[EdF]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SarahC1975', 'W')hy the discrepancy? Because the Whites were the better killers. Not coincidentally, their descendents (that's us) are acting in a simliar fashion this very day.

Sad but true.

Sarah C.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EdF', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SarahC1975', 'W')hy the discrepancy? Because the Whites were the better killers. Not coincidentally, their descendents (that's us) are acting in a simliar fashion this very day.

Sad but true.

Sarah C.

[aldente]

Did anyone check on the credibility of the original post of the supposed "Jay Hanson"? I smell a rat here, just as ES did when wondering what made the fellow run to the hills 2002 (or possibly even before that) and out of the blue to start posting on an obscure site on a relatively ordinary premise (genetic determination).

To me this is complete BS.

[gg3]

A certain amount of misunderstanding here is coming from implicitly different definitions of terms. Try this: there are five core dynamics in social ecosystems, as follows:

Cooperation: Sharing a resource. For example, two auto makers set up a fund for university researach on new powertrains, with joint licensing of the resulting inventions.

Competition: Vying for a resource within an agreed rule-set. For example, two auto makers each introduce their own models using the jointly developed powertrain, and vie for market share. Note, they do not attempt to blow up each others' factories because that violates the agreed rule-set (in this case criminal law).

Symbiosis: Voluntary trade for unlike benefits. I'm a farmer, you're a soldier, I help feed the army, the army protects me and others from foreign attackers.

Commensalism: Voluntary trade for like benefits. I have a bakery and produce cookies, you have a dairy and produce milk, we exchange, we both have cookies & milk.

Predation: Taking something from someone else in such a manner that disables or kills the other. A gang of thieves beats and robs (or robs and kills) an old lady at a bus stop.

Parasitism: Taking something from someone else in such a manner that allows the other to continue producing for one's own benefit. A freeloader comes to visit, overstays his welcome, and eats your food but does not rob and kill you.


Predation is not competition; and parasitism is not symbiosis; however, these are often confused for one another.


---


Interesting to see so much arguement about predetermined will, and so little mention of free will and reasoning.

Evolution (genetic and social) has produced a state of affairs where the tendencies toward cooperation, competition, etc. are all present to varying degrees in each individual and in each population, and in the large majority of cases are balanced in such a manner that behavioral outcomes are not predetermined with certainty.

Behavior that is predictable with certainty is, after all, a choice target for predators and parasites.

The capacity of humans to engage in reason and to exercise choice gives us an advantage over a hypothetical species that can do neither.

The proximate factor that acts most strongly against reasoned choices in our present predicament is not genetics, it's enculturation reinforced by economic interests.

For obvious examples, look at coastal real estate development in Florida and other regions prone to hurricanes; look at real estate development on steep mountainsides in California that are subject to earthquakes and mudslides. Humans who live in such places are idiots waiting to darwinize themselves, and yet they flock to these places like herds of lemmings, not because their genes told them to do it, but because their cultural training did not equip them to use the observational and logical capabilities that are built into their brains.

The same case obtains for PO, avian flu, global climate change, and creeping authoritarianism in our own government.

The question for our century is: How can we get a critical mass of humans to use their observational and logical capabilities, and exercise their free will, in order to adapt to the coming changes?

Genetic determinism leading to defeatism is as much an abdication of responsibility as is willful and overt participation in the causes of collapse.

And as for mild depression and its concomitant attitudes: mild pessimists' forecasts of the future tend to be more accurate in the short term than those of optimists, but optimists tend to live longer.

[bobbyald]

A lot has happened on this topic since my last post but I said I would reply to EnergSpin’s comments (3 points in second post) so I will.

Anyone who has a good grasp of evolution knows that Hanson is basically correct although I admit it is not the best-written piece and as a result he leaves himself open to criticism. I hope to clear up those points that have caused confusion below.

Point1.
One of the problems with presenting a simple example so that it is easily understood is that someone will jump on it and point out why it’s incomplete. Well you can’t do that if it’s a simple example designed to show one aspect of an argument only. Hanson was trying to make a very basic point about evolution and that is any trait or strategy that aids survival will become more prominent in a society than those that don’t. Did you deliberately miss the point are do you really not understand it?

Let me try to explain it better than Hanson did.

Say we have two tribes with a very similar gene pool. One tribe believes that its survival is best served by cooperation the other by killing. Why they differ in their opinions may be a very subtle differences in the gene pool or because a leader has a different mix of genes or because the environment is very slightly different or another reason but it’s clear that whoever wins survives to pass more of their genes on and these genes will become more common (Hanson’s point). Life is made up of many such struggles and each population will eventually end up with a mix of possible strategies that represent how successful each strategy has been it the past (basic statistical probability). Since different situations are best served by different strategies we will never get one strategy being totally dominant. EnergySpin seems to think that somehow this mix of strategies can somehow get so out of equilibrium and that everyone eventually kills everyone else – wrong! These are gene survival strategies and as such killing can never be the best option in every situation – under what circumstances do you kill your own children, hunting partners, mate etc?

Killing and cooperation are totally genetically determined.

Please note that I’ve been careful not to imply that one gene = one strategy. Genes control many low level aspects of behaviour and it takes a combination of genes plus environmental input to trigger a particular strategy. In the same way you will not find genes for say walking or playing football.

When Dawkins states that a gene is selfish he does not mean that any gene controls selfish behaviour (I can’t believe I’ve got to explain this) he means that each gene survival depends solely on its goodness of fit within it environment regardless of everything else (Dawkins admits that the word “selfish” was a poor choice).


Point 2
I’m not entirely clear what you are getting at here.
Are you trying to imply that the rational decision making process in humans is not genetically determined?

Point 3
As stated above you do not get an individual gene for each strategy rather it is the complex interaction of many genes plus environmental input that determines a particular strategy.

Hanson does refer to “man” but I don’t know why. He means people. Again poorly written but the general points he makes are correct.


Please restore my confidence in the system and tell me that your work really has nothing to do with genetics.

[bobbyald]

Answers to other questions on this topic:

Ludi

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o why were people successfully cooperative for 100,000 years if we're selecting for greedy lack of cooperation?

[EdF]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '.')..The proximate factor that acts most strongly against reasoned choices in our present predicament is not genetics, it's enculturation reinforced by economic interests..

[EdF]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'g')enetic limitation? you means like Downs Syndrome?

[NEOPO]

Sometimes I think science gets lost in itself.

I do not wish to comment on the data presented here but merely state my own selfish theory which will no doubt create a small bit of dopemine (satisfaction) that may help me get through one more day on this human/rat infested parasitic petri dish we call earth.

Most of the technology that we have today has come about through war.

Student lunches were instituted in the USA during WWII because most enlistees were malnourished.

So we could say that Hitler was a humanitarian as his efforts helped get school lunches on the table.
Real fucking cooperation there.........

If immune deficiency is what killed most of the native americans naturally I wonder why missionaries were passing out blankets infected with small pox.....

We are on the verge of self destruction.
Tell me how your theories apply to M.A.D
Show me how it all applies once this world is culled and we no longer have time to think of why.

Oh I am sure those of you who have your eye on the dish rather then the whole can wax long on this or that to prove whatever you want to prove until someone smarter comes along with a better theory.

Square pegs round holes where it stops nobody knows.

Somewhere therein lies the truth.

Just a barrel of monkeys - an accident - a disease - a cancer to this world.
Slither away now and brush away loose ground....yeah