MALACANANG'S 14 PROOFS THAT NAPOLES ISN'T GETTING THE SPECIAL TREATMENT:

MALACANANG'S 14 PROOFS THAT NAPOLES ISN'T GETTING THE SPECIAL TREATMENT:
1. Her surrender was arranged by none less than Presidential Spokesperson Sec. Edwin Lacierda himself;
2. Napoles surrendered to Pnoy himself;
3. Napoles surrendered in the hallowed halls of Malacanang itself;
4. Napoles was initially considered a possible state witness by DILG Secretary himself, Mar Roxas;
5. Napoles wasn't handcuffed when she was brought into Camp Crame;
6. Napoles was brought by Pnoy himself to Camp Crame;
7. Napoles was brought to an office and not a detention cell in Camp Crame;
8. Reports say that as early as Wednesday last week (27 August, two days before Napoles surrendered) Camp Sto. Domingo prison house (where Erap, Misuari, Honasan were once detained) was suddenly cleaned and prepared for a "special person" to be brought in there;
9. Napoles' handcuffs were covered when she was shown being brought out of her van into Makati City Jail;
10. Napoles was put into a special detention room and not into Makati City Jail's common jail cells;
11. Napoles, unlike other felons or caught fugitives with diabetes, was allowed all so-called "privileges" of a diabetic prisoner;
12. Napoles was eventually transferred out of Makati City Jail to Camp Sto. Domingo, Laguna, also upon the proddings of her defense team;
13. Napoles was referred to by Sec. Mar Roxas as "Ma'am Janet";
14. Can one be wrong in suspecting that behind all of this a frenzied tug-of-war was actually happening as to where Napoles will be held? That is, everybody knows who the lord of Makati is who aspires for the presidency in 2016. If Napoles will be in Makati City Jail, the real lord of Makati-cum-2016-presidential-hopeful (some say front-runner), will naturally and effortlessly gain pogi points, limelight, gravitas. And, that is, everyone also knows who is the other  2016 presidential hopeful who was in actual  limelight re Napoles' surrender, a cabinet member who's now actually gotten ubiquitous even before the Napoles caper. And if Napoles is kept in the lord of Makati's bailiwick, the now-ubiquitous-cabinet-member will end up holding an empty bag. Ergo, the transfer to Camp Sto. Domingo, LAGUNA. supposedly away from the clutches of the lord of Makati. BUT, lest they forget: in LAGUNA, the governor is an endeared nephew to a close ally of the lord of Makati, AND the said ally himself was once a convicted inhabitant of Camp Sto. Domingo.
And so, as the song goes "Sino'ng dakila, sino ang tunay na baliw?". :) :) :)
But of course, we the vigilant citizens, aren't in any way amused by this zarzuela unfolding before our very eyes.

DEAR GOVERNMENT: PLEASE LEARN FROM ZACCHEUS.

DEAR GOVERNMENT: PLEASE LEARN FROM ZACCHEUS.
Dean Tony La Vina of ADMU guested at ABS-CBN this morning to discuss the so-called "presidential pork" (whether it's a misnomer, etc., isn't what caught my attention). Their conversation subsequently veered towards PDAF, and the attendant tax-payers' ire over its abuse. And one idea he posited I think cuts into the heart of the PDAF's matter, I think more significantly than other considerations: That we MUSN'T FORGET that the BIGGEST TAXPAYERS of this country are our POVERTY-STRICKEN MASSES. Thus in effect, though we, withheld-tax-payers, have all the right to be so angry with our hard-earned taxes being absconded by PDAFiles, we should also realize that the MOST ABUSED by the PDAFiles actually are THE POVERTY-STRICKEN MASSES. Thus, if indeed our government would want to make amends, redeem itself out of this PDAF mire, it MUST IMMEDIATELY, "ORA MISMO!" (not in 2015 as Sec. Butch Abad says) CHANNEL the PDAF budget to SOCIAL SERVICES which will CONCRETELY BENEFIT out BIGGEST TAXPAYERS who were the REAL VICTIMS OF THE PDAF COSA NOSTRA. The present government shouldn't waste time to do what Zaccheus did upon realizing that as a corrupt tax collector he also unlawfully stole from his people: RETURN TO THE PEOPLE EVERYTHING HE STOLE FROM THEM, and EVEN GAVE THEM DOUBLE IN RETURN. Dear Government: Please learn From Zaccheus.

COA: 35 lawmakers transferred P1.7-B ‘pork’ to NGOs

 COA: 35 lawmakers transferred P1.7-B ‘pork’ to NGOs

By Jess Diaz (The Philippine Star) | Updated August 26, 2013 - 12:00am

 1  47 googleplus0  3

MANILA, Philippines - Thirty-five lawmakers, including three senators, specifically asked for the transfer of their pork barrel funds amounting to P1.7 billion to non-government organizations (NGOs).
The Commission on Audit (COA) report on Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) – official name of the pork barrel – for 2007 to 2009 listed three senators and 32 members of the House of Representatives whose funds were released to implementing agencies, but who requested that the money be transferred to NGOs.
The three senators are Jinggoy Estrada, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Juan Ponce Enrile.
Estrada gave P204.6 million to Pangkabuhayan Foundation, P90.4 million to Social Development Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. (SDPFFI) and P172.2 million to Masaganang Ani para sa Magsasaka Foundation, Inc. (MAMPI), for a total of P467.2 million.
Revilla allocated P130.2 million to SDPFFI, P118.3 million to MAMPI and P106.5 million to Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation, for a total of P355 million.
SDPFFI is one of the bogus foundations linked to fugitive businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles.

Benhur Luy, a relative of Napoles who blew the whistle on the pork barrel scam, used to run SDPFFI.
Enrile, on the other hand, gave P96.8 million to Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation and P77.6 million to MAMPI, or a total of P174.4 million.
The three senators’ funds were released to National Agribusiness Corp., Technology Resource Center, National Livelihood Development Corp., and Zamboanga del Norte Rubber Estate Corp., which transferred them to NGOs upon the request of the three, the COA report said.
President Aquino is planning to abolish these state corporations for their involvement in the pork barrel scam.
Estrada, Revilla and Enrile accounted for nearly P1 billion of the P1.7–billion transfer to NGOs that the COA said were covered by specific requests from the lawmaker–funders.
There are hundreds of millions more in PDAF of the three senators that went to NGOs, but the COA did not say whether the recipient–agencies did the transfer on their own.
Estrada had said they were not supposed to check or know whether the NGO–recipients of their funds were bogus or not.
Revilla has denied endorsing any NGO as recipient of his funds, but the COA said it has proof to counter his claim.
Enrile said he did not know Napoles or any of the NGOs that received his funds.
The COA said Enrile “confirmed to have authorized his chief of staff to sign on his behalf.”
It said the unnamed chief of staff “confirmed signatures in the MOA but denied signatures in the certificate of acceptance and list of beneficiaries for projects” implemented by one foundation.
The 32 former and incumbent House members whose funds were transferred to various NGOs upon their request, according to the COA, are Rene Velarde of party–list group Buhay, P7.8 million; Nerissa Soon Ruiz of Cebu, P22 million; Marina Clarete of Mismis Occidental, P45.6 million;
Vicente Belmonte Jr. of Iligan City, P8.2 million; Rolando Uy of Cagayan de Oro City, P17.5 million; Danilo Lagbas of Misamis Oriental, P13.4 million; Niel Tupas Jr. of Iloilo, P17.5 million; Roberto Cajes of Bohol, P32.5 million; Maria Isabelle Climaco of Zamboanga City, P23.4 million;
Thomas Dumpit Jr. of La Union, P44.1 million; Isidro Ungab of Davao City, P38.3 million; the late Ignacio Arroyo of Negros Occidental, P20.3 million; Joseph Santiago of Catanduanes, P19.4 million; Manuel Agyao of Kalinga, P11.5 million; Edgar Valdez of party–list group APEC, P35.9 million; Rizalina Seachon–Lanete of Masbate, P31.7 million;
Conrado Estrella III of Pangasinan, P36.7 million; Adam Relson Jala of Bohol, P13.3 million; Prospero Nograles of Davao City, P60.1 million; Edgar Espinosa of Masbate, P24.1 million; Marcelino Teodoro of Marikina, P14.3 million; Del de Guzman of Marikina, P9.4 million; Jaime Lopez of Manila, P5.5 million; Mariano Piamonte Jr. of party–list group A–TEACHER, P15 million;
Elias Bulut Jr. of Apayao, P12.3 million; Ruffy Biazon of Muntinlupa, P8 million; Vincent Crisologo of Quezon City, P33 million; Arturo Robes of San Francisco del Monte, Bulacan, P25.4 million; Maria Teresa Bonoan–David of Manila, P35 million; Eduardo Zialcita of Parañaque, P17.5 million; Luis Asistio of Caloocan, P25 million; and Oscar Malapitan of Caloocan, P25.3 million.
The COA said the transfer of funds by recipient–state agencies and lawmakers to NGOs was illegal.
It said such transfer must be covered by an appropriation law or an ordinance as required by the Government Procurement Law.

PORK BY OTHER NAMES, OR MAYBE HOW PORK WAS USED THROUGHOUT OUR REPUBLIC'S HISTORY...

UPDATED LIST OF POSSIBLE NAMES I COOKED UP OF THE "NEWLY MINTED" PORK BARREL (FOLLOWING. SEN. MIRIAM'S LEAD). OR MAYBE, WE CAN SAY THAT THIS MAY BE A HUMOROUS ATTEMPT TO CONVEY HOW  THE PORK BARREL WAS USED THROUGHOUT OUR REPUBLIC'S HISTORY.
1. Pork Allocations Specially Transacted & Reserved for Allies and Malacanang Insiders (PASTRAMI);
2. Malacanang Economic Nationally-Unaccountable Development Objectives(MENUDO);
3. Ilegally-Gained Acquisitions Developed Overnight (IGADO);
4. Budgetary Outlays Preferably Illicitly-Served (BOPIS);
5. Acquired Development Of Buddies Only(ADOBO);
6. Secret Assets Legislators Acquired with Malacanang Insiders (SALAMI);
7. Senate Allocations Used for Selfishness & Aggrandizement of Greedy End-users (SAUSAGE);
8. Allocations Freely Received In The Acquisition of Dubious Assets (AFRITADA);
9. Economic Manipulation & Plundering Assets Named as Authentic Development Assistance (EMPANADA);
10. Kamag-anak Incorporated’s Legislative Annual Wealth Endowment Negotiations (KILAWEN);
11. Senate Insider’s Network of Illicit Agents Neutering Governance (SINIGANG);
12. Special Template for Economic Advantage of Kaibigans (STEAK);
13. Malacanang Officials Receiving Cash Outlays Nocturnally (MORCON);
14. Legislative Outlays for Non-Government and Government Agencies' Illegal Subsidies and Aids (LONGGANISA);
15. Executive Monetary Budget Towards Illicit Diversions and Organizations (EMBUTIDO);
16. Totally Outsourced Cash In Non-existing Organizations (TOCINO);
17. Budgetary Initiatives Leading to Banks of Ignominious Legislators (BILBIL);
18. Sinful, Illegal, Nefarious, Untraceable, Greedy Budgetary Allocations (SINUGBA);
19. Cash Harbored Illegally & Checks Hoarded Artfully by Rogues Officially Negotiating (CHICHARON);
20. Pork Allocated To Allies, Teammates Inside Malacanang (PATATIM);
TAWA-TAWA NA MUNA TAYO! Dagdag din kayo! Happy Sunday! Para kay Inang Bayang Magiliw!

POSSIBLE NAMES OF FUND REPLACING PDAF! (A PINOY'S ATTEMPT AT HUMOR VS. ADVERSITIES :) )

HERE'S SOME MORE POSSIBLE NAMES I COOKED UP OF THE "NEWLY MINTED" PORK BARREL (FOLLOWING SEN. MIRIAM'S LEAD)  !;
1. Legislative Outlay for Non-Government and Government Agencies' Illegal Subsidies and Aids (LONGGANISA);
2. Executive Monetary Budget Towards Illicit Diversions and Organizations (EMBUTIDO);
3. Totally Outsourced Cash In Non-existing Organizations (TOCINO);
4. Budgetary Initiatives Leading to Banks of Ignominious Legislators (BILBIL);
5. Sinful, Illegal, Nefarious, Untraceable, Greedy Budgetary Allocations (SINUGBA);
6. Cash Harbored Illegally & Checks Hoarded Artfully by Rogues Officially Negotiating (CHICHARON);
7. Pork Allocated To Allies, Teammates Inside Malacanang (PATATIM). TAWA-TAWA NA MUNA TAYO!  Dagdag din kayo! 

Below is the List sent out by La Miriam Santiago. Vintage Miriam! (Thanks to Sir Tony La Vina for sharing)

O, para di na mahirapan ang Palasyo at si BS Aquino III sa pagpili ng bagong pangalan sa hindi naman talaga na-abolish na pork-barrel, mamili na lang sila sa menu (that I compiled), as prepared by his mga BOSS:

1. Budgetary Allocation for Crooks' Outreach Nationwide (BACON)

2. Lawmakers Initiative for Emergency, Miscellaneous and Personal Outlay (LIEMPO)

3. Livelihood Empowerment for Countrywide Humanitarian Outlaw Network (LECHON)

4. Pinagandang Iligal na Gastusin (PIG)

5. Countrywide Universal Priority Initiatives Treasury (CUPIT) Fund

6. Totally New Government PDAF Audited to Satisfaction (TONGPATS)

7. National Assistance Program of Lawmakers Engaged in Swindling (NAPOLES)

8. Holistic Lawmaking for Development of All Filipinos (HOLDAF)

9. Selective Enforcement of Budgetary Outlays (SEBO)

10. Government Outlay Line-itemized and Appropriated Yearly (GOLAY)

11. Fund Integration for Social Housing (FISH)

12. Bridges, Excavations & Elevated Roads Fund (BEEF)

13. Countrywide Allocations With Accountability and Transparency (CAWAT)

14. National Allotment for Countryside Amelioration and Welfare (NACAW)

15. PNoy's Initiative for Good Governance CountrYwide (PIGGY))

16. Countrywide Assistance for Special and Important Matters (CASIM)

17. Budget for Allies for Continuation of Party Dominance (BACON-PD)

18. Hearty Allocation of Money (HAM).

19. Benigno Aquino Development Assistance Fund (BADAF)

20. Countrywide Outreach and Rehabilitation Assistance Fund (CORAF)

21. BSA's Awesome Budget for Outstanding Allies of the Year (BABOY)

22. Horrifyingly Unlimited Money for Belmonte, Aquino and Allies (HUMBA)

23. Pnoy's Allowance and Treasury Allocation (PATA)

24. President Aquino’s Nationwide Outlay for Transparency (PANOT I)

25. President-Approved National Outlay from Treasury (PANOT II)

26. President Aquino's Political Action and Initiative for Total Allocation of National Budget (PAPAITAN)

27. Social Initiative for Service in Governance (SISIG)

28. President’s Overt Revenue Kickback (PORK)

29. President’s Outlay for Countrywide Handling of Emergency Rehabilitation for Opulence (POCHERO)

30. Outlay for the Interest of Noynoy and Kinsfolks (OINK)

31. Countrywide Re-distribution of the Inherent Source of Patronage for the Yellow President’s Allies, Toads and Associates (CRISPY PATA)

32. Legislative Allocation for Reform and Development (LARD)

33. Barangay Initiatives for New Allocations Granting Oversight On Non-Government Associations Nationwide (BINAGOONGAN)

34. Presidential Oversight for Relatives and Kin with Budgetary Entitlement from Legislative Largesse Yearly (PORK BELLY)

35. National Allotment for Countrywide Amelioration and Welfare Initiative Fund (NACAWIN FUND)

36. Budgetary Utilization for Literacy Assistance and Livelihood Opportunities (BULALO)

37. Budgetary Initiatives for Secretive Transactions Enhancing Kickbacks (BISTEK)

38. Budgetary Allocations for Government’s Nonsense but Endless Transactions (BAGNET)

Source: https://www.facebook.com/karlos.yzagani

IMPUNITY: THE HEART OF PDAF SCAM; SULIPICIO LINES' HORRENDOUS RECORD; ONDOY, PABLO, HABAGAT-CUM-MARING

I'm glad that even Ted Failon is now asking why Sulpicio Lines, despite its horrendous record of casualties (Since 1987, almost 26 years ago: An average of 1 shipping incident every around 5 years. And deaths of around 5,740 in almost 26 years, meaning around 1,140 deaths every 5 years, or around 220 deaths every year. That's around 18.3 deaths every 30 days, or around 6 deaths every 10 days, 3 deaths every 5 days, or 1 death every other day in 365 days) still has its franchise afloat. Simple answer: It's because the EXACT SAME IMPUNITY that caused the PORK BARREL SCANDAL is still very much alive in the very veins of society, wreaking havoc! It's also worth noting that the PORK BARREL SCANDAL, the COLLISION OF SULPICIO SIETE, and the RAVAGES OF HABAGAT & MARING, happened on juxtaposed periods. Outlining the fact that the 3 realities are all commonly pervaded by the sinister and damaging spirit of IMPUNITY that chronically ails our country. Thus, in my heart and mind I'll be marching on Monday not only versus the obnoxious PDAF scandal, but also versus the monsters which cause the tragedies of Sulpicio Lines, of Ondoy, of Pablo, of Pepeng, of Habagat-cum-Maring, and the other ills besetting Inang Bayang Magiliw. Ever proud to be Pinoy!

TONY LA VINA | Now I am convinced: Pork barrels must go

By: Tony La Vina
August 21, 2013 11:40 AM

Two front pages of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17 years apart, both tackle the issue of corruption in the pork barrel system. "We have been through this before," says Ateneo School of Government Dean Tony La Vina.

 

 

InterAksyon.com
The online news portal of TV5

Tony La Viña is Dean of the Ateneo School of Government. This article first appeared as personal note on his Facebook Timeline. We are re-publishing it here with his permission.

I posted on Facebook pictures of two Inquirer front pages; the first was its August 13, 1996, issue and the second of Tuesday's (August 20, 2013). (See photo above.) In both front pages - in issues 17 years apart - the headlines were about the pork barrel and how corrupt it can become.

What do these pictures tell us? A lot.

For a number of days now, I have been weighing what position I should take on the growing clamor to abolish the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). I read a lot about the pork barrel, going back to the origin of the term in the United States Congress. I went back to our history - the pre-martial law era when some form of pork barrel was also prevalent to its re-emergence when President Cory Aquino came into power and now in the enormity of the scandal rocking the country. I facilitated discussions in my Facebook walls and page on the issue and posted different opinions about it as well.

I see the logic of the President's argument regarding the utility of the PDAF for both basic needs of people and development interventions. Many times I have seen constituents go to their representatives for assistance for illnesses. Some essential infrastructure projects, especially in remote places that would otherwise not be given attention to by national agencies, would not have been built if not for the PDAF of some representative or senator.

Even the Ateneo School of Government, of which I am Dean, has benefited a few times from the PDAF of representatives who partnered with local governments so we could deliver training programs to those LGUs. So I understand where the President is coming from. I certainly do not believe that better decisions on local programs and projects can be made by the national government or by technocrats. The experience of the Marcos dictatorship, where there was no pork barrel because there was no Congress, tells us that corruption can be as bad or even worse with technocrats at the helm of most departments.

While recognizing that the PDAF could sometimes be used for the good, it has always been clear to me that the PDAF and its predecessor mechanism, the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF), provide many opportunities for corruption. In fact, the 1996 expose of the Inquirer informed, we know now, by the insider knowledge of the former Representative Romeo Candazo (who passed away on Monday), should have warned us already that this budgetary vehicle was beyond repair and that no matter what we did to make it more transparent and less corruption-prone will not work.

Indeed, the history of the CDF and PDAF since 1996 can be told by the futile attempts by the executive branch to control the PDAF and to make disbursements more transparent, but to no avail.

I realize now that by its very nature, the CDF and PDAF are anomalies not because they allowed legislators to have a say on what projects should be implemented by the executive branch (arguably still their role as representatives of the people) but because at the heart of the system is the legislator's involvement in how the projects are implemented and in particular who implements the projects. This is unconstitutional as it is a violation of separation of powers. This is also where corruption enters the picture.

I still believe that legislators have a role to play in identifying projects in their localities but it should be in the context of bottom up budgeting where local governments, peoples organizations, direct beneficiaries and other stakeholders have a say as well.

As of Monday, I was still ambivalent about the abolition of the PDAF. But when I saw the August 13, 1996, headline of the Inquirer, I made up my mind: I will work for its abolition. I was reminded that we have gone through this before. And that we have not learned our lessons. That we are again foolishly repeating our history. If we do this a third time we cannot be forgiven by future generations. And we will not have another chance.

5,720 DEATHS VIA SULPICIO LINES IN ALMOST 26 YEARS (1987 TO 17 AUGUST 2013)! SULPICIO LINES IN ANOTHER SHIPPING TRAGEDY!

5,720 DEATHS VIA SULPICIO LINES  IN ALMOST 26 YEARS (1987 TO 17 AUGUST 2013)! SULPICIO LINES IN ANOTHER SHIPPING TRAGEDY!
LIST OF SULPICIO LINES INCIDENTS:
1. M/V Dona Paz, December 1987: 4341 died (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23729996);
2. M/V Dona Marilyn, 24 October 1988: 389 dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Doña_Marilyn);
3. M/V/ Princess of the Orient, 18 Sept. 1998, 150 died (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Princess_of_the_Orient);
4. M/V Princess of the Stars, 2008: around 814 died (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Princess_of_the_Stars);
5. Sulpicio Express Siete (7), 17 Aug. 2013 rammed into M/V St. Thomas Aquinas, at least 26 people died, 172, still missing.

The above figures date since 1987, almost 26 years ago. An average of 1 shipping incident every around 5 years. And deaths of 5,720 in almost 26 years, meaning around 1,140 deaths every 5 years, or around 220 deaths every year. That's around 18.3 deaths every 30 days, or around 6 deaths every 10 days, 3 deaths every 5 days, or 1 death every other day in 365 days. Aren't these  frightening figures? Shouldn't these numbers send chills into our bones? Do we have any other  transport company here in the Philippines, throughout our whole history,  which can equal or approximate such deadly record?

And had all the victims of Dona Paz, Dona Marilyn, Princess of the Orient, and Princess of the Stars already been given  adequate compensation by Sulpicio Lines? I hope that these narratives of man-made tragedies won't simply go on and on, and on.

I hope, Malacanang doesn't sleep on this matter, this record of Sulpicio Lines. I hope that this doesn't gather barnacles in the deepest fathoms of our country's maritime history.

ISSUE-FATIGUE; DECISIVE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE (ON THE 10B PORK NOVELA)

I sincerely hope that after all this heat re Napoles and the 10B pork, we won't immediately reach the point of issue-fatigue thereby just allowing this issue to die its natural death. I hope and pray that the parties concerned will have the due diligence, TILL THE END, as what once was done in the case of former CJ R.C. Corona. Of course, given that those who are considered in cahoots with Napoles are also supposedly now coming from the bicameral house of Congress which tried the the said former Chief Justice. From this, I think, it's but natural that a body composed of people of integrity be given the task to make the investigation on the NAPOLES 10B pork case. Maybe, it's also about time that the OMBUDSMAN gets involved. No ifs. No buts. Period.

Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows (NOW, WITH NUANCE)

HOBBES, SPINOZA, HEIDEGGER WERE WRONG IN THINKING THAT AT THE OUTSET, SURVIVAL WILL FAVOR THE SELFISH. AND EVEN LEVINAS, ACCEPTING SPINOZA'S AND HEIDEGGER'S NOTION OF THE SELF-CENTERED EGO IS ALSO QUESTIONABLE. INDEED, COOPERATION WITH THE OTHER, CARE FOR THE OTHER PAYS. SIMPLY PUT, LOVE FOR THE OTHER PAYS OFF IN THE LONG RUN. SELFISHNESS IS A WICK WHICH, THOUGH BURNS, HOWEVER ALSO BURNS ITSELF OUT SIMULTANEOUSLY.

YET, THIS VIEW MUST BE NUANCED, I THINK. THOUGH IT'S DEFINITELY BETTER FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO COOPERATE WITH THE GROUP, HOWEVER, THE GROUP ITSELF CAN BECOME SELFISH, AND THUS STILL WREAK HAVOC ON THE OTHER/OTHERS. HUMAN HISTORY SHOWS THAT IT'S NOT ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO DESTROY OTHERS, BUT MOST SPECIALLY, GROUPS. THE MOST MONSTROUS RULERS IN HUMAN HISTORY WEREN'T ABLE TO DO THEIR MONSTROSITY ALL BY THEIR LONESOME. THE HOLOCAUST WASN'T DONE BY ONE MAN ALONE. NEITHER WERE THE GULAGS OF THE USSR ABLE TO FLOURISH BECAUSE OF ONE POWERFUL PERSON ALONE. NEITHER WAS APARTHEID ABLE TO HOLD SWAY ANTE NELSON MANDELA DUE TO A SOLE INDIVIDUAL ONLY. NOR THE MASSACRE AT AMRITSAR PRIOR TO INDIA'S INDEPENDENCE PERPETRATED BY JUST ONE SINGLE PERSON. NEITHER WAS THE ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE BALKANS A HANDIWORK OF JUST ONE HUMAN BEING. THE HOBBESIAN LEVIATHAN, CAN IN ACTUALITY ONLY BE OPERATIONAL WITH THE CONNIVANCE OF A STRONG SOCIETAL APPARATUS. ERGO, LARGE-SCALE ATROCITIES IN HUMAN HISTORY WERE ALWAYS INFLICTED BY GROUPS, ALBEIT LED BY ONE, YET STILL BY GROUPS. THUS, THOUGH AN INDIVIDUAL MAY OPT TO SUBSUME HIS/HER SELFISHNESS UNDER HIS/HER COMMUNITY, HOWEVER THE SELFISH INDIVIDUAL WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO WREAK HAVOC BY WAY OF THE GROUP.

Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows
By Melissa Hogenboom Science reporter, BBC News
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849)
Two competing white pelicans Humans and animals could not evolve in a co-operative environment by being selfish, scientists say.

Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research.

This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first.

Instead, it pays to be co-operative, shown in a model of "the prisoner's dilemma", a scenario of game theory - the study of strategic decision-making.

Published in Nature Communications, the team says their work shows that exhibiting only selfish traits would have made us go extinct.

Game theory involves devising "games" to simulate situations of conflict or co-operation. It allows researchers to unravel complex decision-making strategies and to establish why certain types of behaviour among individuals emerge.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

It's almost like what we had in the cold war, an arms race - but these arms races occur all the time in evolutionary biology”

Dr Christoph Adami Michigan State University
Freedom or prison

A team from Michigan State University used a model of the prisoner's dilemma game, where two suspects who are interrogated in separate prison cells must decide whether or not to inform on each other.

In the model, each person is offered a deal for freedom if they inform on the other, putting their opponent in jail for six months. However, this scenario will only be played out if the opponent chooses not to inform.

If both "prisoners" choose to inform (defection) they will both get three months in prison, but if they both stay silent (co-operation) they will both only get a jail term of one month.

The eminent mathematician John Nash showed that the optimum strategy was not to co-operate in the prisoner's dilemma game.
Two men hugging Co-operating is key for evolution

"For many years, people have asked that if he [Nash] is right, then why do we see co-operation in the animal kingdom, in the microbial world and in humans," said lead author Christoph Adami of Michigan State University.
Mean extinction

The answer, he explained, was that communication was not previously taken into account.
Continue reading the main story
The selfish gene?
DNA molecule, artwork

In 1974, Richard Dawkins published a gene-centred view of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

He argued that it was not groups or organisms that adapt and evolve, but individual genes and each living organism's body was a survival machine for its genes.

Prof Andrew Coleman from Leicester University explains that this new work suggests that co-operation helps a group evolve, but does not argue against the selfish gene theory of evolution.

Rather, he adds, it helps selfish genes survive as they reap the awards of inhabiting co-operative groups.

Is DNA the smartest molecule in existence?

"The two prisoners that are interrogated are not allowed to talk to each other. If they did they would make a pact and be free within a month. But if they were not talking to each other, the temptation would be to rat the other out.

"Being mean can give you an advantage on a short timescale but certainly not in the long run - you would go extinct."

These latest findings contradict a 2012 study where it was found that selfish people could get ahead of more co-operative partners, which would create a world full of selfish beings.

This was dubbed a "mean and selfish" strategy and depended on a participant knowing their opponent's previous decision and adapting their strategy accordingly.

Crucially, in an evolutionary environment, knowing your opponent's decision would not be advantageous for long because your opponent would evolve the same recognition mechanism to also know you, Dr Adami explained.

This is exactly what his team found, that any advantage from defecting was short-lived. They used a powerful computer model to run hundreds of thousands of games, simulating a simple exchange of actions that took previous communication into account.
Man in a jail A previous study found that selfish strategies were favourable

"What we modelled in the computer were very general things, namely decisions between two different behaviours. We call them co-operation and defection. But in the animal world there are all kinds of behaviours that are binary, for example to flee or to fight," Dr Adami told BBC News.

"It's almost like what we had in the cold war, an arms race - but these arms races occur all the time in evolutionary biology."
Social insects

Prof Andrew Coleman of Leicester University, UK, said this new work "put a break on over-zealous interpretations" of the previous strategy, which proposed that manipulative, selfish strategies would evolve.

"Darwin himself was puzzled about the co-operation you observe in nature. He was particularly struck by social insects," he explained.

"You might think that natural selection should favour individuals that are exploitative and selfish, but in fact we now know after decades of research that this is an oversimplified view of things, particularly if you take into account the selfish gene feature of evolution.

"It's not individuals that have to survive, its genes, and genes just use individual organisms - animals or humans - as vehicles to propagate themselves."

"Selfish genes" therefore benefit from having co-operative organisms.