Michael Ragland  wrote:

> I disagree with Mr. Buck who is not a scientist but I like his spirit.
> (his brief article is below) He is a socialist and of course if one does
> subscribe to biological determinism then the idea of socialism is
> shattered. But its interesting to note there appears to be two camps
> among followers of biological determinism. The first camp sees nothing
> wrong with biological determinism. It's a part of our Darwinian nature
> and should be fully expressed rather than attempted to be thwarted or
> suppressed. The second camp, among which I include myself, acknowledges
> biological determinism but don't think it should be fully expressed but
> don't believe ultimately it can be thwarted. This camp seems to be in
> the minority. There is a third camp which takes the middle road which
> neither believes our Darwinian nature should be fully expressed but that
> it can be sufficiently controlled. This is probably the majority camp.
> 
> That is why I advocate genetic engineering of people. Because I do agree
> generally with people like Pinker. I think if Darwinian evolution is
> permitted to continue it will result in our destruction as a species.
> Aggression is a salient component of Darwinian evolution. Will anybody
> seriously question that. Can anybody seriously question the continuation
> of extreme violence around the world which is not primarily culturally
> fueled but a part of our biology. I realize some would take issue with
> this and state such violence was primarily culturally fueled but I don't
> believe that. 
> 
> I'd welcome a response from the likes of Wilkins, Atmar, Moran,
> Felsenstein, Dr. Hayes, etc. whether they consider the continuation of
> Darwinian evolution (assuming there is no genetic intervention) to
> ultimately lead to the destruction of our species. I know nobody has a
> direct crystal ball to the future but I'm requesting a projection based
> on our evolutionary history up to the present and projecting into the
> future. Based on what Wilkins has recently stated regarding NS it would
> certainly seem that is a possibility. But I'm hopefully looking for more
> than just a possibility. I guess I'm asking for your personal opinion as
> opposed to your scientific expertise. The may not be warranted in this
> group but I'd sure be curious. 

You aren't supposed to *ask* me for my opinion - I might tell you. Oh,
very well... My view is that selection will not drive an entire
widespread species like ours to anything; adaptation is local to the
deme or metapopulation. *Prior* adaptations may just result in our
extinction - I'm thinking of our adaptations that lead us to xenophobia
and violence. But that is not selection, except in the sense that these
adaptations are pleiotropically linked to genes that *are* under
selection.
> 
> I'm also curious where you all fall on the biological determinism
> debate. My "guess" is most of you are neither hardliners or
the opposite
> where there is no aspect of our biology which isn't somewhat
> biologically determined. The question is how determined and under what
> circumstances it can internationally violently flare up.

Assuming you meant aspect of our *psychology* I am a strong determinist
- nothing we do or say is not strongly biased by our biological nature.
But biological natures have a norm of reaction and a normal distribution
(or a skewed one, but that is evidence in a largish population of some
selective pressure). In short, there are a wide range of states that our
biological natures can attain, and they very much depend on contingent
effects of the developmental environments, social, and ecological.

It is not a widely accepted viewpoint, I know.

The essay you quoted reiterates the standard fare - that socialists
cannot be biological determinists (why not? Perhaps Kropotkin was right
and we are biological cooperators), that determinism is social Darwinism
(there never was such a thing but once; all the rest is just labelling);
etc. But the evidence is mounting and we just have to deal with it.

My view on genetic engineering is that, like any technology, it all
depends on the goals, the sensitivity of the practioners to evidence,
and the potential cost of failure. We build bridges that way - we should
employ genetic therapies the same way. Eliminate Tay-Sachs? Go for it.
Engineer thin-hipped women with classic faces? Not on your life... the
unintended outcomes of that sort of employment of technology on a
complex developmental program will have major side-effects (what if they
are subject to breast cancer, or are developmentally delayed?).
Somewhere in between, experience will teach us what is worthwhile and
what is not.

So far as eugenics is concerned, the worry is not that the techniques
will not work, for they will if we apply good science (after all, they
have for thousands of years). The worry is who gets to make those
decisions, and what they and we must pay when it fails, if it does.

-- 
Dr John Wilkins
john_SPAM{at}wilkins.id.au   http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss" 
                                               - Francis Bacon
---
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 6/26/04 6:51:52 AM