[extropy-chat] darfur EP

[Martin Striz]

On 5/2/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> At 09:47 PM 5/1/2006 -0400, you wrote:
> >On 5/1/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not
> > > >recurrent features of the EEA.  Most wealthy, intelligent people
> > > >simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size.
> > >
> > > That may well be the case, but it does not help, it only moves the question
> > > down a level to why people have psychological traits to value one thing
> > > more than another?
> >
> >Obviously all psychological capacities have evolved in response to
> >selection pressures, and reproductive fitness is the ultimate goal.
> >However, explaining behavior at the level of proximate goals is
> >typicall sufficient in order to have a useful understanding of human
> >behavior.
>
> I am curious how you explain prisoner abuse, hazing, battered wife syndrome
> and sexual practices such as BDSM without an underlying understanding of
> the evolutionary origin.

I thought I just acknowledged the evolutionary origin.  I didn't mean
to imply that proximate and ultimate goals are causally disconnected. 
It's just that the ultimate goal accounts for a smaller fraction of
the variance the more complex the goal system becomes.  Human
psychology is pretty complex.

> >Reasoning skills that occasionally override innate desires are
> >adaptive.  That explains why people consciously choose to limit their
> >brood size when presented with information suggesting that the
> >cost-benefit ratio of having children is low.
>
> A lot of people think that in a socialized society the cost-benefit of
> children is below zero.  I.e., let others raise kids to provide your food
> and shelter when you are old and have a ripping good time without the
> expense of raising any kids.  Of course if *everybody* did it . . . .

But then you don't spread your genes, which has a really high benefit value.

> > > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of
> > > kids they had about in half?  Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or
> > > 40 years plus or minus?
> >
> >The fact that there are a variety of anecdotes should be further
> >evidence that a simple cookie-cutter answer doesn't exist.  Human
> >psychology and decision making are complex.
>
> I don't know the answer either, but don't you think that's a bit of a cop
> out?   It's a matter of life and death for billions of people.  Even if you
> are into Randian "me first and the hell with everyone else" it isn't going
> to keep you from being caught in the gears when the situation "turns pear
> shaped."

Don't you think it's a bit hystrionic to claim that we need to
understand every nuance of human behavior?  Yes, it's interesting from
a purely academic perspective, but neither will that knowledge do you
any good, should you find yourself in some untoward situation, unless
you you can remodel all of human psychology.  We currently don't have
the means to do that.

Martin