Re: EVO: "Natural Selection Is Acting On The Current Human Population" (fwd)

From: Dave Long (
Date: Wed Apr 25 2001 - 18:48:44 PDT

> epidemiology of memes. How can we best deliver constructive memes into the
> population in order to subdue the destructive ones?

> various memes interact with one another and the environment. Basically, do
> the same thing with our memes that biologists have done with wild animal
> populations.

We almost started a thread with a Godwin:
> This high valuation of our species-specific and innate social
> behavior patterns is of the greatest biological importance. In it as
> in nothing else lies directly the backbone of all racial health and
> power. Nothing is so important for the health of a whole Volk as the
> elimination of "invirent types": those which, in the most dangerous,
> virulent increase, like the cells of a malignant tumor, threaten to
> penetrate the body of a Volk.

10 points for identifying the speaker,
 2 points for their political party at the time, and
15 points for a summary of their Nobel prize-winning work.


> Eugenics isn't about breeding smarter people, it's about making dumb
> ones that follow orders and have no self control.

As Axtell points out, Huxley saw this happening
earlier this century, and after reading Diamond,
I'd believe it's been happening at least since
the discovery of settled agriculture. A saving
grace is that variability in humans seems to be
more on the order of the domestic cats than the
domestic dogs.

Orwell's also a good read on the topic. Compare
the design of a cattle finishing operation with
the design of a Southern Californian burbclave
and stripmall development, and find the retract
for the Animal Farm mapping. Even the etymology
of 'capitalism' is subject to the isomorphism.

> University educated women had 35 per cent lower fitness than
> those who left school as early as possible.

Unus sed leo? (a maxim which in humans works
much better with inheritance of property than
inheritance of genes)

> we turn tolerance, responsibility, equity, anti-collectivism, free trade, and
> rational self-interest

Are tolerance, responsibility, and rational
self-interest compatible with great emphasis
on anti-collectivism? How so?

Also remember that the last time owning and
trading people was economically advantageous
here in the US, equity and free trade served
injustice and fueled intolerance.

> However, what this work doesn't indicate or find, is a genetic marker
> for human reproduction - so you can't breed for early reproduction
> from our data.

Maybe not from their data, but mightn't one
easily breed for early reproduction based
on pedigree, by finding some early menarche
subjects whose great-grandmothers are still
pretty young?

The only thing distinguishing humans from
the other major domesticated species is
that we reproduce late and take too long
to reach economic maturity. Between child
labor and child pregnancy, that gap might
be cut in half. (40 years to 20)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:26:10 PDT