Susan:
The nature vs. culture issue reminds me of an ecology theory that
distinguishes between "r type" organisms and "k type" organisms.
r type organisms, such as mold, settle in a new area and grow in an
uncontrolled fashion (picture cultures in a petri dish) until they
use up the avaialable resources and/or poison the area with their
own wastes. Unsustainable. They emit spores, or whatever, before
they die and the spores colonize new areas.
k type organisms have feedback systems that allow them to control
their own population (e.g., changes in reproductive activities) to
stay within the carrying capacity of their area. k type organisms
tend to live in harmony with their environment for extended periods
of time. Sustainable.
During the hunter-gatherer phase of human existence, we were
k type: rather stable populations. Many tribes were nomadic,
moving back and forth between areas as needed for survival, but
living within the carrying capacity of their overall area.
Then about 10,000 years ago came the "First Wave," as Alvin Toffler
calls it in his book "The Third Wave," where agriculturalism swept
over civilization and radically changed it. We started turning
into an r type organism, with the results of desertification and
other environmental disasters. About three hundred years ago it
was followed by the "Second Wave" - the industrial revolution,
which dramatically changed civilization again. (Don't we know it!)
Toffler argues that in the past few decades we've entered a "Third
Wave," toppling the industrial framework and replacing it with an
information and service based economy. (Of course, many countries
are still in the Second or First wave, and some peoples are still
pre-wave hunter-gatherers.)
Hopefully we'll figure out how to become k type again during the
Third Wave, and live in harmony with the biosphere. The "waves"
Toffler refers to are largely cultural. I don't think the
"nature vs. culture" distinction is as useful as the concept of
changing our culture to get in synch with nature, i.e., become
k type.
Regarding the human brain, you may be right, Susan, that
_anatomical_ differences between the male and female brain aren't
that important. However, from my experience (which includes being
on Prozac) BRAIN CHEMISTRY is a crucial factor. The change in a
person's mood, which dramatically affects behavior and decision
making, is largely based on the levels of myriad neurotransmitters,
homones, etc. in the brain. ("Listening to Prozac" is a very
interesting book.) And, of course, there are distinct differences
between male and female endocrine systems. So I wouldn't write
this off too quickly.
That doesn't mean I think men and women should "stay in their own
place." With very few exceptions, I'd like to see many more women
in high places such as Congress, as CEOs, etc., and as President.
I think Carol Browner and Al Gore make a great team for
environmental protection. In personal relationships I enjoy
sharing power, taking turns being in charge, etc. We don't have to
let biological differences dictate our power structure, which is
based on mental, not physical, capabilities. But it helps to
understand the differences, especially where men are screwing
things up.
(WARNING - FLAME BAIT: One exception I have is that I don't like
to see women in hand-to-hand combat with men in battle, due to
physical differences. It's not fair. Why do y'all want to copy
the stupid things we do, anyway?)
avr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
