Mark Jones wrote:
> TAHIR WOOD wrote:
> >
> > Mark, it's certainly interesting, but I'm not sure how
> > relevant to the actual debate that was happening. ....
> > [SNIP] But I think that attempts to conflate historical
> > processes, which to me are more about the actualisation of
> > potentials of the species being of humanity over a given
> > period, with biological evolution per se, are highly
> > suspect. Specifically I suspect that they belong more to the
> > domain of ideology than to that of science.
>
> I don't think Lalande et al are guilty of bad science, and the internal
> logic of their argument seems to stand up. In any case, why is it wrong or
> indeed different to what Marx and Engels (the latter in particular) argued,
> to think of the history of human society as the formation by our species of
> an evolutionary Niche, that is, to think of civilisation (and its
> discontents!) as an aspect, or attribute, of evolution as a whole?
This seems to me tautologically trivial. It would be absurd to say human
capacities are not the product of evolution. Hence it is *equally* absurd to
argue that they *are* products of evolution.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
