From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 22:05:32 MST
Brett Paatsch wrote:
> gts wrote:
>> True, obviously not, but then healthy evolved humans do not
>> commit rape.
> I think this is wrong. I think rape is a choice that some
> biologically healthy and legally sane persons make.
Perhaps we only differ in our definitions of "healthy evolved humans." I
consider rapists and murderers, sane or insane, to be less evolved than
the rest of us. They come from the shallow end of the gene pool,
apparently lacking the genetic trait of compassion (and/or they have
histories that have served to suppress its expression in their
personalities). This does not mean they do not have the ability to know
right from wrong, nor does it mean we should treat them as criminally
insane rather than as ordinary criminals.
> It is (I think) a choice they make.
Of course, but one's choices are influenced by one's genetic
predispositions.
> And in endeavouring to come
> up with a better ethical system, it is to the persons considering
> that choice that I would like to be able to put some powerful
> argument, or illuminating perspective. I'd like to show that
> person, that the act of raping per se (putting aside all
> considerations of conventional punishment - they can already do
> the risk/"reward" calculus themselves) was not in that persons
> best interest. I'd like to use something like their inherent or
> residual sociability to go after diminishing the perceived
> "reward" part of the calculus.
That would be certainly be ideal. Unfortunately such people generally do
not care to listen to reason. We put them in prison partially in hope
that we can get their attention long enough to reform them.
>> As we agree, we have the genetic trait of compassion.
>
> I can't agree with this. Our genes dictate our development to a
> substantial degree. For instance they clearly determine that we
> are born with large brains and with a physiology that means we
> are unable to lift our heads to feed ourselves and that therefore
> we could not survive if we were not born to parents with a
> predisposition to nurturing and sociability. But whilst
> sociability or a propensity for nurturing behaviour may be
> selected for at the genetic level (and there is evidence that the
> maternal instinct is not an instinct but learnt behaviour) I
> think we probably need to look to memes rather than genes to get
> something as complex as compassion. I could be wrong. It might be
> a pleasant surprise to find a compassion gene or even a set of
> genes on the genome.
We've actually discussed this to some length in some recent threads. In
one scientific study it was discovered that the reward centers of the
brain are activated by cooperative acts in a prisoner's dilemma like
game. I was so intrigued that I purchased a copy of the study from the
journal in which it was published. Perhaps I should dig it up.
Like you I think memes are a useful concept, but perhaps unlike you I
believe memes are largely the products of genes. In my view our genes
help determine our psychological responses to our environments,
responses which include the formation and propagation of memes. I don't
believe the two concepts can be separated.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:18 MST