From: Jacques Du Pasquier (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 15:12:52 MDT
CurtAdams@aol.com wrote (5.4.2002/12:03) :
>
> In a message dated 4/5/02 3:08:54, jacques@dtext.com writes:
>
> >1) Regarding lower procreation how come no one mentions contraception?
>
> Oh, contraception is the #1 means to that end. The question is, why is that
> an end? Parent-child interaction IMO show that genes can give us the desire
> to have and raise children. Why is that not an obsessive desire,
> outweighing all others?
Simply because it didn't have to be in the ancestral environment due
to the link sex -> procreation. I don't know about you, but personaly
my sexual fantasies and desires don't focus on procreating and having
babies...
It's back to mammalian asymetry. Males try to fecund as many females
as possible ; females try to select a good male for fecundation, and
try to keep one male (same or other) to invest on herself and the
offspring.
Women do seem to have a clear specific desire for babies in many
cases, which is to be expected from said asymetry: they have to plan
the whole thing from the beginning, including the raising; while men
don't really need to care about the raising.
Of course once the baby is here and the man has the possibility of
helping it, what is predicted is a trade-off between investing on the
baby or going on to other prospects. If the pair-bond is strong, then
he will gladly stay, care about the baby and possibly make a few
others with the same partner.
> >In fact this is another example of disadaptation, though in that case
> >it's a problem for the genes, and (apparently at least) not for the
> >individual.
>
> Absolutely! And that's the way I like it.
That's the way / A-ha-a-ha / I like it / A-ha-a-ha... ;-)
> People are worth more than
> a carbon-based polymer (basically, plastic). I don't think that plastic
> is a match for our minds and culture. But the plastic will win out
> if we renounce any ability to control or change it.
Except in extraordinary circumstances, the plastic is moving at the
speed of tectonic plates while culture is moving like a falling stone.
You argued elsewhere that as our environment had changed and we were
not adapted to it, that meant we would keep evolving. But you're
turning things upside down. What it shows is precisely the opposite:
it shows that we didn't catch up with cultural change, that we didn't
evolve (fast enough). The fact that cultural change not only
continues, but continues to accelerate (and possibly to accelerate its
acceleration) means that we can discard biological evolution for all
practical matters.
Jacques
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:20 MST