Have a nice "time out," Kylie! Be sure to come back though!
Jackie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 14 12:15:16 1995
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 14:20 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ECOFEM digest 307
AL recently referred to the "well documented phenomenon" of social
animals reproducing less under crowded conditions -- implying also that
they did so because "survival of the species is more important than
survival of one's own genetic line."
I feel it important, as a student of the evolution of animal
behavior (among other things). The concepts to which Al referred
do NOT accurately reflect the thinking among the majority of
animal behaviorists. That social animals often (though not always)
exhibit reduced reproductive rates under crowded conditions _is_
well documented. The mechanisms involved include things like
shortage of mates, shortage of territories or resources, increased
aggression, cannibalism, or other social/ecological changes that
have the effect of limiting the ability of individuals in the population
to reproduce at a rate that exceeds mortality.
The crux of the problem is _why_ these patterns exist. For both
theoretical and factual reasons, there is little if any support
for the idea that individuals are altruisically giving up personal
reproduction for the benefit of the species as a whole: evolution
just doesn't work this way. Apparent exceptions (e.g., "suicidal"
worker bees or naked mole rats) seem to be explained best by the
extension of natural selection theory known as kin selection (which
functions because individuals can do things that benefit their genesnot
just by having babies, but also by assisting relatives who carry copies
of the same genes). Concensus about _most_ of this was reached among
evolutionary biologists more than 20 years ago, though we do still
argue, of course, about the details of specific cases.
What relevance does all this have to the ongoing discussion
here about overpopulation? My own _opinion_ is that unless we
want the same brutal mechanisms that operate in most wild populations
to act on us, too, we'd better use what rational powers we have to
deal with the _exponentially_ increasing population. The alternative
will be altogether 'natural' -- and horrible to contemplate.
RLCurry
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 14 12:54:16 1995
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:00:27 -0500 (EST)
MR-Received: by mta DER1; Relayed; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:00:18 -0500
MR-Received: by mta EPIC66; Relayed; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:00:18 -0500
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 14:29:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Al Rushanan TAL (904)487-1855" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: ecofem digest 307 (was population sticky)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posting-date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:00:00 -0500 (EST)
Importance: normal
UA-content-id: A93ZVWYLG956
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
RL Curry:
I stand corrected. Thanks. (I haven't read much Sociobiology
since the mid '70s, so I should be more careful.)
You've hit the nail on the head. If we don't use our rational
powers to control population growth, famine and disease will
spread. Questions: Do cultural factors, such as male domination
to produce large families, overcome the biological limiting factors
that would normally reduce population growth in crowded areas
(assuming that basic human instinct includes such biological
mechanisms)? If so, then other cultural factors, such as rational
thinking in more informed societies, should also be able to
overcome biological tendencies. I hope.
Al
