On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Richard Moreau wrote:This is close to complete and utter nonsense. It's one thing to say that humans have evolved: that's true. It's another to say that a current social condition is the result of this evolution, and is therefore no likely to change when social conditions change. After all, humans didn't evolve to exist in space-- but we manage to do this thanks to changes in our social condition.
If that's the problem, what do you suggest for a solution?
I guess I used the word "problem" because Roger did - I believe it would be more accurate to say that it is simply a human condition arrived at by millions of years of evolution in the form of an intransigent instinct to survive and proliferate - one that no tweaking by the policy-makers will ever counter. As I mentioned previously - behavior antithetical to this is usually an artifact of nurture in my experience.
And you beg an interesting question. If poverty is a result of the behaviors humans have evolved, then tell us: what is the "natural" level of poverty? What percentage in any given population would be "naturally" poor? If poverty rates vary from culture to culture, and from time to time, then what are the "outer limits" of this influence by social conditions? I mean, if you're going to presume a knowledge of human nature that enables you to make sociological pronouncements about povert rates, then you really ought to back this up with some hard facts and figures.
And this business about "an intransigent instinct to survive and proliferate" has a certain vagueness. It's obvious that species must survive and proliferate. But there is considerable debate over what habits, instincts, and behaviors evolve to ensure that this happens. For example, the emergence of altruism within species is an extremely fertile area of evolutionary thought, bringing together genetics, game theory, and the still-controversial field of evolutionary psychology. Might want to read Sober and Wilson's _Unto Others_ for a good survey of this topic.
In other words, if you're saying that humans are rapacious competers following 'survival of the fittest' imperatives, and as a result, there will always be poor people, you're about fifty years behind the times as far as evolution is concerned, and somewhat credulous as far as economics is concerned.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
