The Biological Reason Socialism Always Fails — Nicholas Wade

Till exempel hur man skapar arbetsplatser där människor mår bra. Och så får du mer än bara inredning. Du får 50 års erfarenhet. Välkommen till AGIprodukkt!

Taking human nature seriously, Mike. behaviors written into our genome by evolution because of our survival values, our instinct is is entirely warlike. Genocide written into our genes.

So it can sometimes feel like a chore, but the moment we opened your book, we were like, Whoa, give me more of this'cause it was so fascinating. You talk it's called the The Origin of Politics and it's about evolution and how uh evolutionary history shapes the way we do everything actually, in a way that we've totally forgotten in our society.

Uh so we're gonna talk about all of that. Uh but before we do, tell us a little bit about you. What's your story? How how what's been your journey through life?

The biological reasons wh for why communism were And you give a fascinating example of voluntary communism, which was the kibbutz system in Israel. Talk to us about that.

Felly mae'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r pethau'r So the the kibbutzes arranged that their children would live apart from their families in in uh in in sort dormitories. They were allowed to s see their families just at the end of the day for a a a brief period, but otherwise they were raised commonly.

uh and the idea was that you would that the woman would be released from the patriarchy of the father. So these guys came from sort of patriarchal Jewish families that they really wanted to get rid of entirely. So women didn't depend on their husbands for anything and they could have whatever jobs they chose. uh those were the f the features of that was that was one big thing that the the ki kibbutzum did and the other was um to abolish um pay.

So everyone got the the same pay whether they um worked hard or or slacked off. And and the reason was to make sure that uh uh g you had a condition of total equality. No one was richer or better than any anyone else, no one could boss anyone else around. Um so On paper it was i ideal. Women weren't dependent on men. No one no one was superior to anyone else.

Uh and it's a great tribute to the uh idealism of the founders that the system did last, uh at least while they were alive. But when a second generation grew up who weren't imbued with the founder's ideology, they started to reject all these things. The women wanted to have their children with them during the day. Uh the families were reconstituted.

the Kabosum had to go through a massive rebuilding program to to build apartments instead of these commonal living arrangements. And they also had to drop the the equal pay system because when they were founded, uh Israel was quite a poor economy and it didn't really matter uh what wages were outside the kibbutzin, they weren't much better. But as Israel grew more pros prosperous When people started leaving the um kibbutzum for much better paying jobs.

So so pay differentials were reinstituted and the kibbutzum which been in a very bad way then started to get get more prosperous. So the the the interest of the whole experiment was that this was a pure test of socialism. Defenders of socialists often say, well, it's never really been tried, meaning

that the communist governments that operated it were so corrupt and inefficient that wasn't a fair test. But the kibbutzim were a fair test. They were it was voluntary entered into and it was voluntarily rejected when people saw it simply didn't work.

So unless you competed like hell, you had no chance of of having a family and uh leaving any descendants. So your Darwinian fitness was zero. Men have and we are the descendants of the men who survive this system by being highly competitive um with each other for women, uh then th they had to turn around and be very cooperative with the other men in their society f for for the society's defence. So

uh and uh yet to cooperate for reasons of of defense. And this to answer your question, I think this comes back to why uh an equal pay system uh goes so against the grain of huh of human nature. People don't want to

That means people who shirk their responsibilities and don't work very hard. That was one of the main problems with the kibbutz system. And actually problem w probably one of the main issues with the Soviet Union as well, wasn't it?

They weren't too much affected in a general way by Skyvers because they uh they recognized the danger and they screened people very carefully before they were let into the kibbutz.

even if she hasn't specialized us to the extent it has done, say, with ant societies, because we haven't been around as long as they have, but it it has taken every chance to specialise men and and women. So women are specialized for for raising for bearing and raising uh children, uh and for sort of relationships within the f in the family and the neighborhood. And men are specialized uh, for essentially for defence, for fighting, and for organizing the largest scale institutions of society.

The news doesn't just tell you what's happening. It often tells you what to think is happening. And these days, the biggest red flag isn't what's said, it's what gets. That's why I use Ground News. It's the only app that compares how the same story is covered across the political.

Spectrum and show you what whole audiences are not being told. The Blind Sport feed is one of my favorite features. Every day it flags upwards of 20 stories that are being ignored either by the left or the right. Follow along at ground.news.com. Trigonometry. Like this. A new study from UC San Diego found that climate change cost almost twice as much as we thought because earlier estimates left out that.

That's a pretty big update, and yet no coverage, literally zero, came from right-leaning outlets. All this, a recent Gallup poll found trust in the media has hit a record low, with just 28% of Americans saying they trust newspapers, radio, and TV. to report the news accurately and fairly. That's a staggering result, but if you only read left leaning news, you likely never saw it at all. Go to ground.newslash trigonometry to get forty percent off their unlimited advantage.

the same one we use and stop being managed by the media.

uh the feminization of society has caused the woke explosion that we've seen for the last ten years. And we we had a back and forth, you know, I don't know that I agree with everything that she puts forward, but it's a it's a perspective that made me think about

how some of the recent cultural trends are to do with the fact that w men and women evolved and were optimized for different roles. And as the ratios of of these two groups change in different institutions it is quite likely and natural that those institutions will see things differently and operate in different ways.

is that women have been liberated from the from the home. Uh and in fact they're now sort of better educated than men. More of them go to universities so they can uh they they can they have no problem getting jobs and they are no longer dependent on men and and most seriously of the most serious s side effect of that is they no longer bear as many children, so uh our societies are in fact headed for extinction unless

women somehow are persuaded to go back to bearing uh more children. But another aspect of this is the running of institutions. So m uh I think I'm right in saying all institutions historically have been set up and designed by men. So are women going to do as good a job as they sort of demand to take over evil uh institutions or sort of be represented fifty percent on corporate war?

And you know, I think the jury is still out on that, but I don't think really it's a very promising experiment. If you look, for example, at the way American higher education has been taken over by women presidents. And they are not all of them terrible, but Claudine Gay, for example, who Harvard chose to be their president. Has a very small bibliography as a scholar, and much of it is written with plagiary. She's not a good poster child.

for women running institutions. So You know I shouldn't generalize. from that. It doesn't mean that women cannot run institutions. There are, you know, many fine women, business leaders and and politicians. It's just I suspect, you know, when the dust settles down and and we're sort of mature enough as a society to let everyone be appointed on merit. I suspect we will find that there will be more more men running institutions than women. It won't be a fifty fifty ratio.

collectively speaking at the population level, the big institutions, women didn't evolve to to operate things like that. And so they're just not going to be as good? Or is it a question of they'll just bring a different value set? And the institutions will produce a different set of outcomes. It's not about better or worse. It's about it imposing their their kind of default value set on the world. Do you see what I'm getting at?

to sort of long range relationships, to relationships outside the family. And and and I think it will turn out that they are generally better at managing them than than women are. But th there is there's no hard date on that. We're in the middle of this sort of grand experiment and we're going to find out.

There clearly is a genetic basis for what they do. All chimp societies have the same organization. All chimps will behave in much the same way, and female chimps behave in a very different way from male chimps uh and the the and chimp societies have a very specific structure. All of which

with the males, um they're basically they're sort of trials of strength. Um but uh outright hostilities are are avoided by sort of uh uh substitute effects like you you sort of uh there's lots of vocalizations um Uh there are lots of sort of fascinating chimp behaviors, but basically when one male chimp meets another. the degree of dominance has to be established. So the inferior chimp will sort of cut out or make a sort of particular

pant hooting noise, also present his rear um to show he's sort of vulnerable to the male. And and so the the hier the hierarchy however horrible it sounds to our our ears, is good in the sense that it creates a stable society. There aren't permanent fights because everyone knows who is boss. So once you get to the top of the hierarchy, Um then something very important happens. As alpha male, you you get to score most of the mating. Um now you can't do this y yourself. You need a a coalition.

Um, so this this is the beginning of politics. That the alpha male distributes mating opportunities to the guys in his coalition. And and human s societies are are just the same because the autocrat in certain in an early human society will sort of distribute land and wealth to his followers, which of course are the means to attract females. So it's not sort of direct sexual award, it's an indirect sexual award, but but toward the same end.

And there are lots of ways in which you can successfully modulate human nature, it seems to me. I mean it's like it's like remodeling a house. You can you can change a lot of things around as long as you don't touch the load-bearing walls. So you need to know what the load-bearing walls are.

And they're very interesting examples in our history, I think, of where we have successfully modulated our innate instincts. So one good example is is uh monogamy. So most early societies were polygamous. The the top guy got the most Um girls uh But we we changed that to monogamy, I think essentially because it's a very unstable situation to have a lot of young men who have no prospect of getting a wife. They become very disaffected. So what do you do with them? The traditional

Our policy is to send them off to fight the neighbor and have them die in battle. But y if you start wars, it doesn't always turn out the way you hope. So it's much more stable in fact to distribute women equally, which is what monogamy does for you. So so So Europe became monogamous essentially under the influence of the church. And then you in quite recent uh times monogamous spread. presumably by example to India and China. So now almost all the world

To one or two millennia ago now, all human societies were tribal. And and tribalism is a very successful way and effective way of running a society because it sort of keeps law and order without any police force or courts or laws. um and and it's very good at defense and it's it's uh has many superb advantages such that it's very hard to get rid of.

So there's a wonderful book by um Francis Fukuyama, the political scientist, in which he describes how the major civilizations of the world in different ways got rid of their tribal structure and and instituted um uh a a s a s a single ruler with a sort of state bureaucracy. Um in Europe it was done by the church. So so the the early Europeans were all tribal, um and uh i in in those days it was often quite hard to produce a male heir because people died very young.

So you very much needed to keep the wealth inside the tribe. So there are various stratagems for like adoption or um marrying your cousin um for keeping wealth inside the tribe. So the church came along and said, No, all that's all that is incestuous and absolutely forbidden. Uh and so when people were on their deathbeds the church would say, Well You should leave all money all your money to the poor, meaning the church.

And and the church became fantastically wealthy. It at one stage it owned like half of Germany and a third of of France. But the the net result of of this policy was that the tribes lost all their money and and just disappeared.

They write product descriptions and headlines for you and even help you edit your product photos. Marketing is built in too. You can create email and social campaigns that reach customers wherever they scroll.

And that's so interesting because we're talking about tribes now and how the power of the tribe was essentially taken away. But you look at America today. I mean it it feels like we're more tribal than ever, not only in America, but all right the way through the Western world.

Politics has now become very, very tribal in the way that I just don't feel it was

It was like, Well, look, I I'm a Democrat, he's a Republican, but we sort of are gonna be able to get on. Now it's become tribal in the sense of like this is warfare almost is what it feels like.

Uh our kinship is the glue of tribes. A nation state has has various um surrogates like people usually well they have a usually have a common language, a common religion, a a common ethnicity, a common sort of founding narrative of how their nation came to be. And and these things are very effective because nations are are so effective. Their problem often is not that they're too weak, but they're too strong. So they will m make war against their uh neighbors. Um I d I definitely think the the

that nations are the best way we we have yet evolved of organizing ourselves. And it seems to me a great shame that the the the sinews of nationhood are often ignored or rejected or repudiated, um, particularly by the left. Uh so this is a particular serious problem, I would think, for the US.

Because you know, many many countries are sort of natural nations and they have a and if you look at the little Scandinavian democracies, they all speak the same language, they have the same religion, they have c contiguous borders. So the the US used to be like that when he was primarily settled by by uh English Protestants very early on, because it uh because of its wonderfully flexible constitution, it was then able to embrace lots of other nations, uh mostly Christian nations. Europeans, um

And uh while retaining its cohesiveness. But if you look at it now, many of the sinews of nationhood are fading. I mean Americans used to be very religious. They're not not so religious now. They're following Europe in that. um pattern. Um the the the ethnicity uh r i uh is is quite mixed and and changing. Um it's sort of stable at the moment. We never know how long that's going to

last for. Um there used to be a common language, um, but now they're sort of sort of Spanish speaking enclaves that you resist. Um Adopting English um, You have to ask well what is it that holds Americans together? Uh It seems to be, you know, money right now. It seems to be prosperity. Prosperity holds everyone together. No need to sort of rock the boat if everyone is reasonably prosperous, as at least in relative terms they are. But if that should fade for any reason

um what what would happen? I I I don't know. I don't s I don't see the the the natural bonds of a nation state being so cohesive that one needn't worry about them, I think I think we should start to worry about them.

of people who've come from different parts of the world, different cultures, who've come here and bought into the American dream, which as you say is kind of prospero. I mean, that American dream is we all get to come here and be prosperous. Effectively, right? If you boil it down to its base. Um whereas in Europe.

And I said this as someone who myself immigrated to Europe from outside. Uh you had a society which was very monocultural, very cohesive in terms of all the things that you talk about, language, ethnicity, et cetera, that now Doesn't even have any structure to explain what a nation-state is because it used to be based on common heritage.

and common culture and common religion. So now you have lots and lots of people come from other parts of the world who do not buy into that, but they also don't have any story that they tell that they are being told or their children are being told at school, uh don't stand for the national anthem, they don't salute the flag, whatever it is that Americans are taught to do. And that seems to me like an e b even bigger challenge, I would argue.

a a community that doesn't buy into the current ethos. Um so and religion is extremely important in sort of shaping uh a nation and and and interpersonal relations. Uh and these large uh Muslim enclaves I I think uh are are not well integrated, not are not well happy. They're they're too large uh for the uh the country to handle easily. I think the thing thing about immigration is it needs to be done on a sort of

more more on a trickle basis than a sort of great big flow because otherwise you can't you don't give people time to adjust. Um uh immigrants become um sort of threatening if people think they're taking their jobs or all the usual sort of anti immigrant um feelings that are sort of always latent will get stirred up the larger the immigrant population is.

One doesn't want a situation in which any one ethnicity claims to be superior to others. But it's also the case that if you have one ethnicity, able to govern, then that ethnicity can make things safe for everyone else, and you don't have vicious inter intercommunal warfare as you do, for example, in m multi ethnic states like Afghanistan or Lebanon. So states work best when

all people are alike, all people are equal or should be equal, uh, and what we want is a a global society with no national borders, uh, and everyone loving each other. That's fine, but Our our nation won't let us operate a a society like that. Uh w we need to live in sort of smaller definable systems such as a a nation. we we we we're not ready for a one global society because there's no way of organizing it that is sort of written into our genome.

So we are basically genocidal. Um, but here uh uh this is another example, I think, where culture has suc successfully sort of curbed and restrained our influence and it does so on quite a wide um level and if you think of the sort of Westphalian peace that um you ended the religious wars in Europe. uh a and there were sort of schemes that have have succeeded it. You know, the the Pax the the the Congress of Vienna, you know, again re established peace after Napoleon's

wars. You had the Pax Britannica that sort of kept uh European countries uh uh from from war. And after the Second World since the Second World War we've essentially had the Pax Americana. Uh so America doesn't really like playing this role, but uh it really helps to have uh To have someone who who polices a sort of world order in which states accept they do not

fight each other or invade each other's um countries. So this this is a is a great example of a sort of cultural curb on natural human instincts, and again is vastly for the best

You intend to stop, but you've got nothing to replace the habit with. If that sounds familiar, pay attention. The thing that changed things for me was having something to reach for in those moments. I've noticed that when the urge shows up, using fume interrupts the loop instead of letting it spiral. That's a difference. Trying to stop a habit, you're redirecting it. The flavours are intentionally lighter than vaping. Think flavored water compared to soda. Crisp min is the

Strongest option and suits heavier users. Raspberry is tangy and slightly sweet. Don't just try to quit. Upgrade the habit loop. Fume has already helped over 700,000 people take steps towards better habits. Use code Trig to get a free gift with your journey pack. Head to trifume.com and use code TRIG. That site again is T-R-Y-F-U-M dot com and use code TRIG to claim your free gift today.

But it also strikes me that we've become arrogant about human nature because It really does appear that we've kind of m been lulled into this false sense of suspicion that Well, the last couple of years have certainly disproved this, but you know, th there's you know, we we found a way to transcend war. There's going to be no war if we trade with each other. You know, we're we're more enlightened now. We we have diplomacy. And you go, Yeah, but deep down we're just

you know, primates. You know, we're ch we' we're glorified chimpanzees. All right, we've got if we can express ourselves a little bit more articulately, and you know, we're not gonna start flinging excrement at each other, but we're not that far away, are we?

Um, I don't think anyone really knows why. But and w there could be a genetic explanation which is simply that people who are very violent are s ostracized. People don't want them around. And maybe th people who are very violent have less children than people who are Peacefully inclined. looking outside societies, we we have f fewer far fewer wars um than we used to have, or rather we have far fewer men as a proportion of the population killed in wars. I mean in

uh in primitive societies, y people used to go to war every day. I mean, there weren't they didn't have mass casualties, but if you if you lost one guy a week, then you know, pretty soon Men over the course of their lives have sort of I it was like a thirty percent chance of dying in in battle in in hunter-gatherer society. So our chances of dying in battle, thankfully, are very small.

We're not maybe not as tribal as we used to be. So we can work on the human being whilst also accepting that there's going to be some fundam fundamental aspects of our biology that can never be changed.

Uh and it's true looking after children is a great chore. I'm whatever joy they may be, it requires a lot of effort to bring them up and many women are deciding not not to do it. Fine. that road does lead to extinction and it's very hard to reverse. And you might think it's easy to you make more babies if there more babies were needed, but in fact many governments have

had strong pronatalist policies. The Soviet Union for most of its existence had strong pronatalist policies of banned abortion and uh and and contraceptivists and and nothing that any government has found has reversed this trend, with one exception, which is the um the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. Um that had um uh an arch has an archbishop, he's called um Ilya II, and um he announced that.

For any um couple married in the Orthodox Church who had a s a th and had two children, had a third child. He personally would baptize it and be its godfather. Like he said this in 2005. And the next year the birth rate took off like a rocket. Everyone started having children. known example of a government policy that has reversed the the declining birth rate.

Look, once you invent the abortion pill and washing machines and all this other stuff, women are free and they go into the workplace, which is might be great, but then they don't have kids and your books just falling over. Then this is inevitable product.

There are the people who say it's actually the education of women that cause it. Like, uh all of these things are going on and that's maybe why it's so hard to turn around. But is it your thesis of fundamentally Sounds like a weird question to us, but I think it's worth asking if it's true.

reasons in any society, they this is what they decide. And I don't know how no one knows how you make them change their minds on this.

men and women. And so there will be you know, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, maybe, on the one hand. On the other hand, I worry about it's you know, uh there was this myth of like runaway climate change for a long time. It's it's like runaway uh infertility or lack of fertility because if you're not constantly surrounded by

young children, you get further and further distanced from that experience. And then you j you only imma you you just look on Instagram and you see a yet another parent complaining about how hard it is. And what you don't know is, well actually being a parent's great, but also very, very hard. So yeah, you go on Instagram to complain about it, but you've got all these moments and and days and weeks of joy that stays in the background.

So I just wonder how all of this is ultimately gonna get resolved. But uh I guess we we'll find out.

they feel like they've missed out on something important. And I think as as we move forward in society and people increasingly lack meaning and purpose in their lives, that might be actually the reason that people do think about this differently over time.

To have children and to have them live in into adulthood and to reproduce. And the way we think about everything ultimately boils down to that original source. Isn't that right?

But if it if this were recognized as a as an important function of government, then we might be able to turn it around.

Yeah w we always are o extra interested in people who who seem sensible but have been embroiled in some sort of controversy or been cancelled or whatever,'cause that was an area that really I found very interesting but also confusing for a long time. And you had that with the previous.

Sheath.com. It's underwear built around a dual pouch system. What that means in plain English, everything stays where it should be. No sticking, no chafing, no shifting around mid sentence while trying to maintain an air of gravitas. The fabric breathes, the design separates. There is apparently a technical term for what this creates, and that term is Zen like separation, which sounds ridiculous and is also completely accurate. It was developed by a veteran on his second tour.

Which means it was designed under conditions where comfort was not a luxury. Over ten thousand five-star reviews from people who are not messing about. And I'll be honest, the difference to my day-to-day comfort is bigger than I'm comfortable telling you about on a politics podcast. If you know, you know. Go to Sheath.com. That's S-H-E-A-T-H dot com.

Use code Trigonometry at checkout for 20% off. First pair comes with a full money-back guarantee, so there's no reason not to try them. Sheath.com. Once you sheath, you won't go back. Sheath.com

in in in very great detail, which was then becoming possible. Like for example, we know that I mean both Chinese and and Europeans have pale skin, but they do so for entirely different genetic reasons. There's one set of genes that produces pale skin in Europeans and a and a mostly different set that produces pale skin in Chinese.

Uh you know, if you look at all these genes, often you can sort of tell their history when they when they sort of develop, so you can sort of put a date on when when we acquired pale skin and blue eyes. Um j just from the point of view of natural history, um which was really all my book was concerned about. I didn't I had no interest in the politics of race and didn't touch it.

Um and all this was um you know my job at the time was to uh cover the human genome. So this was one of the fur this is one of the first results that came flowing out of the human genome, how you know the different Um sort of uh the the different variations on the genome that have uh occurred throughout um history. So so that's

when I started writing it up, also because I found that academics were petrified of discussing these fascinating results. There's a great taboo in talking about race. Well, here we were generating all this uh information, you shouldn't someone report to the public what it says. So that was the only thing. motivation of my book.

science book saying this is what we know. However, it's remained unique in the field because no one has since dared write about it. There's a complete taboo on saying anything about race. And and the reason it it annoyed people was that it went to the heart of the uh left's position. which is that there is no biological basis to race, or indeed to sex. Both race and sex are are cultural concepts, not biological in the view of the left.

So this is a profoundly evolutionary, utterly nutty position. But my book was a direct challenge to it because it said, Well, here is the biological basis of race and you know down to the the nearest nucleotide, this is why. Chinese are different from Europeans.

Then it's very advantageous to you to shut down any evidence to the contrary. But do you think there's also quite a reasonable concern based on history that quite on the number of occasions in in the last hundred and fifty years, but probably prior to that as well, people have come along and said, Well, the science says that this group of people is superior to that group of people, therefore here's a bunch of discriminatory policies that

uh often lead to very, very negative and unpleasant outcomes. And then we later learn actually that wasn't scientifically accurate at all. We have a new theory that explains certain things that people were claiming at the time.

The thing the thing is you can't you can't prevent people going around making claims like this. But should that mean you don't discuss these things at all? I think you can get into difficulties if you don't uh i i i if you don't d d uh d uh d d discuss uh racial differences that may be relevant in some aspects of social policy.

Are the ones who are more easily educable. Now, this lack of educability can come from a lot of causes, many of them environmental. You have parents who don't make the kids do the homework, who neglect the kids. uh uh who li kids live in poverty and so on and so forth. And there can be a genetic element. It doesn't really matter. You've still got two groups say, that require different treatment if you are going to make the the best uh use of your educational uh uh facilities.

uh a government reasonably can to to lift up its black population and give them an equal chance and equal opportunities. It hasn't done so perfectly, but at least you can point to all the efforts it has made. I'm starting with the civil war to end slavery. So it doesn't necessarily mean that people are going to make the worst, the most divisive possible use of this information.

over time the majority of new wealth will be created in one small area of one small city, effectively. Um That has got to be a recipe, A for disaster, but B then also, you know, I I was sort of saying to one of these guys, only half joking, like, you know, yeah, I wrote a whole book about how communism is evil, but like we might need it if this carries on.

uh than if you uh had very low status. So this I think is the reason why uh i inequality is so sort of jarring to us. It shouldn't there's no l there isn't really a good logical reason Uh, in a country that has a decent welfare system, why we should be bothered about inequality. It's it's our inherent yearning for status and feeling that.

But we're we're diminishing our chances of survival if we don't have it. Another aspect of of inequality, I think, uh Uh which should have a chapter on the on in the book is that Uh it's much harder to get rid of the other.

than you might think for purely genetic reasons, and that is that human societies mm I think are much more mobile, have been much more mobile in the past than we imagine. So even in aristocratic societies You know, the the aristocrats would was uh you know half of them would die in battle every generation. So their rank how how did they replace their their fulfill their ranks? Well it was sort of rich commoners.

Could buy a title or or marry a a Duke's daughter. And so there was new blood constantly infusing into the aristocracy. So there's a fascinating series of papers by an economist uh called Gregory Clark in which he measures um mobility in English societies over the centuries, and it's very slow. The people at the top do gradually descend in the social scale, presumably because they are sort of m merit whatever merit got to them to the top is sort of diluted genetically.

But the the societies are pretty much stable. And uh he he his basis for this is he he follows people who attended Oxford and Cambridge, which are the only places you get educated then. And he looks at people with very rare surnames.

sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n Um, so so you look at the sort of shuffled doors in the thirteenth century, attending Oxford, and lo and behold, at the seventeenth century the shuffle doors are still there. Um so this is a a family that has sort of kept itself at the at the at the tarp.

So if that is the case, if our societies are in fact stratified by some kind of genetic merit to a much greater extent than we recognise, then it's going to be very hard to sort of shuffle them up short of war or revolution.