Of course, that’s nonsense on stilts. It’s mostly just assuming a certain ethical framework and then calling everyone outside it “irrational.” In this case, because honor is outside the assumed moral framework it is contrasted with “rationality.”

Now I’ve gone and used up my whole yearly allotment of scare quotes…

So we end up in a coevolutionary arms race in which everybody becomes increasingly tough. The end result is a spiral of violence in which all parties run a high risk of extermination.

That’s an epic leap of faith right there. As per Scipio, evidence is for chumps.

“Man incompetent at rationality condemns rationality. Full story at 11.”

See also: evolution != rational. Err, what?

See also: honour, which we can work as necessary through game theory, is irrational. Err, what?

Question: in Turchin’s mind, is rationality the incompetent mess he thinks it is, or is he portraying it as incompetent so he can condemn the self-identified rationalists for tribal warfare purposes?

Except where do we see this actually occur? In reality, when the rustlers become sufficiently violent and competent, the herdsmen form a militia to defend their livestock. At the end of the day, it’s they who usually have the long term advantage by virtue of the ability to organize more easily. I also wonder about the more basic predator-prey dynamics of the situation that will tend to keep it from going to catastrophe.