Re: Darwinian evolution=Armageddon?

From: Michael Ragland (ragland37_at_webtv.net)
Date: 06/28/04 

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:30:18 +0000 (UTC)

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?

Wilkins:
In environments where aggression is selectively disadvantaged. But the
majority of humans today, whether they live in small tribal arrangements
or large cosmopolitan environments, live in situations where aggression
is not so disadvantaged.
This sets up a situation where group selection may be invoked - those
groups that are less aggressive may in fact be overrun by aggressive
groups. It's happened before.

Ragland:
Well I disagree with you Mr. Wilkins. I think we currently do live in a
cultural environment (scientific and technological civilization) where
aggression is selectively disadvantaged. What do you base your
statement, "But the majority of humans today, whether they live in small
tribal arrangments or large cosmopolitan environments, live in
situations where aggression is not so disadvantaged"? I'm glad you spoke
your mind here because I think it is the majority opinion and that a
certain number of people on sci.bio.evolution think I'm a "friutcake".
Do you think as a "species" aggression is not selectively disadvantaged?

Technically, you are correct since Darwinian evolution hasn't moved in
the evolutionary direction where it is selectively disadvantaged. But I
don't think you meant it in a purely technical sense and your additional
statement confirms that.

You further state due to aggression not being selectively disadvantaged
(I'm stating in the purely technical sense) "This sets up a situation
where group selection may be invoked - those groups that are less
aggressive may in fact be overrun by aggressive groups. It's happened
before." Yes, it happenned in Nazi Germany among innumerable other
examples. Is group selection selectively disadvantaged? Are the majority
of humans today, whether they live in small tribal arrangements or large
cosmopolitan environments, live in situations where group selection is
not so disadvantaged?

Not only has it happenned before but it is still occurring more or less
today Mr. Wilkins. That is group selection. If you are talking about
more extreme examples such as African American slavery or Nazi Germany
yes something along those lines could happen again. (read my sig
sometime) It would take different forms but it could happen again. Do
you consider the possibilities of such group selection to be selectively
advantageous in Darwinian terms?

Or is it possible what has been selectively advantageous in Darwinian
evolution is not selectively advantageous in terms of cultural evolution
and the scientitific and technological advances which are the 21st
century?

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

Wilkins:
I have a political objection to formal regulation - it leads to a
situation where those regulating have vested interests in the
continuation of regulation, and this skews the objectivity of their
judgement. This is not fatal, but it means you must counterbalance this
tendency, and you cannot always do that safely.

Ragland:
Even without formal regulation there are already strongly vested
interests which skew "objectivity" of researcher's judgment.
Pharmaceutical companies, government, military. The situation has been
likened to the military industrial complex but a series of relations
between academia, government, pharamaceuticals, military, etc. And it
does effect objectivity. There is no such thing as pure objectivity of
many researchers. If a company or the government is paying so much money
to research this or that then that is what will be researched. There is
an agenda. I grant you there would be and is more independence than if
there was formal regulation but at some point (I'm not saying
necessarily now) there will need to be formal regulation.

John Wilkins:
That said, I'll snip the remainder.

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".

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwinian evolution=Armageddon?
    ... Michael Ragland wrote: ... If they are pleiotropically linked to genes under selection ... possible aggression would be under selection and gradually it would be ... it happenned in Nazi Germany among innumerable other ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Darwinian evolution=Armageddon?
    ... Michael Ragland wrote: ... If they are pleiotropically linked to genes under selection ... > assuming Darwinian evolution was given enough time wouldn't it be ... > possible aggression would be under selection and gradually it would be ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Data better than theory?
    ... around 1 in 100,000 in Japan to 60 times that figure in Venezuela, ... I'd be interested to see how the selection pressure of war actually, ... Korea has had, as far as I can tell, ... Maybe aggression in humans ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Dom World
    ... Self-Organization and Natural Selection in the Evolution of Complex ... when the intensity of aggression increases. ... this feedback causes the egalitarian society to ... have been studied and possibly even to plants, where a kind of despotism ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • RE: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
    ... group selection that is occurring within evolutionary theory but a bias ... group selection verifications employ a fitness measure which is the simple ... Not a single testable to refutation polycentric theory of nature has been ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)