[extropy-chat] evolution and adoption

[Mark Walker]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Freels"

> It's easy, when considering human activity, to forget that there's a
> cultural side to human evolution. Unless you are so powerful that you are
> "untouchable", doing things that are culturally unacceptable doesn;t help
> you get along with the rest of the "tribe". We are social creatures and
the
> unspoken agreement may be "have no more children that you can personally
> take care of. We won't have to worry about taking care of your children
and
> you won't have to worry about taking care of ours". Culturally, the
survival
> of the tribe is more important than the reproductive success of one
> individual. This cultural signifigance doesn;t apply to the worms or fish
> you are describing.

By the 'cultural side' of evolution I take it you mean something like
nongenetic intergenerational transmission of information (Bonner, The
Evolution of Culture in Animals, 1983). The most prevalent hypothesis among
experts in human behavior is that human activity is primarily guided by
culture rather than genetics, although it may be that the tide is turning.
There is lots of evidence that about 30 to 50 % of the variability in human
personality is under genetic influence (see my paper "Genetic Virtue"
http://www.permanentend.org/gvp.htm for a brief review of some of this
evidence). In any event, I would be surprised if the number of children one
has is entirely under culture control but I agree that this is certainly not
a hypothesis we can dismiss a priori. Do you have any evidence to think that
this phenomena is entirely or mostly under cultural influence like the
length of skirts?

Mark

Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org