38 thoughts on “The politics of speciation”

  1. You say you would never mate with a Republican, yet they have been screwing us over for at least 35 years. Please, return the favor.

  3. I can still mate with a Red if I really, really have to — but only if she was born that way, rather than switched sides as an adult.

      1. (Just trying to think of a “quiverfull-Inglish” synonym for a vasectomy. “I only fire blanks” fits, but not well. How does this sound? “My arrows never leave the cord”
        Was just visiting the parents to celebrate my 23rd V-day. As one does.

          1. The only time I’ve had a shot at toxophily, they didn’t let me at any arrows with a tip on the shaft at all. I can’t remember if I ever hit the target, but since the target was long, tall Sally, it’s probably best.

          2. She makes for a tough target, what with her and Uncle John always ducking back in the alley.

  4. I should also say that apparently Pliny has been to the deep south and seen the evidence against interbreeding. Sorry for that joke…

    1. In-breeding, surely?
      Old and very rude Welsh joke, easily modified to some other areas, I’m sure. “What does Q: Welsh rarebit mean?Ans: A Cardiff girl who can outrun her brothers.”

  5. If I did mate with Republicans and/or Christians or Muslims, they would all become secular liberals. I would not have to do anything except be myself and they would eventually see that there’s more to life than believing dogmatic, unscientific principles.

      1. I don’t even have to mate with them. Most people who spend enough time with me, just turn religion and/or conservatives off.

    1. sympatric via disruptive lek and mate choice

      eg, college/professional school followed by civic/golf/coutry-club courtship
      v. evangelical and gun store.

      Latter micro-species involves frequent male-desertion

    2. Mental image of an ecologist’ paper “The Trump rally, considered as lekking behavior.”
      Does anyone have a link for a Sokal-o-tron robot which can write the paper for me?

    3. They won’t last long as two species. Combined they are barely a winning coalition. Apart they are doomed. Not sure how Rs could build a new coalition without the Trumpkin part of their base.

  7. When thinking about demographic splits, these election maps are interesting to consider. Note that the north/south split started to emerge in 1824, well before the formation of the OP and the civil war. I suspect that if the GOP went away and we went to a different two-party axis (or even a three- or four- party system), that band of states across the southeast would still often vote differently than the band of states across the northeast.

    1. It is actually quite interesting in U.S. history that many of the founders argued the republic form of government would not work in a region as large as this and that was only 13 colonies. It had never been successful before except in city states and smaller sizes. Many argued that the separate regions would never be able to get along well enough to share such a government. Could be they will be found correct on that. It almost was found once already and history does repeat. I don’t see any Lincolns hanging around.

      1. Right. Adams and Hamilton were Federalists who did not trust the average voter. They believed in rule by aristocracy as in Britain and had monarchist leanings. Washington, I think, was sympathetic to Federalists but sat on the fence. Jefferson was Republican as in democracy would work as long as people were well educated. Jefferson was very popular and steered the nation toward a common man’s government. Madison, also a republican, was elected after Jefferson had set the tone. The result after several decades was a pragmatic compromise in which the White House held considerable central power, but the plethora of democratic checks remained in place. It could have worked out rather differently.

        1. Correct but I was thinking back before the Constitutional convention. Madison was doing a lot of research and setting up the Virginia Plan and when he studied the outcome for the system of republic government there was nothing to overcome the argument that a large region could not work. It was too diverse. So he tried to turn it around and say, actually, although not tried on such a scale, it would actually make it work better. Wishful Thinking. Madison changed his mind about lots of things.

          1. “Madison changed his mind about lots of things.”

            That’s often a sign of intelligence. Jefferson also modified his views as he gained experience in politics.

          2. Well yes. I suppose so. Jefferson is the guy given credit for the 180 that Madison seemed to do over a period of 8 years or so. But whole books have been written on that.

      2. We’re facing a very similar debate in Britain. While I doubt “civil” war is credible, secession are.

    2. You mentioned the political “magic word” of “axis”, so I’ll throw a search term for you to consider ‘political compass’.
      [Allows time for the website to be read. ]
      While their analysis may well be open to specific challenges, their general point that “any simple axis of differentiation is not effective at distinguishing either politicians, or people’s politics” is, I think, valid.
      I’ve mentioned their site on a number of occasions, and am just considering how to manage the process of seeing how their tool would plot the readers of this website.

      1. Yeah I’ve seen it. But I wasn’t using ‘axis’ here to refer to individual voter preference; I was using it to refer to the fact the two party system appears so stable that even when voter preferences dramatically change, we quickly end up back at two parties after a few years of ferment. The content of their platforms may change, but the number of major, stable parties does not. At least, not any more.

        1. Hmmmm, I wonder if it’s a reflection of the “one, two, many” way of counting, or the common propensity to express almost any argument in terms of the horns of a dilemma.
          Whether reasonable humans (I hear the sound of tin-opener and worm-can coming together) are capable of rationally thinking about quadrilemmas and tripod arguments is another open question. Not only “can we do that”, but also “would it improve things if we made the effort?”

  9. In cases of legitimate cross-political mating, the female body has ways to shut the whole thing down.

  10. “I would never mate with a Republican!”

    See this is where the Trump’s ‘anything-that-moves’ strategy would confer on him a distinct reproductive advantage…

    cr

    2. [SELF:trying to remember some insect reproductive biology that caused lots of “Yeucch! ” a couple of years ago.] There was a parasite (of hoomins?) noted for the male’s lack of selectivity in jabbing it’s penis into any part of a female it contacted, the considerable immunological challenge this represented to the females, and moderate surprise that there was successful impregnation in many cases. Very Trump-esque.
      And for the SF fan with a dry eye, there is always the hilarious “Man of Steel; Woman of Kleenex” and it’s non-Hollywood imagery.

  11. Not mating with a republican? When I was young and good looking I even mated with Muslims. Sex always creeps where it is not supposed to go.
    Nevertheless, very clever and funny Pliny. 😂😂😂.

Comments are closed.