Re: Darwinian evolution=Armageddon?

From: Michael Ragland (ragland37_at_webtv.net)
Date: 06/26/04 

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:20:07 +0000 (UTC)

Michael Ragland <ragland37@webtv.net> wrote:

I disagree with Mr. Buck who is not a scientist but I like his spirit.
(his brief article is below) He is a socialist and of course if one does
subscribe to biological determinism then the idea of socialism is
shattered. But its interesting to note there appears to be two camps
among followers of biological determinism. The first camp sees nothing
wrong with biological determinism. It's a part of our Darwinian nature
and should be fully expressed rather than attempted to be thwarted or
suppressed. The second camp, among which I include myself, acknowledges
biological determinism but don't think it should be fully expressed but
don't believe ultimately it can be thwarted. This camp seems to be in
the minority. There is a third camp which takes the middle road which
neither believes our Darwinian nature should be fully expressed but that
it can be sufficiently controlled. This is probably the majority camp.
That is why I advocate genetic engineering of people. Because I do agree
generally with people like Pinker. I think if Darwinian evolution is
permitted to continue it will result in our destruction as a species.
Aggression is a salient component of Darwinian evolution. Will anybody
seriously question that. Can anybody seriously question the continuation
of extreme violence around the world which is not primarily culturally
fueled but a part of our biology. I realize some would take issue with
this and state such violence was primarily culturally fueled but I don't
believe that.
I'd welcome a response from the likes of Wilkins, Atmar, Moran,
Felsenstein, Dr. Hayes, etc. whether they consider the continuation of
Darwinian evolution (assuming there is no genetic intervention) to
ultimately lead to the destruction of our species. I know nobody has a
direct crystal ball to the future but I'm requesting a projection based
on our evolutionary history up to the present and projecting into the
future. Based on what Wilkins has recently stated regarding NS it would
certainly seem that is a possibility. But I'm hopefully looking for more
than just a possibility. I guess I'm asking for your personal opinion as
opposed to your scientific expertise. The may not be warranted in this
group but I'd sure be curious.

John Wilkins:
You aren't supposed to *ask* me for my opinion - I might tell you. Oh,
very well

Ragland:
Sorry, guess it was inappropriate to ask you. I just asked people who I
thought were intelligent...some of whom I don't even agree with some
times.

John Wilkins:
.. My view is that selection will not drive an entire widespread
species like ours to anything; adaptation is local to the deme or
metapopulation.

Ragland:
Forgive my ignorance. What is a "deme" and a "metapopulation". I get the
impression a "metapopulation" is a large sized population.

John Wilkins:
 *Prior* adaptations may just result in our extinction - I'm thinking of
our adaptations that lead us to xenophobia and violence. But that is not
selection, except in the sense that these adaptations are
pleiotropically linked to genes that *are* under selection.

Ragland:
Okay. But at one time aggression, xenophobia, etc. were apart of
selection. If they are pleiotropically linked to genes under selection
why wouldn't they theoretically still be under selection? For example,
assuming Darwinian evolution was given enough time wouldn't it be
possible aggression would be under selection and gradually it would be
"removed" since it was no longer adaptive?

Ragland:
I'm also curious where you all fall on the biological determinism
debate. My "guess" is most of you are neither hardliners or the opposite
where there is no aspect of our biology which isn't somewhat
biologically determined. The question is how determined and under what
circumstances it can internationally violently flare up.

John Wilkins:
Assuming you meant aspect of our *psychology* I am a strong determinist
- nothing we do or say is not strongly biased by our biological nature.
But biological natures have a norm of reaction and a normal distribution
(or a skewed one, but that is evidence in a largish population of some
selective pressure).

Ragland:
What is largish. I'm intelligent but not well read.

 In short, there are a wide range of states that our biological natures
can attain, and they very much depend on contingent effects of the
developmental environments, social, and ecological.
It is not a widely accepted viewpoint, I know.

Ragland:
Your argument is complex and subtle and for that reason you're right it
is not a widely accepted viewpoint. At first glance it appears you
confirm my statement, "My "guess" is most of you are neither hardliners
or the opposite where there is no aspect of our biology which isn't
somewhat biologically determined." But you preface that with, "Assuming
you meant aspect of our *psychology* I am a strong determinist - nothing
we do or say is not strongly biased by our biological nature. But
biological natures have a norm of reaction and a normal distribution (or
a skewed one, but that is evidence in a largish population of some
selective pressure)."

John Wilkins:
The essay you quoted reiterates the standard fare - that socialists
cannot be biological determinists (why not? Perhaps Kropotkin was right
and we are biological cooperators), that determinism is social Darwinism
(there never was such a thing but once; all the rest is just labelling);
etc. But the evidence is mounting and we just have to deal with it.

Ragland:
I detect here you are not a "rigid" biological determinist. Do you see
biological cooperation as being on par with biological competition? Do
you see biological cooperation as being more a feature of our evolution
than biological competition? Social Darwinism seemed to be born out in
human experience with Nazi Germany. One can dismiss this as an
abnormality but I think that is dangerous. My own view is humans are
more competitive than cooperative.

John Wilkins:
My view on genetic engineering is that, like any technology, it all
depends on the goals, the sensitivity of the practioners to evidence,
and the potential cost of failure. We build bridges that way - we should
employ genetic therapies the same way. Eliminate Tay-Sachs? Go for it.
Engineer thin-hipped women with classic faces? Not on your life

Ragland:
I agree with you. But if the industry remains unregulated many unethical
and potentially dangerous applications are bound to occur.

John Wilkins:
.. the unintended outcomes of that sort of employment of technology on
a complex developmental program will have major side-effects (what if
they are subject to breast cancer, or are developmentally delayed?).
Somewhere in between, experience will teach us what is worthwhile and
what is not.

Ragland:
Yes.

John Wilkins:
So far as eugenics is concerned, the worry is not that the techniques
will not work, for they will if we apply good science (after all, they
have for thousands of years). The worry is who gets to make those
decisions, and what they and we must pay when it fails, if it does.

Ragland:
Well I think selective breeding is a bit different from genetic
engineering. I think genetic engineering offers many more opportunities
and its not merely breeding animals. I don't see it failing if its based
on "good science". But there are those who will argue certain genetic
engineering applications are "good science" when in fact they are "bad
science". If it fails there will be consequences and I think to some
extent this is inevitable. As you states through trial and error we will
discover what has worth and what doesn't. Assuming genetic engineering
techniques and applications were currently advanced I would have no
faith whatsoever in the present American political-corporate system to
regulate the industry. In fact, I would think some kind of other
political system would have to replace it. Indeed, I anticipate
eventually Congress and the President (whoever he is) will at some point
outlaw genetic engineering...at least certain applications of it. A gag
will be put on research.

So the current American political-corporate system needs to slowly
deteriorate and degenerate and despite the ban on many types of genetic
engineering some scientists will still proceed in other countries where
it is permitted. Even if it is not permitted anywhere it won't be
stopped.

As I stated in a previous post of mine if there is money to be made by
these genetic engineering applications will occur and nothing will stop
them..not the Catholic Church, society or whatever else. It's likely at
first the rich will have access to these genetic engineering
applications and after a relatively long period of time it will
eventually trickle down to the middle class and poor.

A long time ago there was a thread concerned about what would happen if
only the rich had access to these genetic engineering applications while
the rest of society was left un-genetically engineered. The fear was the
rich would get all the benefits and being superior specimens while the
rest of society was left to languish with common genetic diseases, low
intelligence, aggression, etc. I expressed this was unlikely because of
the extreme social and political polarization which would result. It
would make much more sense to offer genetic engineering to all classes
of society to create as even a playing field as possible. But initially
at least it does seem the rich will have access to it.

Some types of genetic engineering will be allowed and others won't be
but there ultimately will need to be a governmental regulatory body.
When it comes to eliminating certain diseases through genetic
engineering and this has proven safe one would like to think the
American corporate-political system would set up a regulatory body for
genetic engineering and that any person with such a disease could free
of charge receive this genetic engineering if "they wanted it"

There also needs to be a national regulatory body regarding genetic
engineering research. What is permitted and what is not. These are
issues in the future which will have to be addressed. To the best of my
knowledge there is no specific genetic engineering regulatory body or a
national regulatory body regarding genetic engineering research. I
suppose the field is still too embryonic. There use to be a bioethics
advisory council to the President and I believe there still is but they
are a joke.

But for the time being Congress is making these kinds of decisions. In
France a scientists did gene therapy on 11 boys who had "bubble boy"
disease. In two of the boys the gene therapy cured their
immunodeficiency disorder but also activated caner genes. The two boys
were treated and the caner went into remission and they are doing fine
but Congress decided to suspend 27 gene therapy research protocols.

If there has been a national regulatory body for genetic engineering
research that outcome may not have been the same.

Michael Ragland

A professor asked a student, "If you had a choice between the oppressed
and the oppressor which would you choose." The student replied,
"Neither". The Professor shook his head and stated, "You don't have a
choice." The student paused and said, "The oppressed".