[lit-ideas] Re: How Civilization accelerated Human Evolution
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 20:58:04 +0100 (BST)
>In fact, Darwin, on his own admission, took the principle of 'natural
selection' (which was the real novelty, evolution was talked about
before that) from Malthus' Essay on the Principle of Population, which
as we know is a work of social philosophy or political economy, not of
natural science. The 'survival of the fittest' is a phrase borrowed from
Spencer. Thus, Darwinism has been connected from very early on with
socio-political thinking.>
That Darwinism has long been "connected" with socio-political thinking
(including dubious notions of "Social Darwinism") does not alter the fact that
the scientific application of Darwinism in terms of "natural selection" refers
(perhaps exclusively) to W1 selection pressures; and it does not alter the fact
that "natural selection" of this sort differs from "cultural selection" where
humans adopt or discard various cultural materials according to their own
evaluations and not those of "nature" - these human evaluations are not the
selections of "nature" in its W1 sense, though admittedly these evaluations are
products of the brain and the brain is a product of "natural selection" in its
W1 sense. And though it may be admitted that these cultural evaluations may
have significant impact on human survival in W1 terms, any attempt to use the
terminology of "natural selection" for W2/W3 based "cultural selection" is
likely to distort and confuse .
While "natural selection" may be deemed a purely W1 affair, it might be argued
that certain W2 psychological and W3 cultural traits are less 'fit' in a way
akin to how "natural selection" determines 'fitness'. But we must note that
such traits will only be selected against, in a way we might claim falls under
the rubric "natural selection", because of their affects on 'fitness' at a W1
level: for example, 'suicidal tendencies', at either a psychological or
cultural level, might be thought less 'fit' than non-suicidal tendencies, but
they will only actually be less 'fit' in terms of "natural selection" insofar
as they affect survival and reproduction at the W1 level (i.e. a mere tendency
to suicidal thoughts that never led to suicide, or never otherwise lessened
reproductive success, would not be any less 'fit' in terms of "natural
selection" than the absence of suicidal thoughts; and if persons with suicidal
tendencies or thoughts were more successful
reproductively than those without (and the link were causal) then suicidal
tendencies, even if they led to a shorter life because of suicide, would be
selected for and so would be more 'fit' in terms of "natural selection").
So it is perhaps clearer to restrict "natural selection" to W1-based selection:
while admitting that W2 and W3 based "cultural selection" may have its impact
on our 'fitness' to survive, we may nevertheless deny that this "cultural
selection" is due to "natural selection". What we may study is how this
"cultural selection" may have its impact - via 'downward causation' - on
survival and reproduction at a W1 level: but this study need not admit that
this 'downward causation' is an affect (sic) of "natural selection".
So while we could of course extend the idea of "natural selection" so that any
kind of "selection" is deemed an affect of "natural selection", this tends to
render the notion of "natural selection" vacuous - while, as indicated, also
obscuring important W123 differences between "natural selection" as it explains
the course of evolution in the biological realm and "selection" at a W2/W3
cultural level.
Donal
Ldn
On Sunday, 11 May 2014, 18:56, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In fact, Darwin, on his own admission, took the principle of 'natural
selection' (which was the real novelty, evolution was talked about before that)
from Malthus' Essay on the Principle of Population, which as we know is a work
of social philosophy or political economy, not of natural science. The
'survival of the fittest' is a phrase borrowed from Spencer. Thus, Darwinism
has been connected from very early on with socio-political thinking.
O.K.
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Consider this use of the term "intelligence":
>
>>An increase in intelligence was required in order for homo sapiens to
learn how to farm. And then further increases as well as other
evolutionary changes were required in order to learn how to reduce
disease, adapt to eating foods that were not significant when they
wandered as hunter-gatherers or herders.
>
>Cochran and Harpending end with a discussion of the Ashkenazi Jew. Evidence
exists, they argue, that their intelligence (and peculiar diseases) were not
created by “bottlenecks” but by natural selection. These Jews (as
opposed to Jews living in Muslim countries for example) worked in “white
collar” activities as money lenders and in more modern times especially
starting in the 19th century in science and mathematics,
excelled. They began doing this about 800 years ago; then in the early
1800s when many of them opened up to enlightenment ways of thinking,
their money-lending intelligence enabled them to excel in mathematics
and science.>
>
>
>What is lacking above is any analysis that separates out "intelligence" in
>terms of 'nature' and 'nuture': "intelligence" based on "cultural evolution"
>and "intelligence" based on "genetic evolution". In the absence of any
>adequate separating out, it may be a category mistake of sorts, where this
>"intelligence" is a facet of "cultural evolution", to posit "that their
>intelligence (and peculiar diseases) were not created by “bottlenecks” but by
>natural selection" (where "natural selection" is a purely W1 affair but
>"intelligence" is not).
>
>
>
>That there may be a fundamental category mistake of sorts being made is
>indicated by the way
>"intelligence (and peculiar diseases)" are referred to as if they are both on
>the same level: whereas "peculiar diseases" are something to be understood
>purely in W1 terms, while "intelligence" involves understanding in terms of
>the W1 brain, the W2 of 'mind' and the W3 of the 'contents' on which the
>'mind' operates.
>
>
>To refer to people of Jewish descent in terms of their "money-lending
>intelligence", and how this "enabled them to excel in mathematics
and science", is hardly acceptable as a proper explanation: and it may be
suggested that Jewish people had advantage over, say, Irish and Italian when
they emigrated to America because culturally they had worked trades in cities
rather than being agrarian peasants: agrarian peasants need do no more than be
a human workhorses, without developing the kind of cultural "intelligence"
needed to run a business. The cultural value put on mathematics etc. is likely
much less with agrarian peasants of the Irish and Italian type than with people
in trades: but if one is an agrarian peasant of the Chinese type, performing
the complex assessments and measurements needed to maximise output from
paddy-fields, then mathematical and science-based thinking will likely be
valued in a similar way to where someone is in a city trade - because it is so
useful.
>
>
>We should perhaps be much more careful than the authors, and it is a useful
>start to have terminology that separates out the W1, W2 and W3 aspects of
>"intelligence" - rather than taking "intelligence" in a lumpen way. For
>example, the phenomenon of greater Asian proficiency in mathematics may have
>little to do with their W1 brain having greater facility with mathematics and
>much more to do with (a) the agricultural system of paddy fields that long
>required a scientific/mathematical approach for its success, and the impact of
>this on the cultural value placed on science and mathematics; (b) that their
>number systems make maths easier (adding 'seven tens and five' and 'five tens
>and six', in words of even shorter syllable, is easier 'mentally' than adding
>'seventy five' and 'fifty six' as in English: in English the words may need to
>be translated into numbers to perform the calculation whereas in other
>languages the mathematical character of the
calculation is more transparent in the natural language used); (c) that they
have a greater culture of "persistence", which is very useful in developing
maths and science skills.
>
>
>Donal
>ex-Lion Tamer
>
>London
>
>
>
>On Saturday, 10 May 2014, 14:48, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>I read The 10,000 Year Explosion, How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution
>by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, 2009.
>
>If “natural selection” isn’t at work raising intelligence and adapting us to
>new technology then it is something very like it. Cochran and Harpending
>marshal a number of evidences demonstrating key evolutionary advances. Our
>becoming lactose tolerant for example enabled our ancestors to raise cows for
>milk giving them a 5 to 1 advantage over those who raised cattle for food.
>
>The “10,000 year explosion” in their title refers to agriculture. When our
>ancestors could stop wandering about with herds of cattle and settle down in
>fixed locations to farm, this necessitated the creation of ‘elites’ needed to
>guard their property, govern disputes and assemble them in order to fight
>groups of intruders bent on robbing them of their property and women. But
>towns centered on clusters of farms had advantages over wandering tribes of
>herders – eventually. Attila and his Huns were herders rather than farmers,
>but the potential was there for farmers to produce larger armies.
>
>An increase in intelligence was required in order for homo sapiens to learn
>how to farm. And then further increases as well as other evolutionary changes
>were required in order to learn how to reduce disease, adapt to eating foods
>that were not significant when they wandered as hunter-gatherers or herders.
>
>Cochran and Harpending end with a discussion of the Ashkenazi Jew. Evidence
>exists, they argue, that their intelligence (and peculiar diseases) were not
>created by “bottlenecks” but by natural selection. These Jews (as opposed to
>Jews living in Muslim countries for example) worked in “white collar”
>activities as money lenders and in more modern times especially starting in
>the 19th century in science and mathematics, excelled. They began doing this
>about 800 years ago; then in the early 1800s when many of them opened up to
>enlightenment ways of thinking, their money-lending intelligence enabled them
>to excel in mathematics and science.
>
>Cochran and Harpending allude to the possibility that Israel being a
>cross-road to a number of invasions and a lot of traffic may have benefitted
>from increased genetic variation, but they find no indication that Jews 2000
>years ago were smarter than the norm for that time. Perhaps that is why they
>didn’t draw a parallel to the modern-day U.S. We have had an influx of the
>brightest people from all over the world especially after World War II.
>Hasn’t the resultant genetic variability enhanced intelligence in a
>significant few? American entrepreneurs do seem to be developing new
>technology at a greater rate than other nations. Could the reason for this be
>to some extent due to so many bright people having moved to the U.S. in the
>20th century?
>
>And I also wondered about the heritability of things learned. The Ashkenazi
>Jews learned money lending and this enabled them to become leading scientists
>and mathematicians in the 20th century. Cochran and Harpending don’t go
>beyond “natural selection” to account for the reasons for this. Somehow in
>the past 800 years the smarter Ashkenazi Jews had more children than the
>dumber ones and thus were able to produce Einstein-level brilliance by the
>20th century. And yet Cochran and Harpending describe some serious illnesses
>that are also found in the Ashkenazi Jews which would seem to argue against
>inordinately larger families for these Jews than the norm.
>
>Everyone on this forum knows that if we study a subject a lot and then keep on
>studying it; eventually we will know more about it than almost anyone we know
>– assuming we start our study with adequate intelligence. This seems to me
>what the Ashkenazi Jews started doing 800 years ago. But is natural selection
>an adequate explanation for what happened in the 20th century, for Einstein
>for example? We know there are genetic “triggers” of various sorts; mightn’t
>the intense study needed for mastering money-lending have triggered an
>intellectual benefit that was to some extent heritable? Maybe not, but it
>doesn’t seem as though there were enough generations for natural selection to
>explain those results.
>
>
>Lawrence
>
>
Other related posts:
