"Malcolm"  wrote in
news:chjf68$1omf$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> 
> "Michael Ragland"  wrote
>>
>> Chapter two, "Genetic Determinism and Gene
Selectionism", is by far
>> the weakest chapter in the book. Essentially Dawkins argues that he
>> is not a genetic determinist (he has often been so accused) because
>> he admits that the environment interacts with genes to shape
>> behavior. However, in the sense that Dawkins likes to postulate genes
>> that incline (if not force) animals, including humans, towards
>> specific behaviors, Dawkins obviously is a genetic determinist. It is
>> true that the phrase "genetic determinist" often had (and has)
>> connotations of racism and reactionary politics, and it is
>> understandable that the non-racist, non-reactionary Dawkins would
>> want to clear himself of unpleasant characterizations. However, there
>> must be some descriptive term for Dawkins' belief that behaviors can
>> be explained in terms of specific (albeit always conveniently
>> unknown) genes that were selected for on the basis of influencing
>> specific behaviors. If not "genetic determinism", then what? 
>>
> The problem is that the liberal left is so focused on politics that
> they don't bother to define what a "genetic determinist" is in
> scientific terms. 

As opposed to the conservative left and the liberal right ;-)


(snip)

>In fact even the ideology is suspect. For instance if poor
> Negro school performance is caused largely by their high rate of
> single parenting, there is a strong argument that nothing should be
> done to reverse the consequences of these lifestyle choices. On the
> other hand if the poor performance is due to genetics, then an "equal
> opportunities" policy would leave few or no Negroes in positions of
> responsibility, which may not be socially desirable, so some form of
> affirmative action may be called for. 

While I can agree that it may be a bad idea to reinforce poor lifestyle 
choices (and a worse idea to encourage single parenting, which is what 
the well meaning Aid For Dependent Children program tended to do), we 
need to be careful in assessing what is actually a poor choice. For poor 
urban dwellers in the US - especially minorities with disproportionately 
high rates of male incarceration and unemployment - it may make more 
sense for females to have children at a relatively young age, when the 
children will be healthier, and have assistance in raising them by 
mothers and aunts who have had time to amass some wealth. There are 
obvious disadvantages to this choice, but we should recognize that for 
many people the "choices" can be quite constrained - and that widespread 
social phenomena are unlikely to be maladaptive.

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/10/04 5:07:16 PM