X-Message-Number: 17017
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:12:51 -0700
From: Lee Corbin <>
Subject: Re: Why beings of the future WILL reanimate us

Peter McCluskey writes

>I am not claiming that our genes never make mistakes. I am claiming that
>the rules for our behavior result from our genes' attempts at selfishness.

No argument there.

>You admit we "have some built-in sympathy", yet you seem to have no
>theory that would explain what built it in. I.e. you sound like Gould
>finding spandrels where I see the results of evolution.

I *have* mentioned some explanations.  Here is what I wrote
on this forum on July 6, under the thread "values":

"It is now held that people are *innately* altruistic in many
circumstances.  The biggest and most immediate question for
a modern thinker---i.e., one who seeks evolutionary explanations
for human behavior---is how it could have ever happened.  There
are several persuasive theories, and Matt Ridley describes them
well.  But my favorite comes from Sarah Hrdy's book "Mother Nature".

"She says that in the arms race between men and women, the man
had to be pretty convincing that he would be a good husband.
(It's in his evolutionary interest, of course, to hit and run,
i.e., leave as much sperm wherever to generate the maximum number
of offspring.  It's in hers to very carefully raise a number of
specific children---her own---to reproductive age.)  Anyway, the
woman tries to detect whether the man really has the classical
virtues, among them genuine kindness, so that her children will
be the beneficiaries of this disposition.  The man's "strategy"
is to put up a convincing front if possible, and then hit and
run.  This arms race is raging even now, of course.  But, it
is claimed, women have been partially successful in detecting
genuine kindness, and have "rewarded" actually kind men with
favors.  Thus this behavioral characteristic has found its
way into our genes."

But now, today, I hasten to repeat that that the rules for
our behavior indeed do result from our genes' attempts at
selfishness, as you said.

>I meant that your interest in the rights of, say, horses is about
>the same as your genes' interest in the rights of those horses.

I think that is is a patent misuse of language to speak of my
genes having any interest in or concern for horses.  Didn't
Richard Dawkins say at the very beginning of "The Selfish Gene"
that we were NOT to interpret the "selfishness" of a gene as
the same thing as a person's selfishness?  In fact, the whole
term "selfishness" is only a metaphor---a good one, though---
to describe the effect of a gene.  It's selfishness manifests,
as well you know, in affecting the behavior of the phenotype
so as to make the chances of its overall copying increase.

Now my interest in horses can wax and wane.  I may be swayed
by horse lovers' appeals.  My genes should not be said to 
care anything of horses.  I'm still amazed at your statements.

Lee

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17017