Last issue, then maybe I'll shut up on this for a while. But, I promise the
list owners that I'll show how this relates to EE.

(snip a lot)>

> "Bissell (in response to Dreamer's comment that "homicide is just about
> as much a shaping factor in our evolutionary past as hunting."):
> "Absolutely wrong! . . . There is almost
> consensual opinion that hunting is a uniform activity of humans
> throughout our evolutionary history and has extreme importance to our
modern
> culture. There is *no* evidence that homicide has ever been anything other
> than
> prohibited behavior. Hunting was a universal, day to day occurance. If
> homicide had been universal, day to day, we wouldn't be here. Maybe I'm
> misunderstanding what Dreamer means, but this type of wild assertion,
> especially in the morning, drives me up the wall.. . . In order for
> something to be a "shaping factor" requires a long time and wide spread
> occurance. Homicide is an "energy sink" in evolution, it cannot be
sustained
> as a wide spread occurance over time. That is why all societies have
extreme
> prohibitions about homicide.
>
> Dreamer responded: "I hate to burst your bubble Steven, but it's my
> understanding
> that homicide was a shaping influence for most of our evolution.  Still
> is.  I was an anthro major back in college and have maintained my
> interest in the field over the years.  Cultural anthro shows that in
> most "primitive" societies the prohibition against homicide doesn't
> extend much further than band or clan, and isn't all that effective even
> there.  Other races and tribes have historically been hunted with almost
> as much vigor as other species.  War is nothing new, and if you think
> war and similarly unsavory practices (rape, for instance) haven't
> affected our genetic makeup, then you're more naive than I imagine."
>
> Bissell responds, still a bit miffed. I studied Cultural Anthropology in
> college and evolution and genetics to the extent of getting two degrees
and
> working as a research biologist, primarily in the area of evolutionary
> biology, for two decades. So, don't worry about my "bubble." You are
wrong.

"Dreamer: Or all that could just make the bubble seem bigger and prettier
to you . . .

"Bissell:> There is no evidence that war, murder, shop lifting, nose
picking, or a
> hundred and one human vices have any implications in population genetics
or
> selection factors of evolution. They are "pathological" conditions. . . If
you
> can give me one, just one, legitimate citation that any evolutionary
> biologist has ever suggested that these behaviors are genetic across the
> population, I'd be amazed.

"Dreamer:  "Pathological."  There's an interesting word.  Of or
pertaining to disease.  But "diseases" all have their own functions in
the world, when viewed from the right perspective.  I read you as
suggesting that war and other intraspecies killing by humans is an
aberration which evolutionarily disadvatages those populations in which
it has arisen. How would you go about testing that thesis one way or
another?  I doubt if you could.  And why do you believe it?  When you as
a student of evolution and biology encounter some other species that
routinely practices cannibalism, do you assume that it's "pathological"
behavior, or do you seek to understand how the behavior paradoxically
stregthens the species?  What would compel you to dismiss the
overwhelming prevalence of interspecies killing (especially around
territorial disputes)throughout human history and pre-history (I'm
extrapolating from ethnography here)?

To keep things close to our current discussion, I'll ask you to suspend
disbelief for a minute and grant that our evolution (particularly the
evolution of our mental organ) has been significantly shaped by the
competition of war.  You've suggested repeatedly that this sort of
consideration provides a strong justification for hunting.  Would it
then provide a strong justification for deliberate war?  I'd raise the
same questions in respect to compelled sex -- rape.  Do you deny that
the practice has shaped our physical evolution?  If not, do you feel
that compelled sex is still justified?  If not, why do you feel that
evolutionary history justifies some sorts of actions which would
otherwise be unethical (recreational killing of animals) but not other
sorts (rape of women by men)?

"Bissell:> Right now geneticists think we are about 3% different in our
genetic makeup
> than the great apes. You are saying that somewhere in that 3% are genes
for
> war, mayhem, and all of the human failings? Does that make sense?

Dreamer: Sure.  That's a pretty significant 3%.  If it accounts for many
of our more sublime acheivements, it can just as easily account for many
of our more disturbing eccentricities."

Bissell concludes (hopefully). There are two issues here. They often get
confused in the minds of some, and as a biologist I forget that not everyone
had to endure two years of genetics and evolution in college.

Biological evolution applies to changes in gene frequency across
populations. However, only individuals are acted upon by selective forces.
This creates a seeming conundrum in that species evolve, but only
individuals are the focus of evolutionary factors. The way individuals are
acted upon is differential reproduction. The one who leaves the most
offspring wins. Over time this translates into changes in gene frequency.
So, take war. Individuals are killed even though societies wage and win (or
loss) wars. So, unless the ones killed had a lot of kids before they left,
and this seldom happens because young men fight and die in war, biological
evolution will ultimately favor those who do not go to war, but stay home
and have babies.

Does this biological evolution have anything to do with traditional ethics?
Most evolutionary biologists say "no." Huxley wrote an entire book on it
toward the end of his life. IMO there is, however, an important implication
for environmental ethics. Humans evolved, biologically, as social omnivores.
Our primary biological adaptations are upright posture, opposable thumbs,
menstrual versus estrus cycles in females, large forebrain (albeit that
Neanderthal had a bigger forebrain), and complex social behavior. I feel
that with a better understanding of our biological evolution we can make
better decisions about our modern condition.

The other issue is cultural evolution. Unfortunately the two concepts have
been intertwined almost since the publication of "On the Origin of Species"
by Charlie Darwin. "Social Darwinism" became a popular phrase over a hundred
years ago. By in large it is the misapplication of natural selection theory
to justify all sorts of social an cultural factors, good and bad. The
mistake is confusing the prevalent social norm with long-term reproductive
success. Just because society judges one group or one type of behavior as
"superior" at any given time does not have anything to do with biological
evolution. The only factor is which individual leaves the most genes behind
and if those genes gain a greater frequency in the population.

However, cultures do evolve in the sense of long-term changes which build on
past changes. Thus we have evolved as a species from nasty minded shrews who
swarmed down out of trees to become naked apes sitting around fires chipping
at stones and inventing atom bombs. In all likelyhood there are no genes for
chipping at stones or making atom bombs, these are things we have learned
and passed along culturally.

Does this have implications for enviromental ethics? I think so. Most of our
cultural evolution has been as hunter/gatherers, living in small clans of
closely inter-related individuals. There is profound meaning culturally, but
probably very little genetically. If we can figure out how to live in modern
world with as little impact as we did when we were hunter/gatherers, we will
be applying environmental ethics to our advantage, perhaps to our advantage
biologically as well.

So, does war have evolutionary implications? Genetically no, culturally yes.
Does homicide have evolutionary implications? Unless you can show the killer
and killee have differential reproduction, not biologically. Culturally?
Maybe, but I don't exactly see how. All societies have prohibitions on
homicide, but it happens anyway.

Last point. I was using "pathological" in the being an abnormal variation
from the sound condition. The important aspect is "abnormal." In the sense
that I meant to use it, it can have no impact on biological evolution as it
does not occur often enough to effect gene frequencies. Dreamer is right,
disease does effect gene frequencies because it is not "abnormal" in a
biological sense, however much we might place perjorative meanings on it.
Disease is a "normal" condition in biology. Homicide is "abnormal"
culturally, and IMO, biologically.

I am not discounting that infanticide, cannabilism, and killing members of
ones own species is important to some species. African lions, mole rats,
Cape hunting dogs, cuckoos, are a few that come to mind. My point was that I
was unaware of any evolutionary biologist or anthropologist who had ever
suggested that these behaviors had shaped human *biological* evolution.

I think that's it.
sb




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