on 4/9/01 6:36 PM, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Brin-L
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Contradiction Problems????
>
>
>
> So I just got done reading Matt Ridley's "The Origin of Virtue". Quite good
> until the very end where he (like many authors) slips over from well argued
> science to politics. Ridley (the author of Genome and The Red Queen -two of
> the best books around about modern state of genomes and evolution) argues
> that human morality arose as an adaptation. He starts by talking about game
> theory covering much of the same ground as Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" .
> Lots of neat things about Prisoner's Dilemma and Tit for Tat. He moves on to
> discuss how primates cooperate and about the importance of hunting. He tries
> to establish the narrow circumstances in which individuals would sacrifice
> for the group (only if it benefits one's own genes). He goes from there to
> discussing human societies. At the end he takes an unfortunate right turn (I
> worry that so many of the science writers I like best are or are accused of
> being very conservative) into a defense of private or group property
> ownership. Maybe more libertarian than conservative. Anyway worth the read.
>
> Dan's reply
>
> I think that much of the problem has to do with the tendency of people who
> look to biology and evolution as the foundation of their understanding of what
> it means to be human are social Darwinists. From that Rand like viewpoint,
> altruism and community responsibilities are unnatural aborations.
I have trouble interpreting your intent here. Since you normally present
facts and arguments carefully to support your views, the first order
assumption is that you take this to be a reasonable statement. But comparing
evolutionary biology to 'Social Darwinism' is like conflating astronomy with
astrology. Anyone with a modest layman's knowledge of the subject would know
that both Ridley and Dawkins have as little patience with 'Social Darwinism'
as they have with Lysenkoism. Perhaps evolutionary biology is as distasteful
to your world-view as artificial intelligence (another topic on which your
posts fail to meet your usual standards). Making ignorant statements about
subjects you don't care to understand or address properly doesn't impress.
--
William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
