"Malcolm"  wrote in
news:bq8rk5$1fm5$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> The classic response to heavy predation pressure is to grow smaller.
> Larger animals have control of more resources than smaller ones, so
> other things being equal the larger will also be the more successful.
> It is debatable whether there is a drive to giantism built into life,
> or whether large animals are just the extreme fringe of a random walk.

I beg to differ with you. I don't know what references you have for your 
"classic response to heavy predation pressure",and I can understand how 
growing smaller is one response,  but it is very clear that one of the easy 
ways to establish a new niche that avoids an existing predator is to grow 
larger. This has been shown after every extinction event, which tend to 
favor survival of smaller species because they are more numerous. Larger 
species quickly reappear. I question whether this is due to control of more 
resources, because it also requires more resources to sustain a larger 
creature. I think the key is that the larger size does to a certain extent 
create its own niche.

(snip)

> The obvious example is Reagan. He won the Cold War, with minimal loss
> of American life. However he wasn't a particularly intelligent man.
> His "evil empire" speech was mocked by academics, as was his strategic
> defence initiative - the policy which finally broke the Soviet Union.

This subject is outside the scope of this newsgroup. I cannot however 
resist noting the historical fact that the policy of containment of the 
Soviet Union was a bipartisan policy started after World War II and 
followed by every administration up to and including Reagan's. One could as 
well (and as poorly) credit Carter's boycott of the 1980 Olympics as "the 
policy which broke the Soviet Union". (Any replies to this paragraph should 
be sent to me personally, not to the newsgroup) 

>> Ethics is a branch of philosophy, so Dawkins must at least believe in
>> something outside of science (unless he doesn't believe in his own
>> moral views). And how are his views a "bastardised version of
>> Christian ethics"?

> I've heard Dawkins claim that "nothing is outside its [ science's ]
> province". Most people would argue that science can only answer
> empirical questions (tigers are rare) not moral ones (tigers ought to
> be preserved). I don't know what Dawkins would say when confronted
> with this, maybe that the ethical intution that tigers ought to be
> preserved is simply the product of evolution, and itself open to
> scientific investigation, and that "ought" ultimately has no meaning.

I don't know what Dawkins would say either. The question of moral authority 
is in any case difficult. We can disqualify science, since it is only 
concerned with empirical questions. We must also disqualify religion, since 
there are many religions and they differ in many respects - they can only 
answer religious questions. We are left with coming up with a philosophical 
basis for ethics, which is not necessarily a bad thing to be left with, but  
is also taking us outside of the charter of this newsgroup. 

>> You could say that Christian ethics are a bastardised version of
>> Hebrew or Greek ethics.

> Christian ethics are consciously a revision of Hebrew ethics, whilst
> Dawkins doesn't acknowledge his debt to Christianity. I wouldn't like
> to say how far Jesus was influenced by Greek ethics.

I would like to make reference here to Robert Ardrey's "The Moral Animal", 
which discusses a number of these questions from the standpoint of 
evolutionary psychology.Ardrey argues (and I believe correctly) that 
Christian (and other religious) ethics are just a "bastardised version" of 
universal human ethics that evolved for sound reasons, based to a large 
extent on reciprocal altruism. 

In this respect it is also interesting to note that the shift from 
polytheism based on personal gods of limited power to monotheism and/or 
remote gods, as described by a human prophet (Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, 
Mohammed) occurred on a global scale within a remarkably short time period, 
historically speaking. 

>> I disagree. Evolution doesn't *naturally* lend itself to right-wing
>> political views, but the common *misinterpretation* of evolution
>> does, > 
> ie. 'survival of the fittest' and genetic determinism.

> 'survial of the fittest' is only a misinterpretation if you define
> fittest in a moral sense, rather than simply fittest to survive. Genes
> for being a welfare queen may trump genes for being a space shuttle
> pilot in 21st century America.

Very true, in which case they are by definition the fittest, as you 
suggest.

> There are no genetic determinists. The interaction of genes and
> environment determines the phenotype, and variation may be wholly
> genetic, wholly environmental, or something in between.

>> And if we think'survival of the best adapted' instead of 'fittest'
>> then we can stop seeing survival as an individualistic affair, and
>> can see how 'mutual support' and 'reciprocal altruism' can raise the
>> survival rate of all individuals within a family/tribe/society (with
>> the detection of 
> cheats
>> and freeloaders being an essential, co-evolved cognitive safety net).
>> A loose analogy from economics would be the theory of comparative
>> advantage (we achieve more by cooperation than by working alone).

> Alliances can increase all allies' competitive advantages. However
> your closest competitor is usually another member of the same species,
> and a tribe or other group can only expand so far until it begins to
> run out of resources. At this point a faction or individual who works
> against the group will gain an advantage.

Perhaps you misunderstood the significance of the reference to "detection 
of cheats and freeloaders". With this mechanism in place, an individual who 
"works against the group" will be punished so severely that they will in 
fact be at a disadvantage. 
 
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 12/1/03 6:03:31 AM