Re: "sociobiology" (whatever that is)

I agree with Andrew and Mine in their rejection of sociobiology, and 
I also do not think that Richard is an "enemy of the people." I would 
like to add a few comments to the points Richard raised.

1. Altruism:  Richard has brought up the question of altruism as an 
example of "progressive sociobiology."  If you examine the extensive 
writings on altruism by sociobiology, you will discover that 
sociobiologists  claim that all altruistic behavior turns out to be a 
form of selfish behavior.  They argue that altruistic behavior is 
behavior that enhances the survival and reproduction of those with 
whom one shares many genes.  Thus, the altruistic behavior 
contributes to the survival of one's own genes.  Moreover, the more 
genes you share with others, the more likely you are to behave 
altruistically toward them.  Hence, you are more likely to sacrifice 
your life for your children or your brother, somewhat less likely for 
extended kin, less likely for your "race" and not at all for those of 
other "races."

Sociobiologists also make an argument about "reciprocal altruism."  
They assert that reciprocal altruistic behavior enhances the survival 
value of both parties, thus contributing to the propagation of their 
genes.  Their "cooperation" thus serves their individual self 
interest.

Socioibiologist Pierre van den Berghe took these arguments to their 
logical conclusion.  He argued back in the late 1970s that it natural 
for humans to be racist, because we share more genes with those of 
our own "race," and that this true of all forms of "particularistic" 
behavior.  Van den Berghe asserted that societies that are based on 
particularisms are more stable and secure than societies which 
attempt to contravene "human nature."  Either he meant that Nazi 
Germany and apartheid South Africa and other such societies are more 
stable, or perhaps he meant that racism and other paraticularisms 
help capitalists divide and control the working class and preserve 
capitalism.

Thus, there is nothing progressive about the sociobiological analysis 
of altruism.  Ultimately, it is a cynical Paretan fascist argument 
that every gene is out for itself, and humans are merely the 
facilitators of that process.

2. Evolutionary psychology.  E.O. Wilson writes in "Consilience" 
that evolutionary psychology is one of the four "bridges of 
consilience" between sociobiology and the various non-sociobiologized 
disciplines that remain to be conquered by biological reductionism 
and thus made scientific.  It is thus a strategy of eviscerating 
psychology so as to reinterpret human psychology in a biological 
reductionist framework.

In conclusion,  I too accept biology and genetics.  Indeed, my wife 
is a biochemist whose research involves genetics.  She knows many 
geneticists.  Virtually none of them sees any science in 
sociobiology.

Steve Rosenthal