Speciation

[amicus]

Musings on this first day of a new year...Just having read a number of 'threads' about political issues and freedom, and restraining myself from commenting, I am reminded of The Bullets continuing story, Death By Fucking.... and his pursuit on the ongoing evolution of man. Speciation, he calls it...

Anne McCaffrey also pursues that idea in her, "Rowan" series...

I read and thought about all the controversy and thought of just how ongoing it really is....there seems to be in all things, two extremes and much in between.

Not a real profound thought, I suppose, but in the context of human civilization, it takes on a perspective all its' own.

That of a natural, innate conflict and competition, to the death if necessary, as the basic means by which civilizations, societies and individuals, survive or perish.

It is simplistic of course, but one can, within the confines of a discussion, identify those two extremes as, 'controlled', or, 'uncontrolled'

And of course one must limit the context to include only, 'sentience' those creatures who are both, 'aware' and possessed of 'free will', again, within the confines of 'reality'

Those who project that 'Homo Sapiens' will evolve out of our current state of conflict and competition, into a 'kinder, gentler' species, one of mutual cooperation, fail to understand, I think, the nature of the beast.

It was and is and will always be the 'tooth and claw' of conflict and competition that drives the engine of progress and refinement. As in nature, the strong survive and procreate, the weak perish and go extinct.

And I did not create this system, so go yell at your deity, not me, regards...amicus in the new year...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If you’re talking about social Darwinism, then you’re treading on an especially sore toe with me. Social darwinism and the argument for the survival of the fittest is an old piece of bullshit that no one takes seriously anymore in light of the findings of anthropology and sociobiology, because social darwinism treats makind as if the individual were the basic unit of survival, which is simply not the case. Mankind is not mankind except in groups, and whether you call these groups tribes or nations doesn’t really matter. What matters is that human beings are social animals and only can exist as social animals. The fate of one individual doesn’t make much of a difference.

A single man, no matter how much Terminator he might be, doesn’t have a chance at survival in the wild, no more than does a single ant or bee. A single individual is no match for the things nature can fling at him, and is pretty much helpless on his own. It’s only when you get people living in social groups that the real powers of mankind become evident. It is only because of our deeply inbred social nature that mankind ‘s been able to survive at all.

Seen in this light, those societies that do the most to insure the survival and contribution of the most of its members has the best chance of survival. We don’t leave our old people to die because we need their wisdom and experience. We don’t turn our backs on the ill and the helpless because we need their contributions as well. It’s a law of nature that love and caring is far more important to any society than strength of individuals, and the health and viability of a culture can be measured in how well we take care of our own. And that’s not theory; that’s a fact.

Because we're social and cultural animals, the old "red in tooth and claw" laws of evolution don't apply to us and never have. We're beyond those kind of selective pressures, so you can forget about mankind "evolving" into some sort of superior breed. We stand and fall as societies, and any individual's success as a hunter or bread-winner have almost no correlation to his reproductive success. Hence: no evolution, not in that sense.

I’m not really sure what your point was, but I just came from dealing with some fucking anti-semite on another board, and I’m sick to death of this kind of survival-of-the-best kind of crypto-nazi Rambo crap.

Apologies if I misaddressed the point you were trying to make.

---dr.M.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Darwinism

Hi, Doc
I agree with most of what you say but there is a certain amount of darwinism at work even in civilized societies. Just as the strongest bull elephant or the sweetest singing songbird or the peacock with the gaudiest plumage is the one who mates the most, succcessful men have more opportunities to mate than less successful men. I don't think anyone is going to argue that women are not attracted by success. Maybe not all women, but a high enough percentage of the female population to make that a true statement.

Of course, this process of natural selection is somewhat thwarted by birth control. Even if the very successful man takes advantage of all his opportunities, he or the women usually use methods to prevent inpregnation. Maybe that is natural selection in reverse.

 

[gauchecritic]

extelligence

Can't be arsed to look up the appropriate quote but it is quoted in 'The Science of Discworld II'.

Extelligence is the major survival factor these days. In other words the 'intelligence' of societies.

Societies, however controlled, evolve their own intelligence regardless of individuals who make up that society.

Kill or be killed does not apply to societies, very much like large corporations or governments. Fight or flight applies only to individuals or herds, not societies. Society in this case being today's application of the term, although a tribe can have societal rules or boundaries they are not equivalent to today's societies.

Although tribes do have a limited extelligence (a thief in the barracks cannot be tolerated) and an emergant dynamic, (an unpredictable and unknown future) a tribe is not large enough to form the needed cohesion of a full society.

So to what I think is the point. Individual superintelligence (for want of a projected evolutionary trait) is only useful as a tool within that society, but the society itself has no need of superintelligence per se. for every member.

If we make an arbitrary division of societies we have: Thinkers, doers and shit shovelers. Although even though either of the former can take their place as the third group the opposite isn't usually true. But society cannot exist without the third group, neither can it exist as a dynamic, emergent society without either of the first two groups. On the other hand a group or tribe of people can exist with only the third group just as long as there is a plentiful supply of necessary life support, but this group has no dynamic, cannot become emergent and can only sustain itself when there is little outside influence other than size limitations.

As soon as a society becomes a 'society' it has to take care of its individual parts and always expand. This is where extelligence comes in. This is also where this monologue ends.

Gauche

 

[Pure]

Hi Amicus,
you said,

That of a natural, innate conflict and competition, to the death if necessary, as the basic means by which civilizations, societies and individuals, survive or perish.[...]

It was and is and will always be the 'tooth and claw' of conflict and competition that drives the engine of progress and refinement. As in nature, the strong survive and procreate, the weak perish and go extinct.


It's by no means clear the that 'innate conflict and competition, to the death if necessary' is a (or _the_) fundamental characteristic of nature. It's sometimes the case, of course.

The statement "the strong survive and procreate, the weak perish and go extinct" is misleading. Another phrase that turns up here is "survival of the fittest," also misleading.

The problem is that "strength" a) is not obvious, and b) is defined only after the fact. If you are strong physically, but dumb, and I outwit you and kill you, then I'm the stronger; so it's clear after the fact.

In nature, conflict is not necessarily the paradigm. Take the case of foxes and rabbits in a given setting (predator and prey). Is the former 'at war to the death' with the latter? Well, if rabbits feed foxes, then as rabbits are eaten, you reach a point of too many foxes and not enough rabbits to feed them, and foxes start dying. The empirical studies thus show a cycle, where foxes increase, then decrease, increase, then decrease. There cannot be ''victory" of foxes over rabbits.

The cases of 'social predators' have been studied, e.g., wolves. First, as above, they are not 'at war' with their prey. Amongst themselves, however, there is not a 'war' either; it's a social hierarchy. The 'top dog' cannot have total victory, to the death over lesser dogs, or there wouldn't be a society of wolves.

There are cases--orangs, mountain goats-- where 'dominant males' compete for top position and fight. But, afaik, the 'loser' is not always killed; more likely takes a subordinate position.

In actual empirical studies of evolution, the 'law of strife' or 'law of the jungle' 'survival of the strongest' are only one of several mechanisms.

So the 'tooth and claw' thing, as dr m says is more a slogan or a proposed way to live. A kind of predatory idea. But it really isn't based on 'fundamental' and 'innate' principles of nature. It's a practice that, even on a small scale defeats itself, for example in the sexual predator figure of Gacy or Dahmer or Bundy.

You've free to be a predator, to conquer those in your path and eliminate them, but in the end, either

a) social mechanisms defeat you (as with sexual predators yielding to police and courts) or

b) you become more social, i.e., cooperative with a larger group; say a ruling party. And that party too, like Stalin's communist party, does not survive by eliminating its base (the 'masses') but by catering to them in some way (ensuring there is enough food, for example.)

I'm curious as to what practical consequences you think follow from the tooth and claw approach.

 

[Quasimodem]

. . . Just as the strongest bull elephant or the sweetest singing songbird. . . etc . . . mates the most, succcessful men have more opportunities to mate than less successful men. I don't think anyone is going to argue that women are not attracted by success. . .

If the 'most successful man' prefers to mate with a 'less successful man' the wheels start to fall off your argument.

Also, I am willing to argue that not all women are attracted by success. What about the women who serially mate with men who beat them insensible? In what sense of 'competition' or 'success' does the possession of a 'nice ass' fall? What definition of success is being employed by women who are habitually attracted by members of the Hell's Angels, or something similar?

The trouble is, that applying Darwinian Theory, or any predications of evolution to man – either individually, or in society – is doomed.

Man is the most peculiar, most unnatural animal. Ordinary theories do not apply.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: Darwinism

Hi, Doc
I agree with most of what you say but there is a certain amount of darwinism at work even in civilized societies. Just as the strongest bull elephant or the sweetest singing songbird or the peacock with the gaudiest plumage is the one who mates the most, succcessful men have more opportunities to mate than less successful men. I don't think anyone is going to argue that women are not attracted by success. Maybe not all women, but a high enough percentage of the female population to make that a true statement.

I have to disagree with you. While women may or may not be attracted to successful men, and successful men might have more opportunities to fling their genes around, it's pretty well documented that the more finacially successful you are (if we can use that as a measure of "success"), the less children you have (except for Mel Gibson ). The highest birth rates are found in the poorer segment of the population, and this is true all around the world.

That's is why some people worry about the "dumbing down" of the human gene pool. I wouldn't worry about this either though. There's a lot more to intelligence than genetics.

We are getting bigger, stronger, and (in my opinion) better looking, but that's mainly due to improvements in public health and quality of life.

---dr.M.

 

[gauchecritic]

Re: Re: Darwinism

That's is why some people worry about the "dumbing down" of the human gene pool. I wouldn't worry about this either though. There's a lot more to intelligence than genetics.
---dr.M.

Plus the fact that the human gene pool has more diversity on the African continent than in the rest of the world put together. Or are they only worried about the white gene pool?

Gauche

 

[amicus]

Socail Darwinsim

Some very interesting thoughts expressed concerning 'Speciation'.

Charles Darwin and 'Darwinism' social or otherwise, is not the issue I am pondering. As the United States and a few other G-8 countries move into and beyond a Service Economy, the skills required for success change from that of earlier economies, such as Industrial or Agrarian.

Man, individual man, will evolve, as it is the nature of the species, to survive in the new environment.

While in nature, those changes take many, many generations, in the near future with the scope of the human genome mapping project, those changes can and will be be genetically induced.

Philosophically and logically, 'thought', idea, intellect, et cetera, are all, 'individual characteristics', not held, by definition, by the group. Further, 'evolution' occurs in one individual, not a group.

Humans may well indeed be 'social animals', and I would not debate that, however, it is not the 'defining characteristic' of the species, man's individuality holds that honor, and is the basis for all else.

I did attempt to step beyond the insentient animal world, but that seems to have been overlooked.

As one tentatively looks to the future when mankind will colonize the solar system and then the galaxy, one muses as to how much of the nature of man as we know it now, will change. Knowing that it will, as Thebullet' said, perhaps those changes are already occuring and, 'future man' is among us this day.

Another comment about, 'women' choosing, reminded me of a recent, Science of Sex program on television. It seems, so it was said, that 40 percent of women during their 'fertile' period, married or not, have the sperm of two or more males swimming for the promised land. Another program in that series denoted the different types of sperm within one male, types to block other sperm, fight other sperm and those best for penetrating the egg. Thus...the 'tooth and claw' element of conflict and competition, exists in the very deepest recesses of our rather dark beginnings. Regards....and thank you for the comments...amicus

 

[Guest]

For the record, Box, you've pissed me off again. I, and no woman I've known well in my life, has pursued what you call successful men. Yeah, I know what you mean and I know what 'society' pages say but I really really hate when you make general dumb statements like that. Don't apologize, don't explain yourself.

Perdita

p.s. good on Gauche and Mab. (very successful men imo)

 

[Boxlicker101]

If the 'most successful man' prefers to mate with a 'less successful man' the wheels start to fall off your argument.

Also, I am willing to argue that not all women are attracted by success. What about the women who serially mate with men who beat them insensible? In what sense of 'competition' or 'success' does the possession of a 'nice ass' fall? What definition of success is being employed by women who are habitually attracted by members of the Hell's Angels, or something similar?

The trouble is, that applying Darwinian Theory, or any predications of evolution to man – either individually, or in society – is doomed.

Man is the most peculiar, most unnatural animal. Ordinary theories do not apply.

Hi, Quasi.
I said nothing in my post about men mating with men. In one of the sentences that you omitted, I made it clear that I was referring to heterosexual mating. That same sentence said that not all women are attracted by success, so we are not in disagreement there. As for men who beat their women senseless, that has little or nothing to do with success. Abusers can be found in all levels of society.

Some men try to project a "bad boy" image, and in that respect, the Hell's Angels are highly successful. Maybe some women are attracted by men who are successful at being bad but who can pedict female behavior?

The biological purpose of sex is producing offspring, and in that regard, a "nice ass" and "nice tits" are seen as positives. The former indicates a wide pelvis, which is good for carrying a fetus to term, and giving birth safely, and the latter is seen as being good for nursing the baby. In this case, a carnal attraction is also a biological attraction, and I am sjure the two are related.

I have to agree, though, that the things I am writing about only apply to man in the natural state. With modern medicine and nutrition, even Ally McBeel can bear and raise children. "Nice tits and nice ass" might mean a lot of silicone. In a modern society, there are too many variables to make any predictions, except that there will continue to be variables.l

 

[SummerMorning]

Re: Socail Darwinsim

Humans may well indeed be 'social animals', and I would not debate that, however, it is not the 'defining characteristic' of the species, man's individuality holds that honor, and is the basis for all else.

 

[SummerMorning]

*groan* hangover...sorry. Messed up the post.

First - re. social darwinism - precisely what Dr. M et al said.

Amicus - you posit man's individuality as the basic defining characteristic of humanity. A wonderful idea - alas, only an idea. Individuality is primarily a western concept - a concept of our individualistic, consumerist, turbo-capitalist system (it does have its moments, turbo-injection and 0-100 in under 8,5 seconds are among the finer points of a good car).

However, there are many societies which are aware that the individual is not the alpha and omega of humanity.

A human only becomes human through learning and socialisation, processes that are basically non-individual. An individual left to himself is not a human being, it is an organism of the genus Homo, yes, but it is not human. The complex interaction of structure and agency, the interplay of nature and nurture - human relations in short are the defining characteristics of humanity. Language and cultural are both relational concepts with no use outside of society and it is they that make us human.

Ergo. to be human is to write...here...now...with a hangover and a heavy blanket draped around my homo sapiens shoulders.

I was going to add something, but I need some aspirin before my brain addles completely...

 

[gauchecritic]

Re: Socail Darwinsim

Man, individual man, will evolve, as it is the nature of the species, to survive in the new environment.

There is no new environment, except social, there is and will be no natural evolutionary change due to social change. Any man made change, like the possible greenhouse effect can never be gradual enough to allow of any individuals progeny/ancestors to breathe smog, ozone, or CO. There is no chicken, there is no egg.

While in nature, those changes take many, many generations, in the near future with the scope of the human genome mapping project, those changes can and will be be genetically induced.

But the most necessary part of evolution cannot be engineered, that is viability.

Philosophically and logically, 'thought', idea, intellect, et cetera, are all, 'individual characteristics', not held, by definition, by the group. Further, 'evolution' occurs in one individual, not a group.

Both philosophy and logic only have any value within a group or society. Neither of these will ensure non-destruction of gene legacy, but society can and does provide a better chance.

Humans may well indeed be 'social animals', and I would not debate that, however, it is not the 'defining characteristic' of the species, man's individuality holds that honor, and is the basis for all else.

Gregariousness is the single most useful facet of any animal prolongation. Individuality is a useful tool, far more useful to society than the individual, merely because society provides a much higher chance for individual 'dissemination' than one man, one (or more) mates. Which is why animals are animals and mankind is a society.

I did attempt to step beyond the insentient animal world, but that seems to have been overlooked.

As one tentatively looks to the future when mankind will colonize the solar system and then the galaxy, one muses as to how much of the nature of man as we know it now, will change. Knowing that it will, as Thebullet' said, perhaps those changes are already occuring and, 'future man' is among us this day.

Future man must always be amongst us, or at the very least those genes which must meet with other genes to produce that required abberation. Once again, there are no chickens, there are no eggs.

Another comment about, 'women' choosing, reminded me of a recent, Science of Sex program on television. It seems, so it was said, that 40 percent of women during their 'fertile' period, married or not, have the sperm of two or more males swimming for the promised land. Another program in that series denoted the different types of sperm within one male, types to block other sperm, fight other sperm and those best for penetrating the egg. Thus...the 'tooth and claw' element of conflict and competition, exists in the very deepest recesses of our rather dark beginnings. Regards....and thank you for the comments...amicus

This would rather bolster the 'society versus individual' arguement. That the entire spoonful of society which attempts impregnation all "stand on the shoulders of giants". Isaac Newton thereby attempting to ensure another spoonful of society.

Gauche

 

[shereads]

Re: extelligence

...the society itself has no need of superintelligence per se. for every member.

It would be nice if we at least saved some of our top slots for the superintelligent.





BTW: Your source's "shit shoveler" means manual laborers, right? I confuse the term with advertising, which is my field.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

http://www.angelfire.com/ia/Maria/Blinkisar/Missinglink.gif


'Nuff said.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Socail Darwinsim

there are no chickens, there are no eggs.

:: Staring at my lunch, wide-eyed and deeply shaken ::

Originally posted by amicus

As one tentatively looks to the future when mankind will colonize the solar system and then the galaxy...

:: Briefly disturbed by the prospect of Egg McMuffin wrappers littering other planets, I consider what gauche said, and breathe a sigh of relief ::

 

[shereads]

WARNING: DO NOT READ IF YOU'RE ON THE PILL

FY everyone's I, on the subject of how women select mates:

Recently I read the results of a long-term study into some rarely considered effects of birth control pills. Among the study topics was how changing the level of various hormones in the female body from cyclical (fertile, non-fertile) to the artificially induced non-fertile constancy induced by the Pill, might effect the choice of a mate. (The theory being that a woman in her fertile phase is attracted physically to "the right" man for her, the one to whom she will continue to be attracted over time.)

The test seemed to demonstrate that yes, fertility changes the way a woman evaluates the sexual attractiveness of a man; and that using the pill is likely to cause her to be attracted to a different kind of man.

Which works fine, until she stops using it.

Example: she meets Mr. Right, the earth moves, they marry, and after a couple of years they decide to start a family. She goes off the pill...Once her hormone levels return to the cycles that were normal for her without the Pill, she may no longer feel the same sexual attraction to the man she chose when she was artifially manipulating her reproductive hormones.

Mr. Right becomes Mr. What-Was-I-Thinking.

What does that do to your spoonful of sperm donors?

 

[Boxlicker101]

For the record, Box, you've pissed me off again. I, and no woman I've known well in my life, has pursued what you call successful men. Yeah, I know what you mean and I know what 'society' pages say but I really really hate when you make general dumb statements like that. Don't apologize, don't explain yourself.

Perdita

p.s. good on Gauche and Mab. (very successful men imo)

Good morning, Dita, and Happy New Year.

I'm sorry if I pissed you off, but I have never, not in this thread or any other, accused women of pursuing men, successful or otherwise. I am well aware that women rarely pursue men, at least by my definition of "pursue". What I mean is that successful men have more opportunities. Women are more likely to reject the advances of a man they perceive to be a loser or a failure than of a man who is not a loser or a failure. The more successful a man is, the less likely women are to reject his advances, barring some outside factor, such as extreme ugliness or body odor or boorishness, etc. Not only men, but males in general. The starting quarterback on the high school football team will have a greater choice of prom dates than will the third string water boy, other things being equal. The man who is able to spend a lot of money on clothing and grooming, and who drives an expensive car will be able to pick up more women in a singles bar than the man who can not afford such things. I realize that wealth does not always mean success and vice-versa, but wealth is usually taken as an indication of success.

 

[Guest]

Re: WARNING: DO NOT READ IF YOU'RE ON THE PILL

FY everyone's I, on the subject of how women select mates:

Recently I read the results of a long-term study into some rarely considered effects of birth control pills. Among the study topics was how changing the level of various hormones in the female body from cyclical (fertile, non-fertile) to the artificially induced non-fertile constancy induced by the Pill, might effect the choice of a mate. (The theory being that a woman in her fertile phase is attracted physically to "the right" man for her, the one to whom she will continue to be attracted over time.)

The test seemed to demonstrate that yes, fertility changes the way a woman evaluates the sexual attractiveness of a man; and that using the pill is likely to cause her to be attracted to a different kind of man.

Which works fine, until she stops using it.

Example: she meets Mr. Right, the earth moves, they marry, and after a couple of years they decide to start a family. She goes off the pill...Once her hormone levels return to the cycles that were normal for her without the Pill, she may no longer feel the same sexual attraction to the man she chose when she was artifially manipulating her reproductive hormones.

Mr. Right becomes Mr. What-Was-I-Thinking.

What does that do to your spoonful of sperm donors?

Hmmm, there could be a lot of truth in that...

*ducks and hides from the Mr*

Lou, actually being quite serious. Eek!

 

[shereads]

Women are more likely to reject the advances of a man they perceive to be a loser or a failure than of a man who is not a loser or a failure.

Box, it's a lovely theory, but there's only one high school quarterback per team.


EDITED to add: Your theory doesn't take into account the nurturing instinct that sometimes kicks in at an inappropriate moment and causes a woman to select a man who "needs" her; i.e., her future ex husband.

 

[Guest]

Box, it's a lovely theory, but there's only one high school quarterback per team.

Ah ha ha, ella. I never went for jocks. Always the pale skinny poet types, always poor, always neurotic. Had great fun and sex though.

Perdita

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: WARNING: DO NOT READ IF YOU'RE ON THE PILL

*ducks and hides from the Mr*

Lou, you can always start taking it again after you've popped out the baby.

A less easily fixed implication of the study had to do with "fertility compatibility." If I remember this correctly, the study was partly prompted by anecdotal evidence that women who go off of the Pill and attempt to become pregnant are slightly less successful at becoming pregnant.

The authors of the study theorized that a woman might become pregnant more easily by her "most compatible" male; and that if women on the Pill fail to choose the most compatible, that might be the reason for the increased difficulty in becoming pregnant; not because there is a physical "hang-over" from the Pill that prevents pregnancy - I haven't read any evidence of that. Not that I care; if I do accidentally have a baby, you can have it if you promise to neuter it and spoil it and feed it Iams.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: WARNING: DO NOT READ IF YOU'RE ON THE PILL

Lou, you can always start taking it again after you've popped out the baby.

A less easily fixed implication of the study had to do with "fertility compatibility." If I remember this correctly, the study was partly prompted by anecdotal evidence that women who go off of the Pill and attempt to become pregnant are slightly less successful at becoming pregnant.

The authors of the study theorized that a woman might become pregnant more easily by her "most compatible" male; and that if women on the Pill fail to choose the most compatible, that might be the reason for the increased difficulty in becoming pregnant; not because there is a physical "hang-over" from the Pill that prevents pregnancy - I haven't read any evidence of that. Not that I care; if I do accidentally have a baby, you can have it if you promise to neuter it and spoil it and feed it Iams.

Hmmm, maybe that throws my new theory out of the window, then. I conceived both my babies within two months of coming off the pill. Maybe we are compatible afterall.

I did start taking the pill again after my girls were born, my youngest is almost 6, but I was sterilized 3 years ago and, obviously, I haven't taken it since then. That's when things started, erm, happening, if you catch my drift. Hence why I thought that theory might have some founding. Then again, I do love him, really!

Lou

 

[amicus]

The Science of Sex...

A pleasure to read comments from both genders....the birth control pill study keyed a memory on another Science of Sex study involving several thousand women and presented as, 'fact', take that for what ever it means...

It appears that of the study group, 58 percent of the children born did not know who their fathers were...oh, and if I recall correctly, these are 'married women'

The reasoning given was that women often choose a 'mate' that is stable and a 'good provider' but goes elsewhere for the most viable gene pool. Perhaps the Islamic treatment of women has a rational and not a religious foundation.

Comtemporary and Victorian or Judeau Christian ethics and morality notwithstanding, it seems that the basic physical and psychological nature of the (individual) beast reigns supreme over the, 'social' or 'group' interests.

regards to all for the New Year...amicus...