"sociobiology" (whatever that is)

Now that the pot is boiling, I suppose I should attempt to clarify
myself, since I've been designated as an enemy of the people.

The only thing I apologize for is trying to think clearly.  If that's a
crime, then as the saying goes, "when thinking is outlawed, only outlaws
will think for themselves" (or something like that).

1)
When I refer to sociobiology/evolutionary psychology, I am evidently not
talking about the same thing as some others on this list.  Obviously there
are individuals and organizations with reactionary agendas that promote
various sorts of biological determinism as applied to various groups of
human beings in order to ratify existing inequalities.  What I take
exception to is the characterization of the entire research program as
reactionary.  This is simply not true.  Anyone who chooses to go look for
themselves (I've supplied references in the past) rather than blindly
accept the tendentious selection of quotes recently posted can see this.
Look for the forthcoming "A Darwinian Left" by Peter Singer (I haven't
seen it yet, only that it is to be published in April) for an example of a
progressive ideology using darwinian principles.  ("Altruism" is in the
subtitle, if I remember correctly, so that gives you some small notion of
what he may have in mind.)

2)
I find it rather amazing (although not surprising, given the power of
ideology) that there are those of the right and the left who still refuse
to accept that modern biology/genetics is here to stay.  If people would
approach this entire area with an open mind rather than ideological
blinkers their view would be altered substantially.  And as a recent post
noticed, it does not mean the social acceptance of the biological or
genetic explanations that are discovered.  It simply means not keeping
your head in the ground like an ostrich and pretending they don't exist.
(Feminists who ignore the major logical consequences of the sex difference
for the origins of sex stratification are a case in point.  Sex and race
are not equivalent categories, as opposed to much current politically
correct thinking -- sex is a very real biological distinction, whereas
race does not exist as a biological category.) 

3)
Here's a test for our anti-sociobiological comrades.

Are you concerned about the prospects of genetic engineering?  If the
entire premise of sociobiology/evolutionary psychology, and the larger
darwinian biology of which it is a part, has nothing to it but ideology,
then I would think there would be no reason for concern, since there is no
genetic effect on human behavior in the first place to modify.

I, for one, am VERY concerned that the current race to decode
the Human Genome will result in unimaginable social catastrophes.
(And altering the genes of other species is dangerous as well.)  Why?
Because, A) there is in fact a very real basis to the research, and B) the
quest for profits and the existing power structure will not use this
research for the general good, but rather to perpetuate the system of
inequality.  For instance, by applying gene therapy to the wealthy,
creating a class of longer-lived people ruling over a caste of
shorter-lived proletarians (just an extreme form of what already exists,
of course).  That's just the tip of the iceberg of horrific applications
that are likely to be developed.  But that is very different from
condemning the underlying ideas.  Was Mendel a reactionary?  Most of the
health researchers working with these ideas are completely
well-intentioned, I'm sure.  They see the potential to treat,
indeed, eliminate very serious diseases.  They are not reactionary, and
the ideas are not inherently reactionary.  What is reactionary is the
social system that will inevitably use the ideas to perpetuate inequality
and suffering.

If you believe that this research is just capitalist/racist/sexist
propoganda, then there is no reason for concern about the actual research,
since it's based on a lie.  I, for one, wish that's the only thing we had
to worry about.

One more point in closing, and that is that I take the evidence I
mentioned last fall of the deleterious effects of relative inequality on
health to mean we are biologically designed, as an adaptation to the bulk
of our existence in egalitarian gathering and hunting bands, to live with
egalitarian social relations.  This is one clear way in which evolutionary
research has progressive social implications.  Far better to engineer
society to conform to that parameter than to engineer people to conform to
extreme social inequality.

[If you still think I am an enemy of the people, read that last paragraph
again before you pick up the next handful of stones.]

RH