Re: Human Nature: Born or Made? (fwd)

At 8:29 AM +0800 16/3/00, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

>As usual, willing to stir up trouble,

But why should this be stirring up trouble? A finding -- if it is
indeed such -- is a finding: interesting, but so what?

Unless, of course, there are unstated assumptions behind the
argument, such as that if behaviour x is shown to be "beneficial in
evolutionary terms" then we should accept it as part of acceptable
behaviour. I take it that the unstated in Richard's "beneficial in
evolutionary terms" include (a) the term "biological" as the
adjective to "evolutionary", and (b) "beneficial" refers to some such
thing as genetic transmission and species propagation. There are
likely other unstateds. He may or may not accept that something is
"beneficial in evolutionary terms" then it should be part of
acceptable behaviour.

However, what appears to exercise some persons on the list is
precisely some such unstated assumption. It may well be that in the
current ideological climate, some such assumption is operative in the
culture.

But the question is: Even if something is shown to be "beneficial in
biological evolutionary terms", does that mean that we should smile
kindly on it?

At an elementary level, since culture is evidently "beneficial in
biological evolutionary terms" (the fact that we have, thus far,
out-competed many other species, microbes excepted, and extinguished
them), why should not the dictates of culture and cultural creations
take precedence over the dictates of biology in at least some
instances?

I take it that many on this list wear reading glasses, in a largely
successful attempt to overcome the dictates of biology. Why not give
way to "nature", and just retire from jobs that require the use of
failing eyesight at short distances, thus making way for those others
who can still work the magic of being "beneficial in evolutionary
terms", since failing eyesight at short distances is correlated with
being on the reproductive decline?

In biological evolutionary terms, it is hardly evident that life
beyond 45 or thereabouts is beneficial -- all genetic transmission
having been completed and in biological evolutionary terms, there can
no longer be any net evolutionary benefit. Why then do we seek to
extend life? Why not just give way to biology?

So also, if it is indeed demonstrable that rape is "beneficial in
evolutionary terms", why should we smile kindly on it? Evidently, it
is a minority behaviour. It can, I take it, be argued that it is a
mark of the inability of the individual thus engaged to successfully
perform his evolutionary function, genetic transmission, by enticing
a chosen female to voluntarily agree to its performance; worse, it is
a total failure given that the attempt often enough results in the
death of the chosen female. In the order of "nature", we all know
what happens to biological failures. They get eliminated. So why
shouldn't we just eliminate rapists? And this would apply with even
greater force to gang rapists.

Unless, of course, in the ideological climate of contemporary United
States and the North Atlantic (and the majority of this list, I
think, is North Atlantic), there is an unstated assumption that if
something can be demonstrated to be "natural", i.e. biologically
given, then we must smile kindly on it. As, I believed, happened some
time back when it was suggested that homosexuality might be
genetically determined, although that genetic determination, strictly
speaking, has no evolutionary benefit or disbenefit since there is no
genetic transmission, except for bisexuals.

But in the human context, what is "natural"? For surely the
_capacity_ for culture and language is a biological given, a part of
that genetic composition that defines us as a species. Does it need
to be stated that the _capacity_ for culture (as distinct from the
specifics) is biologically determined: try as we might to prove
otherwise, it still is the case that other species do not have that
capacity, or have it in a very restricted sense.

So, is it any the less "natural" if culture were to rule some
biological givens as unacceptable, and some acceptable, and deal with
them accordingly? Or are we to privilege one set of biological givens
over another set of biological givens? If we are to privilege the
biological biological (as distinct from the biological cultural),
then why not extend it the whole route? Do away with the genetically
deformed and malformed. Do away with heart bypasses amongst the
biologically productive, thus contributing to the evolutionary
benefit, since there may be some genetic predisposition to heart
disease. Do not treat cancers, again in the same age group (in the
elderly, the evolutionary disbenefit has already been transmitted),
for which there appears to be some genetic predisposition. etc. etc.
If biology is to rule, then let it rule properly and in full
sovereignty. We might try to show that incest, too, has evolutionary
benefit -- actually it would be a subset of the idea that rape has
evolutionary benefit, given the number of rapes that occur in an
incestuous context.

Being absolutely politically incorrect, ideological, and trying to
really stir the hornets' nest from afar with some stupidity,

Khoo Khay Jin

Confucius says: "Be too open-minded and the brains may fall out" :)