Part 2: Analysis, what works, what fails, and why. The important part.

Constructive selfishness is the only inherently stable position to hold, as an individual or a group of people, regardless of size. To understand why, I'll explain why altruism fails, why it destroys communities and people who practice it, and go from there.

What happens when you're altruistic? First those you help are thankful, then they get used to it, then they demand it, and if you take away the help they get angry, and can often force it back upon you (becoming a soft slave). This is exactly why democracy is so dangerous, because people can and do vote to take from others (the altruists) and give to themselves (the destructively selfish). As a side note, this is also inherently dysgenic, which will collapse the society over time without other inputs or forces. Depending on the situation and help provided, this process can happen quickly or over a long period of time. It also occurs over the large scale in communities, regardless of size. When a community/society/country enacts altruism, and the people lose the bonds that brought them together, or masses of differing people immigrate into it, reducing social cohesion and trust, a group of people crop up that take advantage of the altruism but provide none in return, becoming hypocrites. As the leeches grow and strain the system, and as the altruists see that they're being taken advantage of, or see they can take advantage of the system too, the number of leeches grows and the number of altruists shrinks. This is a positive feedback loop which leads to the destruction of the community, when there aren't enough altruists left to maintain the system.

The bigger a community gets (in terms of population and geographical size), the more difficult it becomes to maintain community wide altruism. It requires society to not change at all (no catastrophes, wars, technological advancement, change in traditions, etc.), everyone to remain roughly the same amount of altruistic, to have nearly impenetrable borders, to be almost completely homogeneous, and have strong in group preference. Any substantial disruption of the norm creates differing levels of altruism, which has a habit of growing, leading to the positive feedback loop of inevitable destruction that altruism causes. The bigger a country/society gets, the more heterogeneous the people get, the more difficult it is to protect the border, the more disparity there is among the population, etc., and thus it becomes almost impossible to maintain altruism. Even if a homogeneous group of people established a geographically large country, over time differences would form and escalate, creating disparate groups, which would naturally splinter and secede from each other, forming their own communities/countries. A similar process happens in a homogeneous country that opens its borders and enables mass immigration of differing people (which is stupid, but it's happening in most Western countries so I'll continue with the example), because it would lead to parallel societies of differing groups coexisting in the same spaces that will inevitably and naturally splinter, which has a high likelihood of leading to violence because they will compete for land and resources, until one side is deported, enslaved, or genocided, or an amicable reformation of borders emerges (balkanization).

People naturally form tribes/communities with similar like minded people. It promotes survival and success. Your fellow tribesmen look like you, think like you, speak like you, believe mostly the same things, live in the same place, know mostly the same things, and act like you. This provides numerous benefits: you're more likely to sympathize with each other, more likely to help each other, you have more common ground, the friendship and bonds you form are stronger, the marriages are more successful, there are more children per couple, the children are more likely to survive, everyone is more likely to survive and thrive, it's easier to communicate, it's easier to organize and assign/volunteer for roles and responsibilities, you're more likely to protect each other, you're more likely to defend the tribe, the tribe is more resistant and resilient to outside pressures and conflict, there are fewer disagreements, there's less strife, it's easier to predict what each other will do, the individuals are stronger and better able to improve themselves, average wealth increases, what is produced is of better quality, crime is reduced, and you're more likely to trust each other. All of this is weakened, degraded and worsened in a tribe of differing people, making survival and success more difficult and less likely. Homogeneous tribes/communities/societies/countries will almost universally be better, more stable, and more successful than heterogeneous ones, in every conceivable metric.

However, why does altruism fail on the individual level? Well, what does an altruist do? They offer their time and resources to others, without recompense. Loss of time and resources hurts the altruist, putting them into an inferior position, less likely to improve or survive. Giving that time and resources to others helps them, putting them into a better position, more likely to initially improve and survive. It suggests that the altruist is unworthy, and those they give to are, that they are unequal, which is a lie. However, there are counter forces at play. Struggle breeds self improvement, and since the altruist is exerting more energy and work they improve themselves over time. Lack of struggle hurts and weakens those the altruist helps, preventing them from overcoming obstacles and hardships on their own, often making them lazy. Depending on the dynamics and forces at play, altruism can destroy both the altruist and those they help. The altruist is in an inferior position, suggesting that they are less deserving, unworthy, unequal, inferior to those they help, and if it continues this view will compound over time, and if forced back into the altruistic position they abandoned, it creates a permanent servant/slave/under class. As an example, this is happening through taxation and welfare in the U.S. The altruists are the producers and tax payers. The takers/leeches/destructively selfish are the takers and welfare recipients. Notice how there are fewer and fewer producers and taxpayers, and more and more leeches over time?

This should explain why constructive selfishness is the most stable form, individually and communally. It posits that everyone is equal and worthy of time and resources, and everyone benefits from every exchange, either immediately or inevitably, so the exchanges continue. It also enables both sides to improve themselves, and receive help when they need it. At a certain point, a healthy society based on constructive selfishness is almost identical to a healthy society based on altruism.

Why do communities built upon destructive selfishness, evil, and self destructive evil not work? Kant's categorical imperative says that you should act such that you wish that action to become universal law, meaning everyone acted that way. When this is applied to community wide, you can determine what would happen if everyone acted a certain way. Would it get better or worse? What would happen if everyone lied, or stole, or raped, or murdered? Society would collapse almost over night. It becomes apparent that the destructively selfish, the evil, and the self destructively evil are hypocrites and idiots. They expect others to treat them better than they treat them in return. These kinds of people can only exist as leeches upon a relatively healthy community of altruists or constructively selfish, because a community of people just like them destroys itself. However, a community based on constructive selfishness also inhibits such leeches, because they can't game the system. They theoretically can only gain through interaction where the other side gains as well. However, reality can be different, but it is still an opposing force to the leeches.

There's another necessary question to answer: why do communities/tribes form in the first place? As you can probably glean from the benefits of homogeneous communities, it has to do with survival and common goals. In a SHTF scenario, or collapse of society, or a natural disaster, or long ago when we were closer to nature and survival wasn't guaranteed, we were forced to form tribes of similar like minded people to increase our chances of survival. This strong need creates strong bonds. Any group of close knit people, when tested in hot fires, will become closer (i.e. soldiers that see deadly combat together). The hotter the fires, the greater the need, the stronger the bonds. Not only does struggle bring similar like minded people together, it molds them to become even more alike over time, to increase the benefits a homogeneous community provides. Contrarily, the less strife and hardship that is experienced, the less people need each other, and the weaker the bonds are. This is why most societies collapse if they become too successful, because through wealth, relative peace, protection, technological advancement, etc. people need each other less, the bonds are weakened, and society degrades to the point of balkanization or total collapse. It seems to be a naturally repeating process with few ways to slow or stop it. Communities also form around other mutual goals and hobbies. Again, the stronger the commonality and need, the stronger the community that forms around it. Needing other people's help is the impetus for why every community forms. People care about one another in a strong community. People only care about themselves in a weak community.

Interestingly, in a strong close knit community altruism will naturally occur. As bonds are formed you're more likely to help people, even if they don't equally return the favor, if at all. However, an interesting dynamic is formed and highlighted. As a strong community arises and bonds are formed, the needs of the tribe begin to take precedence over the needs of the individual, depending on the situation. This occurs naturally, because sometimes the people of the tribe will have to sacrifice of themselves to keep the tribe healthy, to in turn keep themselves, or their family, or anyone they care about healthy and safe. In some ways this is constructively selfish, and in other ways it's altruistic or even self destructively altruistic. Sometimes this prioritization of the tribe over the individual can even lead to sacrificing their own life to save the tribe, or members of the tribe (i.e. a soldier throwing themselves on a grenade to save their brothers), but in a healthy community, as far as I can tell, it's a good thing, and on average helps the individuals of the tribe. It presents an interesting idea, that strong healthy communities naturally bring out altruism as a way to preserve the tribe, to in turn keep the individuals of the tribe strong and healthy. It's the age old question of what gets priority, the needs of the many, or the needs of the few, the collective good, or the individual good? Well, it's clearly somewhere in between. The discussion then becomes: where is that line? What circumstances change it? Why?

Anyway, this hopefully explains a great deal of what is happening in the western world, what's going to happen, what we can do to fix it, or prevent it from happening in the future.

Part 2: Analysis, what works, what fails, and why. The important part.

Constructive selfishness is the only inherently stable position to hold, as an individual or a group of people, regardless of size. To understand why, I'll explain why altruism fails, why it destroys communities and people who practice it, and go from there.

What happens when you're altruistic? First those you help are thankful, then they get used to it, then they demand it, and if you take away the help they get angry, and can often force it back upon you (becoming a soft slave). This is exactly why democracy is so dangerous, because people can and do vote to take from others (the altruists) and give to themselves (the destructively selfish). As a side note, this is also inherently dysgenic, which will collapse the society over time without other inputs or forces. Depending on the situation and help provided, this process can happen quickly or over a long period of time. It also occurs over the large scale in communities, regardless of size. When a community/society/country enacts altruism, and the people lose the bonds that brought them together, or masses of differing people immigrate into it, reducing social cohesion and trust, a group of people crop up that take advantage of the altruism but provide none in return, becoming hypocrites. As the leeches grow and strain the system, and as the altruists see that they're being taken advantage of, or see they can take advantage of the system too, the number of leeches grows and the number of altruists shrinks. This is a positive feedback loop which leads to the destruction of the community, when there aren't enough altruists left to maintain the system.

The bigger a community gets (in terms of population and geographical size), the more difficult it becomes to maintain community wide altruism. It requires society to not change at all (no catastrophes, wars, technological advancement, change in traditions, etc.), everyone to remain roughly the same amount of altruistic, to have nearly impenetrable borders, to be almost completely homogeneous, and have strong in group preference. Any substantial disruption of the norm creates differing levels of altruism, which has a habit of growing, leading to the positive feedback loop of inevitable destruction that altruism causes. The bigger a country/society gets, the more heterogeneous the people get, the more difficult it is to protect the border, the more disparity there is among the population, etc., and thus it becomes almost impossible to maintain altruism. Even if a homogeneous group of people established a geographically large country, over time differences would form and escalate, creating disparate groups, which would naturally splinter and secede from each other, forming their own communities/countries. A similar process happens in a homogeneous country that opens its borders and enables mass immigration of differing people (which is stupid, but it's happening in most Western countries so I'll continue with the example), because it would lead to parallel societies of differing groups coexisting in the same spaces that will inevitably and naturally splinter, which has a high likelihood of leading to violence because they will compete for land and resources, until one side is deported, enslaved, or genocided, or an amicable reformation of borders emerges (balkanization).

People naturally form tribes/communities with similar like minded people. It promotes survival and success. Your fellow tribesmen look like you, think like you, speak like you, believe mostly the same things, live in the same place, know mostly the same things, and act like you. This provides numerous benefits: you're more likely to sympathize with each other, more likely to help each other, you have more common ground, the friendship and bonds you form are stronger, the marriages are more successful, there are more children per couple, the children are more likely to survive, everyone is more likely to survive and thrive, it's easier to communicate, it's easier to organize and assign/volunteer for roles and responsibilities, you're more likely to protect each other, you're more likely to defend the tribe, the tribe is more resistant and resilient to outside pressures and conflict, there are fewer disagreements, there's less strife, it's easier to predict what each other will do, the individuals are stronger and better able to improve themselves, average wealth increases, what is produced is of better quality, crime is reduced, and you're more likely to trust each other. All of this is weakened, degraded and worsened in a tribe of differing people, making survival and success more difficult and less likely. Homogeneous tribes/communities/societies/countries will almost universally be better, more stable, and more successful than heterogeneous ones, in every conceivable metric.

However, why does altruism fail on the individual level? Well, what does an altruist do? They offer their time and resources to others, without recompense. Loss of time and resources hurts the altruist, putting them into an inferior position, less likely to improve or survive. Giving that time and resources to others helps them, putting them into a better position, more likely to initially improve and survive. It suggests that the altruist is unworthy, and those they give to are, that they are unequal, which is a lie. However, there are counter forces at play. Struggle breeds self improvement, and since the altruist is exerting more energy and work they improve themselves over time. Lack of struggle hurts and weakens those the altruist helps, preventing them from overcoming obstacles and hardships on their own, often making them lazy. Depending on the dynamics and forces at play, altruism can destroy both the altruist and those they help. The altruist is in an inferior position, suggesting that they are less deserving, unworthy, unequal, inferior to those they help, and if it continues this view will compound over time, and if forced back into the altruistic position they abandoned, it creates a permanent servant/slave/under class. As an example, this is happening through taxation and welfare in the U.S. The altruists are the producers and tax payers. The takers/leeches/destructively selfish are the takers and welfare recipients. Notice how there are fewer and fewer producers and taxpayers, and more and more leeches over time?

This should explain why constructive selfishness is the most stable form, individually and communally. It posits that everyone is equal and worthy of time and resources, and everyone benefits from every exchange, either immediately or inevitably, so the exchanges continue. It also enables both sides to improve themselves, and receive help when they need it. At a certain point, a healthy society based on constructive selfishness is almost identical to a healthy society based on altruism.

Why do communities built upon destructive selfishness, evil, and self destructive evil not work? Kant's categorical imperative says that you should act such that you wish that action to become universal law, meaning everyone acted that way. When this is applied to community wide, you can determine what would happen if everyone acted a certain way. Would it get better or worse? What would happen if everyone lied, or stole, or raped, or murdered? Society would collapse almost over night. It becomes apparent that the destructively selfish, the evil, and the self destructively evil are hypocrites and idiots. They expect others to treat them better than they treat them in return. These kinds of people can only exist as leeches upon a relatively healthy community of altruists or constructively selfish, because a community of people just like them destroys itself. However, a community based on constructive selfishness also inhibits such leeches, because they can't game the system. They theoretically can only gain through interaction where the other side gains as well. However, reality can be different, but it is still an opposing force to the leeches.

There's another necessary question to answer: why do communities/tribes form in the first place? As you can probably glean from the benefits of homogeneous communities, it has to do with survival and common goals. In a SHTF scenario, or collapse of society, or a natural disaster, or long ago when we were closer to nature and survival wasn't guaranteed, we were forced to form tribes of similar like minded people to increase our chances of survival. This strong need creates strong bonds. Any group of close knit people, when tested in hot fires, will become closer (i.e. soldiers that see deadly combat together). The hotter the fires, the greater the need, the stronger the bonds. Not only does struggle bring similar like minded people together, it molds them to become even more alike over time, to increase the benefits a homogeneous community provides. Contrarily, the less strife that is experienced, the less people need each other, and the weaker the bonds are. This is why most societies collapse if they become too successful, because through wealth, relative peace, protection, technological advancement, etc. people need each other less, the bonds are weakened, and society degrades to the point of balkanization or total collapse. It seems to be a naturally repeating process with few ways to slow or stop it. Communities also form around other mutual goals and hobbies. Again, the stronger the commonality and need, the stronger the community that forms around it. Needing other people's help is the impetus for why every community forms.

Interestingly, in a strong close knit community altruism will naturally occur. As bonds are formed you're more likely to help people, even if they don't equally return the favor, if at all. However, an interesting dynamic is formed and highlighted. As a strong community arises and bonds are formed, the needs of the tribe begin to take precedence over the needs of the individual, depending on the situation. This occurs naturally, because sometimes the people of the tribe will have to sacrifice of themselves to keep the tribe healthy, to in turn keep themselves, or their family, or anyone they care about healthy and safe. In some ways this is constructively selfish, and in other ways it's altruistic or even self destructively altruistic. Sometimes this prioritization of the tribe over the individual can even lead to sacrificing their own life to save the tribe, or members of the tribe (i.e. a soldier throwing themselves on a grenade to save their brothers), but in a healthy community, as far as I can tell, it's a good thing, and on average helps the individuals of the tribe. It presents an interesting idea, that strong healthy communities naturally bring out altruism as a way to preserve the tribe, to in turn keep the individuals of the tribe strong and healthy. It's the age old question of what gets priority, the needs of the many, or the needs of the few, the collective good, or the individual good? Well, it's clearly somewhere in between. The discussion then becomes: where is that line? What circumstances change it? Why?

Anyway, this hopefully explains a great deal of what is happening in the western world, what's going to happen, what we can do to fix it, or prevent it from happening in the future.