Castes & Which Lives Matter
When most people hear the word “caste,” they immediately think of Indian cultures. While this is not an unjustified leap, cultural caste systems are hardly relegated to the Indian subcontinent. What makes the Indian caste system unique is both that it is currently in an earlier stage of being dismantled when contrasted with other caste systems and that it left a significant genetic distance between castes. For example, the two largest castes in Uttar Pradesh, the Yadav and Chamar, are more distant genetically (genetic difference 8.9) than Germans and Greeks (genetic distance 8.69).
Upon hearing about an Indian caste system comprised of five main castes, each of which is divided into about 3,000 sub-castes based on occupation, most foreigners contextualize the concept as being quite alien. People of Anglo-Saxon descent may come to this conclusion forgetting that many of their brethren still walk around with names like Smith and Tailor attached to them—names that hail from a similar caste system. That’s right: In the medieval period, families often maintained specialist trades passed down from one generation to the next. While the Anglo-Saxon caste system was never as strict as that which ultimately developed in India, it wasn’t profoundly less strict than its pre-British Indian counterpart.
Even today, the United States features something of a caste system delineated by where an individual lives. Some regional “castes” culturally specialize in specific tasks—consider Silicon Valley’s technology specialization as an example. These regions can act as cultural beacons, drawing and rewarding individuals with similar sociological profiles (like early castes did). We may even see the genetic results of this sociological profile concentration in Silicon Valley’s high rates of autism (it is no surprise that Simone, who is autistic, came from that regional caste). Finally, this caste system is also systematically unfair, with an individual born in Silicon Valley having astoundingly greater odds of becoming a highly paid tech professional or “intellectual” with a degree at an elite East Coast school than someone born in the Midwest.
Because we think of caste systems in terms of the ultra-specialized, somewhat artificial British-occupation-era Indian caste system, it is easy to miss how fluid most caste systems were historically—similar to the extant “soft” regional caste system in the USA. Soft caste systems allow for some level of choice in caste membership if someone shows exceptional skill and makes significant sacrifices, whereas a hard caste system sets an individual’s caste as a cultural mandate from birth.
What is fascinating about caste systems, and likely a core reason they evolved in so many cultures, is that they allow for the genetic concentration of skills within certain specialties. As offensive as this concept is, the genetic vortices created by castes are so strong that their effects can be seen centuries after they dissolved. A study[[171]](#_ftn171) conducted in the U.K. in 2015 found that people with the surname Smith (descended from the smith caste) had higher physical capabilities and an above-average aptitude for strength-related activities, while those with the surname Tailor (descended from the tailor caste) had a higher-than-average aptitude for dexterity-related tasks.[[172]](#_ftn172)
The treatment of Black populations in the U.S. could be seen as the manifestation of a more recent “hard” American caste system. Despite the large number of social movements and political policies focused on helping erase the caste-like dichotomy established in the Jim Crow era, progress is glacial when measured in individual lifetimes.
Indian culture is currently going through something similar, even with similar arguments being made against affirmative action programs for the untouchable caste by detractors. Specifically, many argue these programs should only take into account a family’s economics, as they disproportionately help untouchables from wealthy families and end up giving a boost to individuals who don’t need one—all while hurting poor people from “higher” castes. In the same way, many in the U.S. complain affirmative action disproportionately helps economically advantaged Blacks who are not the descendants of American slaves, with first and second-generation African immigrants, despite constituting only about 10 percent of the U.S. Black population making up about 41% of all Black students in the Ivy League as Roland G. Fryer Jr. noted in a Washington Post op-ed.[[173]](#_ftn173) (Note: We are not taking a side on this but rather pointing out that both efforts are working to resolve inequalities created by a caste system.)
How long does a caste system take to dissolve after it has been largely abandoned by the culture that previously held it? Well, the Jewish caste system has been functionally irrelevant since the fall of the second temple almost 2,000 years ago—yet even today, Kohanim, Leviim, and Yisraelim have a number of unique privileges and rules applied to them based on an immutable birth caste in all but the most liberal of Jewish communities. So, if you are in a discriminated caste, don’t hold your breath waiting for a complete resolution.
If you think we are picking on other cultures, let’s take a moment to look at the Calvinist unique take on a caste system. Instead of a traditional caste system in which, depending on your physical features or parents, you are placed in a specific caste, the Calvinist caste system … well. It’s different.
As we mentioned at the beginning of the book, the most controversial aspect of the Calvinist cultivar is that not everyone’s life matters equally. Because we believe in a deterministic universe, we believe some lives will not matter from the moment they are born.
As individual humans, we cannot effectively judge which lives matter, so the question of whether a specific other person’s life matters should largely be irrelevant to us. However, when you read about interactions Calvinist communities have with their neighbors, it is common to see them develop a reputation for regarding non-Calvinist outsiders as though their lives don’t matter. This is one of those cultural quirks that isn’t supposed to work this way but almost always functionally does at scale—like Communism always leading to dictatorships when practiced above certain population levels.
Because Calvinists believe the truth of their worldview is apparent to anyone willing to be open-minded, think logically, and search deeply, it is natural that they would see non-Calvinists as willfully ignorant, slow, lazy, or unwilling to accept hard truths. What is interesting about Calvinist elitism is how unmoored it is from class. Anyone can join the culture and once they do, they are regarded as equal to other Calvinists and better than other people.
The Calvinist concept of the elect also has a Schrodinger’s Caste System effect on adherents, as while Calvinists are certain other Calvinists are better than other people, they are constantly afraid that thinking such about themselves will prove that they are not among the elect and not real Calvinists. It’s kind of like that song “What Makes You Beautiful” by the pop band One Direction: If what makes you beautiful is that you don’t know you are beautiful, but you are also aware that anyone who doesn’t know they are beautiful is beautiful, then you constantly oscillate between being beautiful and not beautiful.
Note: We use the term Schrodinger’s Caste System because while Calvinists essentially think there is a caste system given the concept of limited atonement (that not everyone is elect), it’s impossible to know who is who—and even trying to determine what caste you are in (looking under the box) can be proof you were always in a lower caste (i.e., not elect).
Seeing as Calvinism’s weird Schrodinger’s Caste System has negative externalities, should future Calvinist-derived cultivars keep it? Also, why not build a more traditional caste system? To the second question: While the traditional caste systems have the benefit of allowing for specialization from childhood, this benefit does not overcome the “command economy” cost of not allowing people organically to sort into roles that work for them. The Calvinist-style caste system has a totally different function (in addition to its being a logical outcome of living in a deterministic universe). It is designed to guide the moral actions of the system’s adherents.
A common alternate system for motivating moral behavior is: Do good things, or you will be punished later (usually after death). Per this system, the consequence of immorality is punishment. Per the Calvinist system, doing the wrong thing is proof to yourself your life does not matter—or that you were built to be a bad person, a foil to the people who matter. As Calvinists see it, through immoral or moral actions, you are revealing to yourself who you were before the action rather than shaping what will happen to you in the future. This is technically true in almost every culture, but focusing on the external consequences of moral actions detracts from this.
Note: Morality, as our personal culture defines it, is tied to whether an individual’s actions are efficacious and steering the timeline in a positive direction vis-a-vis their stated values. Morality changes based on the cultivar. We are talking about a cultivar’s ability to enforce its own ideas about morality.
Some aforementioned statistics (see below) back up our theory that the Calvinist concept of the elect—a certain set of people predetermined by God to be “saved”—can plausibly motivate moral behavior more effectively than other traditions (such as Quaker traditions, which, as we’ve rudely argued at length, were horrible at enforcing actual, not-mostly-performative moral behavior).
Those stats, reiterated:
In early America, around 42% of Maryland Quakers owned slaves[[174]](#_ftn174) (this sample was taken from Maryland wills between 1669 and 1750). Among Quaker leaders in Philadelphia, 70% owned slaves (this sample was taken from the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting for 1681 to 1705).[[175]](#_ftn175) Even if we go with the lower number, this is still the highest rate of slave ownership of any cultivar in the colonies (not on a number-of-slaves-owned basis, but on a precent-of-the-population-owning-slaves basis)—a rate way higher than that of the Anglican-decended Southern culture at the time of the Civil War (around 20% of households and 5% of individuals[[176]](#_ftn176)). Contrast this with Puritan slave ownership rates which were 0.5%-2%.[[177]](#_ftn177)
Essentially, the mechanism used by the Schrodinger’s Caste System to motivate low rates of “immoral” (culturally unaligned) actions can be seen in the thought process of the time:
Quakers largely know they are good people (such is an a priori assumption of Quakerism). They have the fire of God burning in them; of course, they are good. So yes, buying a slave may lead to some punishment, but the immoral action can plausibly be offset through other actions—and heck, they might be super nice to the slave … until they forget about their moral conflict.
So far as a Calvinist is concerned, all humans are basically less than garbage: Totally fallen and wretched. One should assume every idea one has is evil and make extra sure it isn’t. To a Calvinist, even thinking about buying a slave can serve not just as proof that you are a bad person, but evidence that God created you to be a bad person. Basically, any taken or contemplated immoral action can serve as evidence that your life is, and always has been, a meaningless joke. You will not be punished for owning a slave per se; if you choose to own a slave, you are merely revealing to yourself that you were always damned. Obviously, the downside to this logic is that while you are quite motivated to avoid immoral thought and action, you also end up with (from the perspective of other cultures) weird beliefs—such as that most charity is likely a waste and more about virtue signaling, and that having fun for the sake of having fun is evil because it is a sign that you would rather indulge than focus on efficacious actions. It’s up to you whether this cultural technology is worth the cost.
The above example demonstrates why cultures that frame people as inherently good often commit more evil acts than cultures that frame humans as inherently evil. Assuming that every idea that pops into your head is evil will lead you to scrutinize yourself much more intensely and make you much less likely to approach situations assuming you are “the good guy.” This approach nevertheless comes at a cost, as it also leads people to distrust others in a way that can lower intergroup cooperation and efficiency.
What does the concept of the “elect” look like in the House cultivar we are building? From our secular perspective, to be “elect” is to live to your full potential and make a meaningful impact vis-a-vis your stated values, whatever they may be. To us, a person who claims to have “not lived up to their potential” never had potential in the first place. Such is the truth of a deterministic reality. Either you do what needs to be done to be among the elect, or you don’t.
Everyone is gifted or special along some metric or another, meaning there’s always some way or another a person may feel superior. We don’t mind if our kids or members of our House think they are better than others so long as that feeling is rightfully earned through thoughtfully driven, efficacious, measurable action. When you take an action or are infected by thoughts that draw you off the path of efficaciousness vis-a-vis your values, you prove to yourself you are not likely to be among the elect.
Side note: A fascinating phenomenon tied to the Indian caste system is that one caste, the Brahmans, are disproportionately represented among Indians who emigrate to other countries (or at least the U.S.). This creates a phenomenon where we always have to ask ourselves if the stereotypes we have psychologically built around “Indian” character traits are actually only tied to Brahmans. This is one of the reasons we don’t talk too much about Indian culture in this book; it is hard to differentiate between our perspectives of Indian culture and Brahman culture.
That said, one thing that cannot go unmentioned about Indian culture is that it seems exceptionally well adapted to both managing and navigating large bureaucracies. At the time of this book’s publication, the CEOs of Google, Microsoft, Twitter, IBM, OnlyFans, Adobe, Palo Alto Networks, Mastercard, and PepsiCo are culturally Indian (in fact, 60 of the S&P’s Fortune 500 companies have Indian CEOs). Indian cultures also appear to be quite adept at motivating entrepreneurship, seeing as 25% of top Silicon Valley startup founders are Indian.[[178]](#_ftn178) Is this an Indian thing, a Hindi thing, or a Brahman thing? Some of these CEOs are Sikh, so it is probably an Indian thing more broadly. We don’t know what’s going on, but there is probably something here.