At 11:09 AM 11/19/1998 -0600, you wrote:
>John Foster wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> To argue for sociobiology as an ethic toward life
>> then would necessitate a consideration of eugenics, i.e. the elimination of
>> the unfit through intentional selection of the superior in man and other
>> species.

Wayne wrote:

>I don't think this statement necessarily follows at all. Why does the
realization
>that our altruistic impulses are a result of the evolutionary fitness they
provide
>lead us necessarily to eugenics?

It would not be necessary to invoke a case for eugenics at all it it did not
exist both in human culture nor in other species. For instance, altruism in
chimpanzee's is common between sympatric relations, as it is in sympatric
human relations, but not as common as the deliberate selection for superior
traits in animal husbandry. My main point here is that sociobiology provides
many examples of various 'ethical constructs' in terms of analogy. These
examples unveil a field of values apon which many ethical theorists can cast
peebles, rationalizing a basis of demonstration. Having a great deal of
experience working with forest dwelling creatures and plants around the
world, it is my belief that altruism is rare in nonhuman species and rare in
species quilds, for instance, cow bird parasitism occurs not because birds
are happy about giving up the nest, but because of a lack of defenses due to
forest fragmentation often brought on by human disturbance in the forest. On
the other hand I believe very strongly that most species are part of
obligate "symbiotic" or commensual relationships with other species. The
difference here between symbiotic relationship's and altruism is due to
evolutionary adaptation. For instance, in the guilds of hummingbirds found
in tropical latin american countries, and in euglossine bees the level of
specialization is very pronounced. In fact, euglossine bees pollinate
specific orchids species, usually only one, and if the species of bee is not
there to pollinate the orchid, then orchid will not reproduce and become
extinct. No other bee can pollinate it due to differences in anatomy and so
on. In Peru for instance there are perhaps 850 species of orchids, and in 5
small samples located in tree canopies, entomologists found 3000 species of
beetles, the plot sizes were only 15 square meters, near Tambopata.

It is obvious that speciation and genetically determined behaviours have a
very important role in all species and as one progress toward complex
ecosystems of the earth, i.e. tropical rainforests, the degree of symbiotic
relationships leads to greater and greater integration of two or more
species to work for each other. The tendency therefore in evolutionary
history has been toward specialization, greater numbers of functional groups
[guilds] and this is certainly true for the flowering plants and their host
species. I would not call altruism common in the biosphere. Altruism and
helping ones offspring are not the same in all cases. Altruism tends to be
a human behavorial trait and therefore unless species have evolved to form
obligate symbiotic relationships, or adaptive behaviours that are
commensual, I don't see any reason for ruling out an approach that would
culminate in eugenics: we breed animals and plants all the time for
qualities, and humans in the past possessed slaves, bred slaves, and men
used property rights to possess preferred women or vice versa women used
their rights to possess men, not because of mutual love or respect but
because of the desire to possess 'superior' qualities in or through them to
confer competitive advantage.

I think if biology teaches us anything it teaches us the interdependence of
all things. Those species which appear to survive are the "functional
groups" or guilds that have adapted to other species and co-evolved
mechanisms to enhance the survival of both species. If the history of the
human species is an example, it may be said that as a species we have done
it all wrong. For instance, we are the only species in the history of the
earth that has catalyzsed mega extinctions of the scale now occurring. In
Ecuador for instance where (Myers and Wilson 1992 or so) it was believed
that the highest biodiversity of the americas once existed, there has been a
dissappearance of between 30,000 and 50,000 species and this disappearance
has occurred in the last 25 years with destruction of 95 % of the western
forests of Ecuador. Yet on the border of Peru and Brazil where the last
Great Wilderness on Earth exists, a new tribe of previously undiscovered
stone aged people have been discovered.

How did those people finally get discovered? Apparently settlers had
encroached into their hunting territory and three of them were killed. The
Brazilian government carried air reconnaissance missions and finally located
several huts in the forest. These people have had no contact with the
western world and they are hostile and they were not being alturistic. But
who can blame them? Should these people become altruistic and give their
lands up to Shell and Occidental Oil and campesinoes? Altruism is common in
sympatric relationships and apparently in inidividuals who love animals, but
is it necessarily a beneficial trait to humans as a group in the rainforest?



I> think much of the hostility evolutionary ethics and sociobiology evoke is a
>result of a confusion of the current thinking on the subject with the
discredited
>theories of social darwinism propounded by Huxley and others in the last
century.
>Social darwinism had no place for altruism. Today it is fairly clear that
>unrestrained selfishness is not a viable survival strategy over time for a
species
>such as us (for most species actually).
>
>While evolutionary ethics to my mind is ripe with promise (and with many
>theoretical obstacles to overcome). I see no reason to fear it.
>
>
>
>
>
        



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%