[ExI] Margaret Mead controversy

[Mike Dougherty]

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:07 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. 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.

their interdependence forces a balance.  We might make a strong case
for one extreme but the farther we push our point(s) from that
equilibrium the harder it is to believe.  While genes program
behavior, the environment measures fitness.  Our culture is a habitat
for competing memes (and the genes that preclude us to
accepting/propagating them)

Why has western culture fixated on the emaciated waif as the ideal
feminine form?  What evolutionary advantage exists?  Is it simply the
rarity of that phenotype that we perceive as valuable from a requisite
diversity perspective?  Is blond & blue eye the same?  The ability to
use one's brain to secure material wealth has changed the ideal
masculine form from largish alpha brute protector/provider.  Maybe the
fitness evaluation grows more complex with the environment.

fwiw:  no, I don't have a dozen citations to legitimize my opinion.
If this observation stands on it's own then great; else it's just one
person's casual conversation.