----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Contradiction Problems????
>
>
> Dan Minette wrote:
>
>
>
> > Survival of individuals, survival of family units, survival of packs,
> > tribes, herds? I don't think that there is any biological reason to
look
> > out for the welfare of "the other.", whether it be another tribe, or
another
> > nation.
>
>
> Diversity of the gene pool?
But, everything I read about evolution indicates that ensuring that one's
own genes or the genes of one's own pack/herd is evolutionary favored...not
ensuring the survival of genes of members of the same species that have a
maximum divergence in gene's from one's own. A successful strategy seems to
be the maximizing of the probability of passing one's own genes and similar
genes while minimizing the probability of the passing of divergent genes.
The latter is not as critical, but since populations can vary significantly
and most species have the ability to refill their ecological niches in few
generations, and since the number of males needed to repopulate the next
generation is not anywhere near 1 to 1 with the females, wars killing other
males do not seem to be evolutionarily disfavored.
>I don't really know, I'm guessing here. Also (and I don't know how
directly
> applicable this is here) if species A that preys on species
> B develops a strategy or technology wherein they gain a huge
> advantage and thus wipe out large numbers of species B not
> because they need to but because they can, they could
> subsequently suffer a die off themselves because they've
> wiped out their food source. Thus a pressure to _not_ kill.
If the evidence of humans being responsible for the extinction of species
5,000-15,000 years ago holds up, then it would seem very hard to argue for a
human biological imperative to preserve potential food sources.
>
>
> > Let me give an example. Nation A using its military power to take the
land,
> > rape the women, and kill the men of nation B. Since that behavior
increases
> > the probability that the genes of the men of nation A who engage in this
> > behavior will be passed on, does that make it the ethical thing to do?
> > Would someone who argued for peace be unethical?
>
>
> How do the women whose men and probably children were killed
> feel? How would they feel about nurturing the children of
> these men? Do they have any influence on those children?
> Would some of the children, inheriting the hate of their
> mothers take vengeance upon their fathers? Would a cycle
> like this be healthy for a species? The more of your
> species you kill, the smaller the gene pool and the greater
> the tendency of your offspring to kill (I would think).
>
Well, lets look at history. While war did kill off a number of people,
starvation and disease were more responsible for limiting the population of
humans. There doesn't seem to be a many examples of the children of women
who were taken as spoils of war by a victorious army coming back to form an
army of their own to kill their fathers. Lets look at the example of the
Americas. You may recall that Alberto pointed out that there is a
disproportionate amount of Spanish genes in the South and Central American
gene pool. While the Spanish were eventually overthrown, it was long after
the native gene pool had a tremendous influx of Spanish genes. Indeed, the
power structure favored those who could trace there genes back to Spain over
many generations...we have friends who were from an upper class Ecuadorian
family and sent the kids back to Europe for education until our generation.
I don't think you would argue for there being a many more lower class women
who bore the children of upper class men than the reverse.
>
>
> It seems to me that that that would only be favored if we
> were emotionless zombies and that if social behavior was of
> little importance.
>
No, not zombies. But, there is a natural tendency in humans to identify
with those who hold power over one. This has been documented even in short
term hostage situations. Further, women had very little power in most
ancient societies...so that would have colored their understanding of a
change in "husbands." Further, since their survival and the survival of
their children would have been dependant on the good will of the conquerors,
it would behoove them to transfer their allegiance.
Even when this is not the case, there are plenty of examples of long
standing suppression resulting in the genes of the controlling group being
favored over the controlled. For example, we can look at the legacy of
slavery in the US. As far as I know, there had never been a successful
slave revolt, emancipation came as a result of the South's losing the Civil
War. During that time, the slave owners had many children by their slaves.
One need look no farther than Jefferson who owned his children by the half
sister of his wife to see an example. I'd argue that this was not an
anomaly for the time.
>
> >
> > OK, enslaving people for generation upon generation may be more favored
than
> > genocide. But, I know of many mass killing in history, so I don't see
how
> > you can argue that this is unnatural.
>
>
> Do you know of any culture or of any species that has
> survived through a strategy of genocide?
Well, I guess enslaving has been the norm in ancient history, more than pure
genocide. So, I should probably argue for simply killing the men and
enslaving the women. Or, as in Exodus, making sure that male children are
killed and allowing only women to be born.
My guess is what happened in the US south has been more prevalent...the
enslaving of a people and the fathering of children upon their women. I can
cite numerous precedents for that.
Perhaps true genocide is modern, with the lowering of the need for slave
labor with the advent of technology. There have been numerous cases of
genocide in this century, from Cambodia to Armenia, to Germany, to Russia.
>
>
> I don't see it. If evolution selected for killers and
> rapists and the like - anti social behavior - wouldn't life
> have a tendency to whittle itself down - kill itself out?
Why? All that is needed is to have enough children born during the next
generation to fill the available niches. I'll agree that enslavement may be
more favored in terms of evolution. Also, I don't know how far back the
main competition for humans were humans...but it was as far back as human
history goes.
Now, I'm not arguing for total social Darwinism here. There may very well
be evolutionary favor for rules within a social group...especially if that
social group is just your clan. But, I would argue that ancient writings
offer a tantalizing hint of pre-history..where people stood by their clans
and that was about it; about a time where "an eye for an eye" was a plea for
moderation in clan retributions.
But, your point about historical genocide is well taken. I think that it is
more likely that conquests where a nation
1) Kills the men of a conquered nation able to put up a fight
2) Enslaves the rest of the men, all the women, and the children
3) Has children by the enslaved women
is evolutionarily favored much more than genocide. Indeed, the history of
the Americas does tend to point this out. However, with the deaths of most
of the Native Americans in North America, one could see at the very least a
disregard for their well being, even if active acts of genocide were
somewhat limited (Andrew Jackson's actions for example).
But, even allowing for this, its hard to argue for any code of ethics that
is evolutionarily based which prohibits enslaving one's enemies and killing
them at need.
Dan M.
> Don't we need some semblance of social behavior to thrive?
> The fact that human kind has formalized and codified social
> behavior doesn't mean that it didn't exist beforehand, does it?
>
If you look at things
