Margaret Trawick wrote: > > 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. Those are side -issues in context. I sent it because it shed light on the issue of patriarchy, by proposing a model of combined phylo- and onto-genetic evolution, the form of which was the dynamic combination of species-evolution and group-evolution, and the interaction between the two. Among other relevant conclusions is the one that co-operation and altruism are strongly selected for within this dynamic because 'selfish gene' strategies alone are not enough to create a species with human characteristics. 'Selfish-gene' theory is a form of reductionism which cannot explain the interaction between social and biological evolutionary processes. The fortmer cannot be reduced to the latter; and in fact the human species is ontogenetically formed by social processes. This is an important critique of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Its importance for patriarchy is that it allows to think about the evolution of patriarchy as a subset of the evolution of "Phenogenotypes". Both social and natural evolutionary processes interact, and the behaviour of both phenotypes and genotypes can affect *evolutionary* outcomes. It is clear that we are therefore not "locked into" some immutable, genetically-predetermined, patterns of behaviour. Human behaviour, species-life and social forms are clearly the products of evolutionary processes *which include the historial evolution of society itself*. Nor can one necessarily be privileged over the other. Patriarchy, insofar as it exists (I'm not denying that it does) is capable of change, of being changes; and the political will: the *free choices* of the social actors can change it. We are capable of governing the process of our own evolution, and of doing so consciously. Actually this potentially applies at ever level, even the level of genotype evolution. The sociobniologists have it completely backwards: not only are we not the prisoners of our 'selfish genes', on the contrary, the human genome is subject to our conscious intervention and reshaping/adaptation, through the technologies we already now possess. This is hardly a formula for pessimism or fatalism, in the long run. The model of human history and even evolution which foregrounds "patriarchy" as prime reality and dynamic is hopelessly primitive and, scientifically-speaking, it is worthless. We have to move on from that. > > 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? Why do you take exception? What in the logic of the argument is faulty? [snipped passage about how >" but in the long term organisms can also "niche >destruct" relative to their own genes. <] > > 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? > I read this is an implied critique of *capitalist* history, but again, I'd like to see how you are faulting the *logic* here. I'm crossposting this to the CrashList where a parallel discussion is going on (actually it began there). Thanks for the repsonse. Mark _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
