[this from m-fem] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Margaret Trawick Sent: 22 August 2000 07:12 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Niche Construction, Biological Evolution and Cultural Change Very interesting, thought-provoking article, Mark. Thanks for posting it. It was not until I got to the very end, however, that I understood why you sent it to this list. Unfortunately, one does not need advances in human evolutionary theory to reach the conclusion that the human species is destroying its own environment, and may destroy itself in the process. At first, I thought you posted the article because it would have something to add to the discussion about male domination of females within the human species, and whether there were early hominid precedents, and whether it mattered whether there were or not. In the process, I came across only two passages with which one could take serious exception. These are: >We can also reverse our earlier logic to suggest that any organism O1, >should act in a hostile manner, to the disadvantage of any other organism >O2, provided the total niche-constructing outputs of O2, or of any of O2�s >descendents, modify resources in the environment of O1, or any of O1�s >descendents, to the detriment of O1, if the resulting reduction in the >fitness costs to O1 of O2�s outputs exceeds the cost of O1�s agonistic >behaviour. It is easy to see how this reasoning might account for a great >deal of aggressive behaviour, including a form of reciprocal hostility, in >which individuals and their descendents trade antagonistic acts. In other >words, we predict that organisms should actively harm other organisms by >investing in niche construction that destroys other organism�s selective >environments, provided the fitness benefits that accrue to the investing >organisms from doing so, are greater than their fitness costs. Since this is >a general idea, it should extend to the human cultural level, with the >qualification that at this level other processes may be operating. This seems to suggest that certain nasty forms of warfare make evolutionary sense. Any comment? >One of the most important findings to emerge from gene-culture >coevolutionary theory is that there are a variety of mechanisms by which >culture can lead to the transmission of information that result in a fitness >cost relative to alternatives. Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1981) provided >theoretical confirmation of the intuitive notion that cultural traits >associated with a viability or fecundity deficit may still increase in >frequency in a population if there is strong conversion of individuals to >the same trait. Boyd and Richerson (1985) found that, where individuals >adopt the behaviour of influential or successful members of their society, >maladaptive cultural variants can spread, even if associated with a >substantial viability disadvantage. Other gene-culture models reach the same >conclusion (Feldman & Laland, 1996). > >Our perspective suggests that, in each generation, populations of organisms >persistently construct or reconstruct significant components of their >environments. This means that, as they evolve, organisms may, in effect, >drag part of their own environments along with them, thereby transforming >their own "adaptive landscapes". If ontogenetic processes, culture, and >counteractive niche construction in general, have consistently damped out >the need for a genetic response to changes in the population�s environment, >hominid populations may have become increasingly divorced from their >ecological environments. At the same time, our hominid ancestors may >increasingly have responded to novel selection pressures initially generated >by inceptive niche construction, and subsequently dominated by cultural >traditions. In this case, the common conception that modern human >populations are adapted to an ancestral Pleistocene environment (Barkow et >al., 1992) can only be partly correct. In particular, components of the >social environment, for example, traits related to family, kinship and >social stratification, may have been increasingly vertically transmitted by >culture to the extent that contemporary human populations may have become >largely divorced from local ecological pressures. Support for this argument >comes from Guglielmino�s et al.�s (1995) study of variation in cultural >traits among 277 contemporary African societies, in which most traits >examined correlated with cultural (linguistic) history, rather than ecology. > >In the short term organisms typically niche construct in ways that enhance >their immediate fitness, but in the long term organisms can also "niche >destruct" relative to their own genes. For example, they can build up >polluting detritus, or strip their environments of non-renewable, or too >slowly renewing, resources, until they have made their own environments >hostile to themselves and to their offspring (Diamond 1993). Among plants, >this process typically leads to auto-ecological succession, while animals >typically respond by dispersing to other environments. Failure to respond to >the feedback from negative niche construction is a possible recipe for >extinction. This suggests that cultural inertia - dragging past forms into the present , where they are no longer useful and no longer make sense - has brought us to our present impasse. "Traditional" societies are to blame for human beings becoming divorced from their natural environment(s) , the argument suggests, not capitalism, which is a relatively recent phenomenon. Would anyone care to comment on this? _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
