On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Brian Siano wrote: > Samuel Nicolary wrote: > > >On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Richard Moreau wrote: > > > > > > > >>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. > > > 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. > > 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.
Always entertaining how people choose to interpret things - so creative - and the analogies... -- Sam Nicolary ---- 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>.
