eruthros gets tetchy

[eruthros]

Somehow, I think this fellow is the kind of fellow I want to hit on the head with a hardbound copy of the Modern Synthesis. Or, H.G. Wells meets evolutionary ecology.

Yes, that is a link to a BBC news article detailing Dr Oliver Curry's theory that humans will evolve into a genetic upper- and under-class. In the next thousand years. I quote:

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

That is, unless we become "domesticated." (Dear Dr. Curry: we already are! by definition! sorry!)

Please note? Dr. Oliver Curry is ... actually a political scientist. He's interested in "evolutionary explanations of behaviour, especially human social, moral and political behaviour" and works for the evolutionary moral psychology group. Where they look for the adaptive value of attitudes toward abortion. Yes. Honestly. (Hi, sociobio under another name! Oh, wait, sorry, we're calling that cultural ecology now. Or, wait, did that become too uncomfortable too? Have we moved on to human behavioral ecology? I get so confused.)

I'm sorry. I get so tetchy about evolutionary psychology. I don't object at all to the idea that any neurological system is impacted by evolution, and includes what the EPs call "evolved psychological mechanisms." (Though the modularity of the brain is a matter still under discussion.) Or that natural selection works on people. I just belong to a relativist field; you tell me that human beings have a universal EPM to pick the most genetically fit sex partners, and I go "but in the !Kung..." and you tell me that humans have a universal (natural, evolved, innate) mechanism that prevents incest, and I say "but kinship systems..." and "but define incest first..." People: not everything is heritable. Not everything is genetic. And not everything is universal. Not everything is optimizing. I understand that it's much easier to talk about people if you can make universal statements, and that it's great fun to work in a field that lets you make universal statements based solely on Western cultures, and even more fun to work in a theoretical framework that allows you to make non-falsifiable statements. That's great. Or something. *thwaps*

Dude, these are the folks who like to say that nature vs nurture is a false dichotomy because all cultural behavior (and therefore nurture) is the product of EPMs. (Versus "because environment determines which genes are expressed.") And that men get an evolutionary advantage from rape (more genes passed on!) so that the genes that make that "rape is okay!" EPM get passed on. And thus rape is an inherent part of men's nature. And that men have a genetic tendency to be big game hunters, because big game hunters get to sleep with all the women, and their children will inherent the (genetic) big-game-hunting genes even if they are raised by abalone-diving men. Bah.

Comments

[graycastle.livejournal.com]

yeah, no, fuck that.

[fiatlouis.livejournal.com]

You forgot to mention that men will get bigger penises, but lost their chins, and become "giants" between 6 and 7 feet tall (in other words, basketball player heights). I did notice the pert breasts thing, though.

[redbyrd-sgfic.livejournal.com]

I've been reading Genome by Matt Ridley (a popular discussion of genetics- out of date by definition since it was published in 1999). But he discusses some interesting research that suggests that evolution in competition *between genes* is what's actually driving genetic change. So genes that are good at getting themselves copied become more prevalent. And there's also a fascinating discussion of the interrelationship of genetics and behavior- in particular, that behavior can trigger the expression of genes. It casts some doubt over, for example, whether violent behavior has a genetic cause, or whether the physiological effects are in part the *result* of behaviorial triggers.

Anyway, even if I believed in natural selection operating in the relatively small window of time that comprises recorded history, you have to consider that industrialization and education is going to change the dynamic. Because educated/financially successful people have fewer children. Whereas to be *genetically* successful, you need more children. So if we're selecting for anything, it's poverty and ignorance.

Which, now that I think about it, could explain a lot about American politics...