Re: Darwinian evolution=Armageddon?

From: Michael Ragland (ragland37_at_webtv.net)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:46 +0000 (UTC)

Michael Ragland <ragland37@webtv.net> wrote:

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?

John Wilkins:
Michael, I have no opinion on your dried fruit content.

Ragland:
You mean whether you think I'm a fruitcake....fruitcake=dried fruit.
LOL! But seriously you made IMO a fairly good effort in responding to my
comments and questions.

John Wilkins:
But I look about and see that we are relatively as violent as chimps;
perhaps a bit less. In societies that live in tribal groups, most
aggression within the group is rigidly controlled, while outgroup
aggression is generally (but not always) ritual. Even so, tribal murder
rates are greater than urban aggression rates. That said, most people
lived in a village rather than a city until relatively recently. So I
think there has been no selection yet against aggression.

Ragland:
I agreed with you in my response.

John Wilkins:
A large part of the problem is that we who grew up after WWII, and
before the current troubles, seem to think that the world is generally a
nice place except in those horrid places; in fact the world is as
violent now as it has ever been (one reason why reported violence is on
the increase is, IMO, because the criteria for reportage is more
senstivie. In my dad's day, if someone insulted you, nobody blinked if
you decked him. It certainly never got to the police), and the 50s and
60s were the exception - in a very few places (ask a Congolese about
that time).

Ragland:
Well its complicated. I'm reading a little bit of one book whose partial
thesis is society currently regards death like sex was regarded in the
Victorian era, During the Victorian era according to this author sex was
rigorously suppressed yet pornography and child prostitution flourished.
In the past families slept together as familes and sex occurred at
night. It was not something dirty or forbidden. Then that changed as the
family structure changed. Death used to be a regular part of life.
People saw the loved ones die at home, they washed them for burial They
slaughtered animals.. Today death is largely hidden from us in advanced
Western societies yet there remains a perverse fascination to death.

The author contends combat techniques have been introduced into society
via violent video games but there isn't the discipline which there is in
the miltary. But the main thesis of the author is the aversion man has
to killing his fellow man and how over the centuries armies and
miltaries have developed ways of overcoming that. I don't necessarily
agree with this author but his analysis of "Ok Killing" is intersting in
some ways.

I agree with you there is more sensitivity in reporting but then again
not all violent acts get reported in the media so there is a swing side.
A suicide might occur or a homicide might occur and for various reasons
it is not made public. It doesn't make the news. It could be in some
places there are so many of them only a certain percentage gets
reported. But before television especially people weren't confronted by
all the violence around the world.

Ragland:
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?

John Wilkins:
Group selection is weak except in some cases where the individual
selection is weak relative to the selected characters and the groups are
highly cohesive. As it happens, small tribal groups are indeed
genetically highly cohesive and the individual survival rates depend a
lot on how one fits into one's tribe. Nazi Germany was *not* a case of
group selection, although genetic frequencies were massively affected by
it. It was not group selection because there was no iteration of groups
outsurviving other groups (Germany was not a genetic group as such).

Ragland:
Hitler certainly thought of Germans as a highly cohesive genetic group
(whether they were or not) and apparently many Germans did too and there
was even "documentation" required tracing back one's family. I believe
the survival rates of Germans (statistically) were much higher than
European Jews (statistically). But I don't want to get into such a
debate as I'm sure you don't want to. The fact of the matter is although
Germans lost approximately 6 million they committed vast ethnic
cleansing of Jews, Poles, Slavs. Roma. They committed genocide against
European Jewry. Centuries old Jewish communities were wiped out without
a trace.

Now you can say this isn't group selection because Jews survived as a
group. I think that is a defincient definition or criteria for group
selection, that It was not group selection because there was no
iteration of groups outsurviving other groups. The Germans as a whole
came together and committed massive genocide. What would you call such
behavior?
Genocide IMO is based on group selection.
You further state, "individual survival rates depend a lot on how one
fits into one's tribe. Nazi Germany was *not* a case of group
selection." You don't think how one fitted into the German tribe didn't
influence your survival rate? What if you were a German Jew? What if you
were a German who talked poorly of Hitler alot?

Ragland:
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?

John Wilkins:
In the sense that what survives survives, and what reproduces
reproduces, then yes, group selection is "selectively advantageous" by
definition. It is not morally preferential, but it is selectively
advantaged.

Ragland:
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?

John Wilkins:
Almost certainly true. Cultural evolution is constrained by, but not
tightly determined by, the genetic and biological selection going on
underneath it. I like to think of cultural evolution being a laminar
flow on the surface, and biological evolution being a deep current -
sometimes they interact, but mostly they are decoupled.

Ragland:
Well that was well said and I agree. I especially like your statement,
"I like to think of cultural evolution being a laminar flow on the
surface and biological evolution being a deep current- sometimes they
interact, but mostly they are decoupled. The challenge sir (and this is
more of my dried fruit) is to gradually "couple" them together more.

Ragland:
I agree with you. But if the industry remains unregulated many unethical
and potentially dangerous applications are bound to occur.
They are bound to occur anyway. The question is what way to bet will
minimise it. And we won't know if we bet correctly until the cards are
turned over, so to speak.

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?
    ... Ragland: ... If they are pleiotropically linked to genes under selection ... possible aggression would be under selection and gradually it would be ... This sets up a situation where group selection may be invoked - those ...
    (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: "Funny" WWII Factoids?
    ... the point is that Germany and the USA had radically ... different ways of selecting and training officer candidates (and ... US selection methods may have been harmfully influenced ... were notably short of trained infantry reinforcements. ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)