Why Steven Pinker is right - and where he is wrong

PeterDF · Freshman Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 214 Gender:

Monty

Agreed! Sorry if I misunderstood.

Coincidentally I was in a little bookshop in Kendal today and I bought a book about this very subject: "The Mating Mind" By Geoffrey Miller. According to the blurb on the jacket it is about how sexual selection might have influenced the development of the human mind. I'll let you know what I think.

PeterDF · Freshman Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 214 Gender:

Sean

I hadn't realised there was anyone else in the forum from this neck of the woods

. We are in Barrow where are you?

Yes I will be up at 3.00 am for the Pinker chat it is in my diary and I'm going to arrange that I don't have anything important on the next morning.

I don't agree that evolutionary pressure is lacking in modern populations. Think about someone who is very unusual in appearance - do you think such a person would have an equal chance of finding a partner and passing on their genes?

Selective pressure might not lead to adaptive change he pressure might act to maintain the status quo. (Stabilising selection)

Jeremy1952

Peter, is your book in print? ISBN?

Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived. E.O.Wilson

PeterDF · Freshman Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 214 Gender:

Jeremy

No! I haven't submitted it to an agent yet. I've had no feedback from the scientific community yet on the issues I have approached them about. There is also some reworking I want to do.

I wouldn't mind emailing it to you in return for comments though.

BTW thanks for the suggestion about "The Runaway Brain". It sounds as if I should definately read this. It has gone to the top of my list.

Jeremy1952

Sure, I'd love to take a look. Jeremy1952@charter.net

Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived. E.O.Wilson

rielmajr · Almost a regular Joined: 25 Dec 2002 Posts: 47 Gender:

I agree that we ought to be specific when speaking of human evolution, since it is not, as you aptly noted, a homogeneous process.

The sheer size of the human population, coupled with the widespread intermingling of all peoples (with wome notable exceptions such as the Yanomano in the Amazon and isolated groups in New Guinea) and the reach and effectiveness of technology -- particularly medical technology -- act to retard physical evolution of our species. I agree with Sean's notion that we would have to experience a severe selection event such as a pandemic or major climate change or perhaps an asteriod impact for the current genome to undergo major change. Your use of the thrill of speed selecting against that trait because the love of speed kills many young people could be countered by observing that there are many ways to enjoy speed and that most young people who enjoy it do not die but live to pass on their genes. What may be selected for is any disposition to enjoy speed without the consumption of alcoholic beverages and other reckless behaviour.

Now here in the US, there is apparently evidence that not all evolution results in more complex or sophisticated phenotypes: We have a semi-literate child of privilege in the White House, and Californians may elect The Terminator as their governor. And this has come about without the benefit of incest.

PeterDF · Freshman Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 214 Gender:

rielmajr

Quote:
We have a semi-literate child of privilege in the White House, and Californians may elect The Terminator as their governor. And this has come about without the benefit of incest

Wonderful! This had my wife and I falling about laughing :rollin

I have to disagree with you about selection though. I think selection is everywhere, but I do think that there is probably little or no selective pressure for morphological change - behavioural change is quite another matter.
In the case of morphological change I think any selective effect is probably as a result of sexual selection and is probably of the stabilising variety.

Quote:
most young people who enjoy it do not die but live to pass on their genes.

Those young people who don't enjoy it live to pass on their genes too!

As I understand it, the tiniest selective effect will tend to perpetuate itself given enough time. Remember that any gene frequency change due to persistent selection will be accumulate over geneological time.

Quote:
the consumption of alcoholic beverages

Where excessive drinking is influenced by a predisposition for addictive behaviour I agree that there might well be a selective effect, especially given the prevalence of illegal drugs in the West.

Where recklessness is concerned I think that there is a clear counterbalancing effect, in that people pedisposed to recklessness might be much less likely to take care with contraception (who neeeds condoms - lets take a risk). So I think this one is definitely in the wilderness of mirrors.

Edited by: PeterDF at: 8/25/03 1:40 pm

PeterDF · Freshman Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 214 Gender:

Jeremy

Great! I'd love you to read the draft. I'm just finishing the reworking of one chapter and I'll send it to you.

Peter

Meme Wars · Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:47 am Post subject: Natural Selection among Humans

It appears there is an opposite selection process. Once again, birth control and intelligence, family planning will have interesting undesireable effects.

Selective pressure will favore drug and alcohol and other less than responsible type behavior because they result in not only unintended pregnancy, but also earlier (shorter generations) births as well.

In the past, the irresponsible parents had children with lower survival rates. Now that we have a society that at least minimally ensures the survival of every child, that selective pressure is now gone. Also, the more responsible and intelligent people now have birth control to reduce their percentage of the genetic mix. I call this extreme selective pressure which has a shorter time span for change than other factors that may take a much longer time.

I am not advocating the end to birth control. On the contrary! Our population is at a crisis level and any humane way to slow that growth must be used. I am just posting a warning to what may happen in the next 200 to 500 years if we succeed in 100% available voluntary birth control over a 200 to 500 year timeframe. And that to reverse this effect we may have to consider society adapting a licensing program for chidren with upper limits for all, and strict age, minimal income standards, and education standards before licence for reproduction is granted, along with genetic screening for known genetic diseases.

Also, and probably more importantly, cultural evolution along this matter is probably more significant. Those culture that advocate higher population growth through religion or what ever means will displace the rest of the cultures. But these cultures are very hostile to generic education and the mixing of cultures, as this tends to dilute the pronatalist stand.

Of course, this is a moot subject; humanity is facing a severe bottleneck this century, and it is highly unpredictable what the mix of humans and culture will be on the other side (the survivors) of the energy crunch and eco-disasters.

Monty Vonn

seanf 2003 · Almost a regular Joined: 18 Jul 2003 Posts: 34 Gender:

All of this, while making many interesting points, involves trying to make specific predictions about certain aspects of a hugely complex system with millions of variables and unknowns involved. Oh, and Peter, I'm near Cockermouth.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT