[ExI] EP, was Margaret Mead controversy

[Keith Henson]

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:00 AM,  BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

snip

> Basically it is the nurture versus nature debate all over again.
>
> Keith (like Freeman) tends towards nature side, that humans behave
> more as genetics have programmed them to.

It depends on how widely you class "behavior."  Remember, the genes
just don't have the information available to program a lot of behavior
beyond walking.  So a person flying a jet aircraft isn't using a lot
of genetically programmed behavior.  But if he (or she) is flying in a
war, the motivation behind wars is genetically determined because the
selection for going to war when it was profitable for genes was under
intense selection for millions of years.  (In good times it was *not*
profitable for genes.)

> I tend more towards the nurture side, that humans behave more as their
> culture programs them to.

It really depends on the situation.  Culture has *nothing* to do with
you pulling an arm back when you touch something that hurts.  Culture
(and current culture at that) has everything to do with spending hours
working on your Facebook page.

> Obviously it is all a big mish-mash with parts of both points of view
> being correct at different times and circumstances.
>
> But the nurture side is the whole point of the history of
> civilization, i.e. trying to control the animal instincts of humans to
> build a better life.

According to Dr. Gregory Clark, civilization set up the conditions for
genetic selection in some parts of the world as intense as that which
converted wild foxes to cute tame ones in 20 generations.  Indeed
certain psychological characteristics, such as impulsiveness and time
preference, seem to have been greatly reduced in some groups over
baseline hunter gatherers.

> Keith's support of the idea that genetic programming takes precedence
> is what leads him to his rather depressing view of the future course
> of humanity.

It's not genetic programming that concerns me.  I actually don't see
much future for humanity at all as we pass into the singularity.  We
can change to keep up with our intellectual offspring.  The result
would be something we would not recognize as human.  Alternately our
intellectual offspring might keep us like we keep cats (depressing
when you think of what we do to cats "for their own good").  Perhaps
you have another option?

> But civilization has been controlling the human genetic
> impulses (to a greater or lesser extent) for thousands of years.  So I
> think there is still hope for humanity.

Out of curiosity are you doing anything to improve our chances for a future?

Keith