Re: Darwinism=Capitalism
John Edser
Michael Ragland wrote:
> JE:-
> Yes "racial progress" was not separated from "individual" progress
> hopelessly confusing group selection with organism selection. It was
> Wallace who argued for group selection. Darwin did not include it within
> his theory.
> MR:
> European racism was common during Darwin's time. It was out in the open
> and it was a "given" that Africans, aborigines, etc. were racially
> inferior to European man and civilization. Although Darwin didn't
> include group selection in his works and apparently rejected it he was a
> man of his times. He wrote of the need of exterminating the inferior
> races. Look up "Darwin's Morality" on google groups and you will see
> this. In a very real sense Darwin was the first Social Darwinist.
JE:-
Darwin separated belief from testable theory. His ability
to separate scientific from non scientific issues put
him at the cutting edge of his era. Even today
many "educated" people cannot make this separation.
Darwin (as a private person and not as a scientist) made many
comments that did reflect the prejudices of his times. However,
he never included group selection within his theory. He did
make comments re: his abhorrence for slavery even if
he did harbour beliefs (not theories) about inferior racial
types. Like a lot of thinkers of his times "the proof of
the pudding was in the eating" regarding belief in racial
inferiority. The misery of 3rd world conditions was quite
incorrectly associated with so called racial types. Unfortunately,
this was made worse rather than corrected after Mendel
was rediscovered. Genes could now be, and were, entirely misused
as _independent_ units of fitness. If gene x was a "bad" gene
then your were "inferior" if you had gene x. Muller, who
discovered mutation, was a typical right wing bigot. He
jumped at the chance to objectify what was wrong about
such a "bad" gene: it was a mutation. Later, one of
the founding fathers of population genetics R.A. Fisher
(who was also a right wing bigot) cemented in _independent_
gene fitnesses by declaring that only additive gene
associations were heritable and therefore, selectable.
This deleted all genetic epistasis within evolutionary theory
allowing those with "bad genes" to be labelled "inferior".
Fisher argued he had "good genes" and maximally reproduced
himself as a "duty" by marrying a very young girl. I do
not know if he would have sanctioned polygamy using the
same argument.
Of course, all along, humble naturalists realised that all
genomic genes remains _dependently_ selected, i.e. were not
independently, selectable. However the band wagon of gene
fitness independence had gathered such enormous momentum it
cruised into 2004 unscathed with the likes of Hamilton
Dawkins climbing aboard waving red flags for gene fitness
independence using it to sure up left and not right wing bigotry
within the biological sciences while at the same time creating an
enormous organism fitness altruism industry based on the
misuse of Hamilton's rule that continues to this
very day e.g. Wilson.
> MR:-
> The
> difference is in Darwin's scientific work he did not promote Social
> Darwinism but in his letters to others he at times expressed Social
> Darwinian views which could not be totally reconciled with individual
> selection. In his scientific works Darwin posited individual selection
> as the basis of natural selection but in some of his writings he
> referred to the survival of the fittest between races.
JE:-
Darwin separated his personal beliefs from what he
considered to be testable science. As a free person
living in a free country he was entitled to both.
I wish I could say the same about today's
Neo Darwinists.
> Bowler Quote:
> the "invisible hand" which
> economists saw coordinating individual selfishness for the benefit of
> society could now be seen as generating an advance toward higher things.
> JE:-
> It was Adam Smith who coined the "invisible hand" of capitalist society.
> Logically it was equivalent to Darwinian natural selection where the
> selectee remained the individual and not the society (no group selection
> was required).
> MR:
> You contradict yourself when you state, "However, capitalist market
> place competition can allow individuals to compare their gains/losses on
> a cognitive basis. This provides all sorts of problems that do not exist
> using competition by default."
JE:-
Please explain the contradiction you
are accusing me of allowing.
> Bowler Quote:
> But it was not just a question of struggle eliminating the unfit. Many
> scientists and social thinkers were Lamarckians, including Herbert
> Spencer, the philosopher who coined the term "survival of the fittest"
> -- widely regarded as the greatest social Darwinist. Struggle forced
> individuals to improve themselves as well as weeding out the few totally
> unfit to survive, a view that many would see reincarnated in modern
> Thatcherism. the original social Darwinism was as much Lamarckism as
> Darwinism.
> JE:-
> Spencer was in serious error. He took the "natural" out of Darwinian
> _natural_ selection because his "survival of the fittest" logic did not
> differentiate between competition by intent and competition by simple
> default. Each living form just does the best it can for itself while
> remaining unconscious of how other forms are doing in competition
> against it. Natural selection is competition by default. This includes
> human natural selection. However, capitalist market place competition
> can allow individuals to compare their gains/losses on a cognitive
> basis. This provides all sorts of problems that do not exist using
> competition by default.
> MR:
> Why wouldn't natural selection allow individuals to compare their
> gains/losses on a cognitive basis?
JE:-
Simply because even if ordinary living forms
had the cognitive ability to do this they
do not have the information. In a nesting
population of 10,000's of gulls, even if each
parental gull could count and understood
what a total fitness count meant, it has no way
of knowing how many infertile young were
raised to fertile adulthood by each member
of that population. Even as cognitive humans
we do not have this information.
> MR:-
> Are you suggesting Darwinian
> evolution in human beings requires us to be "unconscious" or
> "unintelligent of how other forms of life are in competition with us?
JE:-
See above.
>snip<
> JE:
> Competition by intent can very quickly became politically exploited.
> Hitler argued that certain racial types were superior to others because
> his fitter types could murder the supposed weaker types. His argument
> was group selective and an act of intent (not a Darwinian default act of
> individual selection). It did not represent Darwinian logic even if may
> have represented Spencerian logic. It took WW2 to prove that Hitler's
> "weak" were fitter by default using individual and not group selection.
> Man works via his brain and not just via brawn. Even Darwinian strength
> lies in a unique human adaptation: trade. Hitler destroyed free markets
> and trade so he and his ilk became hopelessly weak compared to those
> that didn't.
> MR:
> I don't believe in Darwinian selection where the selectee is merely a
> product of individual selection.
JE:-
Science does not deal in non testable
beliefs only in testable to refutation,
theory.
> MR:-
> That's not to say I don't accept the
> validity of individual selection as a result of natural selection but
> that there is more at work than just individual selection.
JE:-
Please provide a testable theory
of what you think this may be.
> MR:-
> It could be
> that individual selection and group selection are in someway cross
> purposed and nested within each other as apparently David Sloan Wilson
> thinks altruism and selfishness are.
JE:-
It does not matter what "David Sloan Wilson
thinks altruism and selfishness are" because
he et al have not put forward a theory that can be
tested to refutation. Putting forward a non
testable belief is not what science is about
and was not what Darwin was about.
To this very day organism fitness altruism remains
entirely dependent on a misuse of Hamilton's rule.
> MR:-
> Hitler didn't destroy free markets and trade.
> Here's an article:
>large snip for references to save space<
JE:-
I have never claimed that ALL trade was stopped
buy Hitler! All I claimed was that it was _reduced_
particularly, _internally_. Very clearly the very
people that could have provided him with the atomic
bomb were being melted down into soap products.
Hitler and his ilk were too dumb to realise this
was not a good deal for himself, or the Nazis.
> Bowler Quote:
> Evolution without Darwin the most extreme reaction against Darwinism is
> the Fundamentalist return to the Genesis creation story. But some
> evolutionists reject the Victorian emphasis on struggle. Many early
> twentieth-century thinkers insisted that the Victorians had been blinded
> by the ideology of competition. Nature was not dominated by struggle,
> and progressed by developing increasing levels of cooperation. the
> author Samuel Butler dismissed Darwinsm as a "nightmare of waste and
> death," while the playwrite Bernard Shaw wrote that if the selection
> theory were true "only fools and rascals could bear to live." their
> revulsion is shared by many modern opponents of the selection theory who
> find its emphasis on trial and error impossible to square with the
> development of purposeful structures. Butler and Shaw both saw
> Lamarckism as the most plausible alternative -- but in the 1920s
> Lamarckism was eliminated from science by modern genetics.
>
> JE:-
> Cooperation and competition are complimentary and not contradictory
> logics within Darwinism. To this very day Darwinian fitness
> mutualisation has not been properly identified. Historically this has
> led to a false dichotomy rooted in hopeless political rhetoric:
> "altruism" Vs "selfishness" which has been incorrectly justified using
> Hamilton et al for over 50 years.
> MR:
> Unlike you John I think there are many things about Darwinian evolution
> which are not complementary, rational or well understood. Take genocide
> for example which has existed in human evolutionary history thousands of
> years ago to the recent present.
JE:-
Firstly, genocide is unique to human populations.
Secondly, it is unique to super tribes. We have
inherited a tribal psychology and not a super tribal
psychology. The tribal psychology that allowed us
to adapt to any environment using within tribe trade
became an Achilles Heel after we evolved into super
tribes.
> MR:-
> Now some folk can seek to provide
> social, economic and political explanations for such phenomena but at
> the bottom level the social, economic and political are dimensions of
> our biology. In other words, there is a Darwinian basis for genocide.
> Obviously, Darwinian evolution is much more complex than this but that
> is one of the things it includes.
JE:-
Our inherited tribal psychology does _not_ fit
a super tribe. It has become a mal-adaptation.
We attempt to make it fit using politics. When
politics fails we descend into ancient tribal psychology
and the whole thing falls apart causing genocide.
The gains to individuals within super tribes
increase exponentially re: the size of that super
tribe so we were pushed from tribal to super
tribal living long before we were ready. Our genetic
system had no hope catching up. However we were
politically astute enough to feed the correct
tribal signals to super tribal members, e.g.
the Egyptians (the first real super tribe) built
enormous and expensive pyramids as dominant
signals to bind the super tribe together.
It they had not done so their super tribe
may have fallen apart causing total chaos.
> MR:-
> You write, "To this very day Darwinian fitness mutualisation has not
> been properly identified. Historically this has led to a false dichotomy
> rooted in hopeless political rhetoric: "altruism" Vs "selfishness" which
> has been incorrectly justified using Hamilton et al for over 50 years."
> Can you properly identify Darwinian fitness mutualization? I don't think
> you can. If you could then maybe you could shed some light on the
> relationship between altruism and selfishness. Are they one and the same
> thing? If so how? Are they mutually exclusive? If so, under what
> conditions. How do they possibly interact with each other?
JE:-
In Darwinian _absolute_ fitness terms they are contradictory.
It is the Darwinian maximand that has not been understood.
The total number of fertile forms reproduced into one
population by one parent represents a maximand for each
Darwinian selectee (each fertile form).
This means, at all times, every fertile form must maximise
the total number of fertile forms it reproduces into one
population. It logically follows that at no time can this
maximand be _selected_ to be _reduced_. To prove organism
fitness altruism you have to show that it _has_ been within
a natural population. To be able to do this you have to
measure fitness TOTALS and not just their comparison.
Hamilton (and population genetics in general) cannot and
thus did not measure such totals. All Hamilton did was compare
rb and c via simple subtraction. Without the total fitness
of the actor included such a hopeless relative measure cannot tell
the difference between c as an investment and c as a donation.
This means it cannot tell an act of organism fitness altruism
(OFA) from an act of organism fitness mutualism (OFM). So, for
over 50 years the Neo Darwinian establishment has allowed OFM
to be sold off as OFA, its _contradiction_. I suggest you re-read
Dr O'Hara's comments. He has admitted that c within Hamilton's
rule was arbitrary yet only c allowed OFA to be diagnosed from
OFM within Hamilton's rule! Dr O'Hara is basically a honest
man but he cannot bring himself to face the truth. He will
not admit that Hamilton's rule has been utterly misused for over
50 years when it replaced discredited group selection to
support OFA within nature.
> Bowler Quote:
> the Rise of Genetics Darwin's theory was surprisingly modern except in
> his ideas about variation and heredity. the notion of the unit gene was
> popularized soon after 1900 and showed that characters are inherited as
> undiluted units.
> JE;-
> The view that each gene represents an independent unit of selection
> within Darwinism is entirely false. Darwinian units of selection are
> fertile forms within which genomic genes can only be _dependently_
> selected. This means genes are selected at the fertile organism level of
> selection and not at a heuristic gene level of selection. The gene
> centric view is just a misused model of Darwinian absolute fitness.
> Bowler Quote:
> Lamarckism was discredited because the genes cannot be influenced by the
> body carrying them. After some controversy, it was realized that genetic
> mutation provided a new explanation of the random variation that Darwin
> saw in every population. With Lamarckism gone, the genetical theory of
> natural selection emerged in the 1930s and 40s, explaining adaptive
> evolution in terms of the changing genetic composition of populations.
> Many biologists now regard the synthesis of Darwinism and genetics as
> the only plausible explanation of evolution.
> JE:-
> Darwin's fertile organism unit of selection has not been properly joined
> to Mendel's gene unit of inheritance. Neo Darwinism has misused gene
> centric models of fitness to the extent that random processes are now
> claimed to cause evolutionary changes on their own (without any non
> random process such as selection). This view reduces evolution to the
> status of a non refutable theory of nature on a par with "creation
> science".
>
> MR:
> The above mentioned mutation as a cause of random variation. It has been
> mentioned that genetic drift and natural selection aren't necessarily
> incompatible. I don't believe random processes cause evolutionary
> changes on their own without selection. But I could be wrong here. I'm
> not a biologist. Let's just say I don't think random processes such as
> genetic drift can cause "signifigant" evolutionary changes on their own
> without selection.
JE:-
The Neo Darwinian definition of evolution
is: ANY gene freq. change in a deme.
The word "ANY" includes random gene freq.
changes acting ALONE. This reduces evolutionary
theory to just a nonsensical, rusting "iron man"
theory (a non refutable belief of nature).
To take the iron man belief out
is easy: ANY NON RANDOM gene freq. change
in a deme.
It appears the Neo Darwinian establishment
is too epistemologically ignorant to make
such a change.
> MR:-
> For the record, however, I've maintained all along in
> this newsgroup that Darwinian evolution (both random processes and
> selection) is to glacially slow to adapt us to our current environment
> and have stressed the necessity of genetically engineering our species
> in the future.
JE:
The problem is that we have evolved
from tribe to super tribe too quickly.
We cannot excise "tribal genes" that
are causing problems because they will
be epistatic to other genes. This means
if you cut out genes that increase male
aggression (evolved to divide up
and expand tribal territory) you
may end up being born without a head.
Until we know how gene epistasis works
genetic engineering on the scale that
you think would work is just more hopeless
racism.
> Bowler Quote:
> Genetic Determinism the development of genetics coincided with a
> strongly articulated social policy based on the view that heredity
> determines human characters. In the early twentieth century, many
> countries (not just Nazi Germany) had policies to restrict the breeding
> of the "unfit," often by compulsory sterilization. Artificial selection
> replaced natural selection in the human population -- the social policy
> known as eugenics. But who decides which characters are desirable? After
> the excesses of the Nazi regime, eugenics went underground, but our
> modern fascination with genes as the determinants of human characters
> may be reintroducing it through the back door.
> JE;-
> The error has always been the deletion of genetic epistasis as valid
> heritable information. Individual fitness is not just the simple sum of
> each individual genomic genes fitness. Both Fisher (a population
> genetics founding father) and Muller (the discover of mutation) were
> right wing bigots. It politically suited them to argue that individual
> genes have a fitness in their own right because they could then label
> individuals with certain genes as "inferior". This paved the way for
> Hitler's racism.
> MR:
> As you've been informed before there are scientists who are working on
> genetic epistatic models but the results are very preliminary. When you
> are talking about genetic epistasis you are most likely talking about
> things like canalization, genetic assimilation, etc. and we currently
> still don't know much about these things. It's not so much the deletion
> of genetic epistasis as valid heritable information as it is an
> incredible lack of knowledge about it. I agree individual fitness is not
> just the simple sum of each individual genomic genes fitness. But then
> you get into the debate over reductionism and emergence. How can higher
> levels of organization be explained by the lower parts of organization.
JE:-
I do no know how "higher levels of organization be explained by
the lower parts of organization". Until somebody comes up
with a REFUTABLE theory of how this may happen we will never
know. Dr Hoelzer will never come up with such a theory because
he argues it is OK to throw out the "tyranny" of the process
of Popperian refutation. All I know is that higher levels
of organization can explain evolutionary changes on this planet,
to refutation.
>snip<
> JE:
> However, all genomic genes are known to be selected, together i.e. they
> are dependently and not independently selected. What Fisher and Muller
> did was to attempt to delete genetic epistasis (non additive
> information) as non heritable and thus non selectable, information.
> Haldane (another population genetics founding father) created his famous
> "dilemma": not enough time existed to evolve a chimp and man from a
> common ancestor if heritable information is restricted to additive
> genetic information as Fisher defined it. Haldane envisaged an very
> large additive human genome. It turns out that the human genome is tiny,
> just 30-40,000 genes. The only possible way to explain millions of
> heritable phenotypes is by including and not excluding genetic epistasis
> (non additive genomic gene information) as heritable and thus
> selectable, information.
> MR:
> Could you expand on what you mean by non-additive heritable selectable
> information?
JE:-
The terms "additive" and "non additive" are
mathematically defined within population genetics.
If the information is not just the sum of its parts
then whatever that information is, it is defined
to be "non heritable" and therefore "non selectable"
even it can be "inherited". Clearly
such an enormous over simplification is in
very serious error.
> MR:-
> Are you referring to canalization and genetic assimilation?
> How would such information be selectable and responsible for the
> millions of heritable phenotypes?
JE:-
Yes I refer to the processes of
"canalization and genetic assimilation"
among other things. Waddington's work
and his revision of basic population
genetics equations is waiting to be
rediscover by an entirely prejudiced Neo
Darwinian establishment.
If you allow genetic epistasis as
heritable and thus selectable information
then ALL possible multiple gene combinations
represent valid, heritable and selectable
information. If you have a genome of just
2 genes then using additive information
you have: a+b, b+a, a and b as all your
information sets. If you include non
additive information you also have a*b
and b*a. While a+b is the same as b+a
a*b is NOT the same as b*a. The amount
of information that can be coded as
non additive increases exponentially
as the genome increases in size.
> JE:
> Muller's discovery of mutation was misused to the extent that it
> replaced selection as an evolutionary force for a period of time. Today
> exactly the same error is being made with random sampling error.
> Bowler Quote:
> Sociobiology the most controversial aspect of modern Darwinism links the
> genetic determination of human character to natural selection as the
> explanation of behavioural instincts.
JE:-
It purports to be able to do so but
in reality it does no such thing.
Sociobiology and Dawkinsism is built
entirely, on the misuse of Hamilton's
rule.
> MR:-
> Richard Dawkins and others insist
> that natural selection explains not only the devleopment of animals
> species, but also the development of the human mind.
JE:-
Dawkins is using at least two and not just one
level of selection. Although he is using a principle
of natural selection he is NOT using the Darwinian
theory of natural selection. Darwin has been
misrepresented by Dawkins et al in this way.
Multi levels of selection are NOT rational
because nobody has produced a refutable multi
level theory. The theory of Darwinian natural
selection is a just a single level theory of
selection that can be tested to refutation.
I have provided an experiment (not just a model)
that can do so.
Even in 2004 Darwin represents the only testable
to refutation theory of evolution that we have.
The petty egos that insist they know better
than Darwin only provide non refutable theories.
When pressed they all retreat into their Post
Modern holes in the ground while still receiving
their paycheques.
> MR:-
> Sociobiology, based
> on what Dawkins calls the "selfish gene", accounts for animal behaviour
> in terms of genetically programmed instincts shaped by natural
> selection.
JE:- But his "solution" only employs the
principle of natural selection (not the testable
Darwinian THEORY of natural selection)
acting on an _independent_ gene level of
selection that does _not_ even exist, allowing
organism fitness altruism to be forced at
the single Darwinian organism level of selection.
When pressed Dawkins just ad hocs between levels
like some sort of double jointed athlete to
evade any refutation of his claim. This reduces
evolutionary theory to the status of a
Mad Hatter witch hunt.
> MR:-
> Many Darwinians insist that this programme can be applied to
> human behaviour: we are what our genes determine us to be.
JE:-
These people are NOT Darwinians even though
they may claim to be. They are Neo Darwinians,
an entirely different species....
> MR:-
> Most social
> scientists resist this, arguing that the human brain (admittedly
> developed by evolution) has acquired a capacity to learn from experience
> so strong that it overrides all but the most basic biological instincts.
JE:-
This is just more nature Vs nurture nonsense.
Nature and nurture work together to form
adaptations. Unlike us they do not just
fight each other.
> MR:-
> Unlike the nineteenth-century version, modern "social Darwinism" really
> is based on Darwinian natural selection, coupled with a strong (but
> highly controversial) faith in the power of the genes to determine human
> nature.
JE:-
No, Neo Darwinism has hopelessly misrepresented
Darwinism and has retreated into Post Modernism
to justify this mis-representation.
> JE:-
> The above is false. Sociobiology and
> "Dawkinsism" are only based on a misuse of Hamilton's rule. The
> Darwinian fitness maximand has not been properly identified let alone
> correctly joined to Mendel's genes. The purely pragmatic gene centric
> view of today's Neo Darwinism only reflect a backlash against the right
> wing bigotry of Muller Fisher etc. Today it is the turn of the left wing
> bigots to destroy evolutionary theory. Today organism fitness altruism
> and not organism fitness selfishness entirely dominates evolutionary
> theory. What in fact has always dominated evolutionary theory is
> UNIDENTIFIED organism fitness mutualism.
> MR:
> I don't know. I think we can all agree Darwin's theories are sound but
> they contributed to Social Darwinism.
JE:-
No, they were used to form non testable
to refutation, hopeless beliefs about
"Social Darwinism". Post Modern thinking
argues that such beliefs are just as valid
as testable to refutation, theories. Hence
some schools in the USA are now required to teach
"Creation Science" within science classes to
hapless children making a mockery of science
ands social justice.
The people to blame are those that continue to
argue that Popperian refutation can validly
be thrown out of the epistemology of science.
It cannot be thrown out. If is then the
floodgates are open for any bigot to dictate
what science is. The net result will be an
ugly intellectual war.
> MR:-
> Whether one wants to believe
> Social Darwinism was an accurate reflection of Darwinism is up to them.
JE:-
Belief is always up to the individual and an
individual right. However such beliefs do NOT
constitute a scientific theory of nature and
cannot override such a theory within the sciences.
The only use belief has within the sciences is to
provide the raw material for a theory. Unless
argument re: belief moves that belief towards
and not away from the Popperian process of
refutation, such argument constitutes a waste
of time.
> MR:-
> In a similar vein there are some sociobiologists and evolutionary
> psychologists who have a social, political and ideological axe to grind
> much as the Social Darwinists did. Because of the times we live in they
> are not as blatant and the movement hasn't picked up the steam the
> Social Darwinist movement did. But it could. Folks like Rushton,
> MacDonald, Jensen, Murray and innumerable others have a strong influence
> on certain segments of the population.
JE;-
If they have theories that can be tested
to refutation then lets hear them, even
if they are politically unpalatable or
sound totally crazy. Otherwise, they can
be validly ignored as irrelevant to the
sciences. If they wish to argue beliefs
then let them prove that their arguments
are leading towards refutation and NOT away
from it. As an example, arguing that multiple
level of selection can "explain more" than
single levels of selection when only single
levels of selection provide refutable theories
of evolution by natural selection reduces
this assumed "more" to actually be, LESS.
No non refutable theory of nature can challenge
an refutable theory within the sciences even
if it appears to explain more.
> MR:-
> Scientists seek to explain human
> behavior but one falls into the trap of the naturalistic fallacy by
> declaring such human behaviors e.g. aggression, war, rape, eliminating
> the mentally and physically defective, genocide, etc. are evolutionarily
> adaptive, "good" or "morally right".
JE:-
If these behaviours can be shown
to be Darwinian adaptations that today
have become mal-adaptations (like
the horns of the Irish Elk) then lets
hear any _refutable_ theories. If
only proto theories exist then lets
evolve them to become refutable theories.
To suggest that you don't like the sound
of an argument is utterly worthless.
Worse than anything else is to throw
out the Popperian process of refutation.
> MR:-
> There are some sociobiologists who
> state this is human nature and therefore there is nothing wrong with it
> and it should not be avoided. All the aforementioned "scientists" either
> paint other "racial" groups as genetically inferior based on IQ
> standards or like MacDonald blacken Judaism and Jews by positing their
> so-called evolutionary survival mechanisms against Gentiles. Again, its
> not as blatant as Social Darwinism was but the message is essentially
> the same.
JE:-
It is all non refutable nonsense parading
as a science using just a Post Modern
Mad Hatters dance (which does however
employ "impressive" mathematics).
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
Michael Ragland
MR: I agree but his personal beliefs may have been exploited by Social
Darwinists.
Bowler Quote:
the "invisible hand" which
economists saw coordinating individual selfishness for the benefit of
society could now be seen as generating an advance toward higher things.
JE:-
It was Adam Smith who coined the "invisible hand" of capitalist society.
Logically it was equivalent to Darwinian natural selection where the
selectee remained the individual and not
the society (no group selection was required).
MR:
You contradict yourself when you state, "However, capitalist market
place competition can allow individuals to compare their gains/losses on
a cognitive basis. This provides all sorts of problems that do not exist
using competition by default."
JE:-
Please explain the contradiction you
are accusing me of allowing.
MR:
You're stating the invisible hand of capitalism was logically equivalent
to Darwinian selection and seem to be implying Darwinian selection
operates through competition by default.
MR:
You're looking at natural selection from the perspective of population
genetics. Yes, I agree with you in that context it would not be possible
to compare gains and losses on a cognitive basis.
MR:
I understand that. Nevertheless, I hold my unscientific view.
MR:-
That's not to say I don't accept the
validity of individual selection as a result of natural selection but
that there is more at work than just individual selection.
JE:-
Please provide a testable theory
of what you think this may be.
MR:
I don't have a testable theory but I'll share my view. In our
evolutionary past Homo Sapiens and their precursors may have been in
severe competition with similar species e.g. Neanderthal, etc.and the
result was hard group selection where one species wiped out another. How
can this be explained by individual selection? Currently, there is a
sixth mass extinction of species by man and many on the endangered list.
How can this be explained by individual selection?
MR:-
It could be
that individual selection and group selection are in someway cross
purposed and nested within each other as apparently David Sloan Wilson
thinks altruism and selfishness are.
JE:-
It does not matter what "David Sloan Wilson thinks altruism and
selfishness are" because he et al have not put forward a theory that can
be tested to refutation. Putting forward a non testable belief is not
what science is about and was not what Darwin was about.
MR:
True.
JE:-
To this very day organism fitness altruism remains entirely dependent on
a misuse of Hamilton's rule.
MR:
Wouldn't know. I thought Hamilton's rule applied to some insects.
MR:-
Hitler didn't destroy free markets and trade. Here's an article:
large snip for references to save space<
JE:-
I have never claimed that ALL trade was stopped buy Hitler! All I
claimed was that it was _reduced_ particularly, _internally_. Very
clearly the very people that could have provided him with the atomic
bomb were being melted down into soap products. Hitler and his ilk were
too dumb to realise this was not a good deal for himself, or the Nazis.
MR:
I think Hitler's main goal was the destruction of European Jewry.
Considering what he accomplished to this effect I think he was
"satisfied".
That's not to clear. Could you elaborate?
MR:-
Now some folk can seek to provide
social, economic and political explanations for such phenomena but at
the bottom level the social, economic and political are dimensions of
our biology. In other words, there is a Darwinian basis for genocide.
Obviously, Darwinian evolution is much more complex than this but that
is one of the things it includes.
JE:-
Our inherited tribal psychology does _not_ fit a super tribe. It has
become a mal-adaptation. We attempt to make it fit using politics. When
politics fails we descend into ancient tribal psychology and the whole
thing falls apart causing genocide. The gains to individuals within
super tribes increase exponentially re: the size of that super tribe so
we were pushed from tribal to super tribal living long before we were
ready. Our genetic system had no hope catching up. However we were
politically astute enough to feed the correct tribal signals to super
tribal members, e.g. the Egyptians (the first real super tribe) built
enormous and expensive pyramids as dominant signals to bind the super
tribe together. It they had not done so their super tribe may have
fallen apart causing total chaos.
MR:
That seems like a cultural explanation for genocide. I think genocide
existed in human tribes long before super tribes and I retain my view
there is a biological basis for it.
MR:
I agree with you. I'm certainly not a racist!
MR:
That won't be sufficient if we are really to get into genetically
engineering the human species in the future. Darwinian higher levels of
organization can explain evolutionary changes on this planet as put
forth by Darwin but currently we're not evolutionarily changing or if we
are it can't be witnessed in one's lifetime and will take millions of
years to result in a new species. Given our current science, technology,
weapontry, pollution of the earth, global warming, overpopulation and
terrorism we can't wait up for Darwinian evolution to make us better
natured. As you pointed out, individual fitness is not just the simple
sum of each individual genomic genes fitness. We need to better
understand canalization, genetic assimilation, genetic epistasis and
many other things if we are to successfully turn the beast human into a
better natured human. I think that will require somewhat how higher
levels of organization come from lower levels of organization. Not in
our lifetimes for sure but hopefully someday.
MR:
It would seem a major series of breakthroughs would be necessary to
determine the selectability of genetic epistasis.
JE:-
MR:
Science can't anwer all the questions of society. I've repeatedly made
my argument on s.b.e. that aggression (as it currently is) is no longer
evolutionarily adaptive to the human species. I've cited numerous
examples to support my case. Is it a scientific theory? No. It's based
on my own personal experience, my reading of the national and
international media, my reading of Stephen Hawking and trying to keep
abreast with world events. It's also based on a moral argument which
which states human behaviors e.g. aggression, war, rape, eliminating the
mentally and physically defective, genocide, etc. aren't evolutionarily
adaptive, "good" or "morally right". You state, "If these behaviours can
be shown to be Darwinian adaptations that today have become
mal-adaptations (like
the horns of the Irish Elk) then lets
hear any _refutable_ theories. If
only proto theories exist then lets
evolve them to become refutable theories." First of all complex human
behavior such as aggression isn't a maladaptation like the horns of an
Irish Elk. If you're looking for signs of the evolutionary
non-adaptiveness of aggression I suggest you look at crime, war, rape,
genocide, pollution of the earth, eliminating the mentally and
physically defective, genocide. etc.as symptoms of maladaptation unless
you are a moral cripple. Your statement, "To suggest that you don't like
the sound of an argument is utterly worthless" suggests you are indeed a
moral cripple. Are you the little scientific man who has to have a
refutable theory for everything as the blood possibly soaks your country
or the nuclear bomb explodes or a biological disease or virus spreads
throughout the world? I would advise you to wake up but know you will
stay in your slumber.