Ch. 1: Finding Your Inner Fish

Saffron · Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:41 am Post subject:

Robert, I am sorry I don't have the time right now to give your last post a full response. I am about to be late for work! I wonder if you might, step by step, walk me through an example of the evolution of a cultural trait, in the same way as Shubin does when explaining the evolution of the ear bones in humans? I think this would go a long way toward helping me understand how it is you understand evolution to occur in culture.
Thanks for your efforts in making this a very interesting discussion!

Saffron

Robert Tulip · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject:

Robert Tulip · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject:

Robert Tulip · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject:

Saffron · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject:

Robert Tulip wrote:

Robert Tulip · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:49 am Post subject:

Saffron · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 6:33 am Post subject:

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 11:18 am Post subject:

Robert, you are well prepared to argue your position. I find that what is hanging me up is the possible conflation of natural and human in your reasoning. Yes, humans are part of nature, and that could make their actions natural in some sense, but to me this evacuates the discussion of much of its meaning. My view is that human actions, human history, are significantly beyond determination by nature or the environment. Not uninfluenced by by these, of course, but not reducible in the end to what we call natural or physical law. The VHS/Betamax battle turned out the way it did because of what emerged, and this could not have been predicted before events happened. But scientific laws give us the ability of prediction. This is why I, and I think Saffron, do not want to apply the scientific principle of neo-Darwinism to human society and history. It is a reductionism that I/we would like to avoid. It also seems to lead to a view of what happened as inevitable in some sense.

Robert Tulip · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject:

This discussion opens what we mean by adaptation and nature. In these themes I am influenced by Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, whose Meditations are a classic text of Stoicism. The stoic is fatalist, in the belief that everything that happens is caused by nature. Hence even human life is a part of nature. I agree with DWill that fate must be tempered by freedom, but the message I get from scientists such as Shubin is that we can learn much by exploring life through the lens of fate. The oxygen the plants put in the air created the opportunity for handy fish to move to land – a sort of manifest destiny.

When we look at apparently dysfunctional practices such as the wearing of burkas, or even the adoration of the Virgin Mary, the fact that they are dysfunctional does not make them less adaptive, unless and until these dysfunctions become so problematic that the practice ceases. Adaptation is a scientific term describing how an organism changes to suit its niche.

Part of the niche of the burka is a territory where women who defy custom are killed. Changing this customary practice of murder is required in order to make the burka less adaptive. This would require deep-seated changes to the Islamic belief systems that have emerged in those societies. It is difficult for Westerners to preach to these societies when there is a perception that Western values are deeply corrupt and self-interested. So, there needs to be dialogue, with respect, about questions such as the status of women and the path of development. Islam tends to belittle Western ideas about women’s equality, seeing them as a stalking horse for atheist capitalism. It is hard to disentangle the set of beliefs that enter this debate – just focusing on asking women to remove their burkas is asking them to be martyrs. Do those suggesting this martyrdom have a clear picture of the impact of such a step?

Comparing to the VHS-Beta case, with hindsight we can say that in a two horse race the video system that focused most strongly on building market share, as an early entrant, would be likely to become a market standard. Marketers use this observation to plan future assaults on consumers.

Considering the impact of efforts to improve the rights of women under Islam, this video case can help us ask about the impact of addressing single issues such as burkas in isolation, on the model of evolution. I just think that there are objective factors, like the objective market share factor for videos, which continue to make burkas adaptive for women in some countries. Until there is a compelling alternative, many Islamic women will not be convinced that changing their habit is in their interest, and overall, the burka will remain adaptive for some time. This does not make it good, but many adaptive things, eg viruses, are not good.

Saffron · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject:

Maladaptive does not really exist in the biological sense. There are not organs or body parts of any creature that is maladaptive. My understanding of Darwinian evolution the changes come because a trait is more adaptive, not because a trait is or becomes maladaptive. I also feel safe in saying that in the world of biology, traits are not good or bad. They just are.

The fact that cultures/societies have aspects that are maladaptive and even destructive make it difficult, if not impossible to apply the principles of Darwinian evolution.

Robert Tulip · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject:

There are traits that are biologically maladaptive. The human hernia is an example, where the benefits of being able to walk on two legs outweigh the maladaptive negative that our guts squish out from time to time. More broadly, maladaption occurs when a niche changes, so for example the Australian wombat was well adapted to a pre-human continent, but is somewhat maladapted to dealing with cars, cows and fences invading its habitat. American megafauna were maladapted to deal with the small creatures who crossed the Bering Strait in 13000 BC and ate them. In this sense, all extinction and endangerment of species can be classed as a maladaption, except that the power to change the niche generally rests with people, so there is little the maladapted entity can do. With the burka, the question whether it is adaptive or maladaptive is a function of whether its use is expanding, stable or declining, and of whether its negative effects outweigh the positive.

DWill · Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 12:12 pm Post subject:

We may judge that one part or another of an organism is "maladaptive", but it doesn't matter what we think about it. The organism is reproducing and surviving as a species despite any variations from the "ideal." Look at the structure of our backs, how much less than ideal this arrangement is from a design standpoint. Doesn't matter; our total package is what counts towards whether we reproduce and survive as a species.
DWill

Robert Tulip · Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:47 am Post subject:

Excuse my pedantry, but I think it does matter what we think about adaptation. 'What we think about it' can be false or true, and it matters that we think things that are true, otherwise we are on a nihilist path. The point about maladaptation is that it is an objective indicator of a species failure to reproduce and survive - by definition. Knowledge about maladaption is important to see the similarities between human culture and the evolution of life. It would be true to say what we think doesn't make a difference to whether an organism is adaptive, but this is slightly different from your comment. There is a wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladaptation


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT