not.  Same with married and unamrried men. This data appears to confirm my claim, and further suggests that anything that detracts from the patriarchal family model is an uncivilizing influence, is thus a net negative for an advanced civilized society, and takes us closer to, not further away from, the mud-brick savannah.

But take heart, deltas: While Roissy may very well be correct in that the ppbbbbbbth! sound we are hearing is the air escaping the nice guy / tradcon balloons worldwide, the very fact that we are presently living in a welfare state means that it's not going to last forever.


Retrenched said...

Science confirms the obvious once again.

Elusive Wapiti said...

It's for the gender deniers.

Eric said...

The only Roissy and his fellow-Gamecocks overlook though, is that this new 'revelation' of his also deflates his own cock-and-bull theories about how feminized women still crave 'the manly Alpha leader.'

Bad-boys are Omega losers, not Alpha males. An Alpha male is someone who's respected by other men; not by the number of bimbos he can lay.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Quite true. Only men can bestow manhood, and only men assign fellow men's ranking in the hierarchy.

While a criminal may be male, and certainly dangerous, he is not necessarily a "man".

It is a very middle school-type metric to measure someone's manhood by how many women spread their legs for him. Bill Clinton's priapic charm may have enticed Monica Lewinsky's hormones-raging-like-a-fire-alarm blue dress to fall off, but didn't increase his status with (most) other men; quite the opposite.

Of couse, gamecock theory (great term btw) would likely retort that such thinking is "classic beta".

ray said...

Seconded EW. Tangential -- I know you link this site prominently, but I'd like to drop this here anyway, and encourage other sites and posters to help out.