Re: Darwin run amok

From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 30 1999 - 08:53:23 MST


Kathryn Aegis wrote:
> >... as the genetics gets slowly disassembled
> >we will have a blueprint for predisposing "biases" that each of
> >us inherently have. What those biases turn out to be and how
> >we decide to modify them (by choice or edict) will be important
> >in the coming century.
>
>I think that the particular 'biases' you chose (shopping, sports,
>preening) have more to do with culture than genes.
>But, leaving that aside for a moment, we should back up to a key
>assumption in your constructions. Applications of evolutionary
>theory to gender schemas often start from an assumption that Darwin
>may not have agreed with to begin with, being a naturalist. ...
>To wit: Naturalists consider the human species to be ... from a
>distance, ... often difficult to tell who is male and who is female.
>... it is human cultures that decided to exaggerate the physical
>differences through dress and body language. Those who insist on
>following their own individuality can look forward to relentless
>pressure to conform ... In planning their own future, humans must
>come to realize that they have placed far too much emphasis on gender
>differences. Rather than focus on the 90% that men and women have
>in common, we have instead, ... created two different human
>subcultures ... the so-called 'battle of the sexes' is a manufactured
>entity, and we are just as capable of discarding it as we were of
>building it. Transhumanists ... may provide a context within which
>to begin to move beyond these constructs.

To paraphrase:
"1. Most human gender differences are encoded in our culture, not genes.
  2. We can change our culture, and more easily than changing our genes.
  3. It is bad for culture to create differences not in our genes.
  Therefore, we should eliminate/reduce culturally-constructed gender."

I don't agree or disagree with this conclusion, but I find these premises
highly questionable. Setting aside the first one as you did, cultures
are very hard to change. Powerful forces keep them in place, as you
mention. Meanwhile, genes are getting easier to change fast, and within
a century could well be easier to change than culture. Finally, I just
can't accept the idea that culturally encoded things are somehow less real
or valid than genetically encoded things. Genders may or may not be a
bad thing, but their being culturally encoded does not tell me which.

Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:13 MST