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

I wish one could read more contributions like Hoo's. It has injected an
ironic sense of humor, and a refreshing viewpoint, into this discussion
(which, by the way, constitutes excellent anthropological material on
the topics which exercise the "North Atlantic" mind, to use Hoo's term).

Petros Haritatos
haritatos@athenian.net

-----Original Message-----
From: kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my <kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Παρασκευή, 17 Μαρτίου 2000 6:00 πμ
Subject: 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" :)
>