If we look at the future we can see the patterns of enthno-nationalism will play an important role in society. This is not to say that society should be organized around race or ethnicity, but that over time increasing the complexity of society will approximate entho-nationalism. Homogeneous societies lower the transaction costs between individuals. This is not necessarily the most important consideration, but for any population capable of creating and maintaining complex social mechanisms, it will be less expensive to enforce contractual obligations through social norms, than private contracts or government legal systems. In other words all things being equal having a relatively homogeneous society will lower transaction costs. While the state can trade high local transaction costs for rent seeking, ideally the trade-off between centralized enforcement and social norms is minimized. As I’ve previously stated the most efficient mechanism for transmitting cultural norms is through children and culture. Any society which sought to lower transaction costs would create a cultural, private or governmental ( legal ) system of discrimination. This would be a rational way of increasing the carrying capacity of complex relationships within society.
Trust is an essential element to lowering societal time preferences. Although it is theoretically possible to enforce long term contracts through private and legal means, ( and some element of enforcement is preferable and necessary ) high trust lowers both transaction and enforcement costs. The environment in which long term contracts are made is important. The higher the trust the less risk adverse the average participant will be and the higher the velocity of said ( high risk ) transactions. Walking down the street is might seem like a low risk transaction, but it is not. It is only low risk given the certain level of trust present in most peoples environment. In Detroit or Oakland this same action is high risk. While this is an example of low hanging fruit, there are possibilities of risky but beneficial and/or profitable behavior that would unimaginable in today’s society. Complex transactions relegated only to the very smart and risk oriented while profitable are an edge case in society. If a large majority of society can engage in what would normally be a high risk transaction because the members of society are unusually trust worthy then the society as a whole will benefit. Imagine if the average person could issue a loan without a larger banking or credit apparatus, while this might not be possible, the returns and efficiency with which capital would be allocated and people could make investments would be immense . Naturally lower risk means less return, but none the less more risk oriented people would find even higher order risk contracts and transactions to profit from ( again the sort of transaction which might not be possible in low trust society). Risk does not always extend from trust, some risk comes from unpredictability, and a great deal of finance deals with profiting from such unpredictability. If we look at the United States we see people buy expensive homes, or apartments so that they raise children in safe environments and go to good schools, and yet in Japan from a Western perspective relatively anywhere is safe. This is result is probably primarily HBD, and yet there is a stark difference between a ethnically diverse neighborhood and a homogeneous one regardless of biological priors. In any society there will be stratification, but given a society with eugenic practices, efficient policing and selective membership it is conceivable to reduce crime. With this reduction instead of escaping crime, the positional good of expensive homes simply becomes about ascetics and other considerations ( thus lowering the crime tax on the poor ).
The implications of HBD are not just that only some populations at the moment are peaceful, but that humans can be bred and trained to be good citizens. There will always be outliers and there is not necessarily a known path to success, but given the genetic rifts already existing it is not hard to imagine that they could grow bigger. Any potential society which pushes the boundaries of raising trust or lowering transaction costs will have to guard its boarders and police its members because the farther it rises the farther it will drift from the norm. Being farther from the norm creates two issues: first it increases the disturbance of introducing outsiders to society, and secondly it increases the incentives for outsiders to try and gain entry. Hence for any given group pushing the bounds of the complexity of society, all things being equal, will tend to favor societies which create and maintain an ethnicity. This has microcasm implications as well. For any given corporation efficiency will increase if it can create or maintain a thede (there are obvious trade offs but like the macro case the ability to teach new members to conform to norms is essential to lowering internal conflict). Just as banning cousin marriage created a rift in Europe there is the possibility that future norms will have far reaching eugenic or divergent effects and that perpetuating these norms and their genetic baggage will be equally essential for that society’s survival and growth.