RE: EVO: "Natural Selection Is Acting On The Current Human Popula tion" (fwd)

From: Jason Axtell (
Date: Thu Apr 26 2001 - 00:44:27 PDT

Dave Long said:

> 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.

Thanks to my trusty friend the search engine:

Speaker: Konrad Lorenz, to the German Psychological Association, 1938
Party: I'll guess Nazi
Nobel work: Ethology, the study of animal behavior (aggression as an evolved
trait in both man and "lower" forms, imprinting in young birds)

Yes, trying to manipulate human "social behavior patterns" can be dangerous,
both in concept and in practice. But, if you could cure a disease through
genetic engineering, would you decide not to do so because that same
technology could later be used eugenically? Or a nuclear reactor to produce
safe, clean, reliable electricity because later the waste could be used to
make a bomb? Or strong encryption because a criminal might decide to use it
too? Okay, actually, I guess some people would. But Ludditism aside...

> > 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?

More importantly, are these the good traits or the bad ones? I like
tolerance and responsibility, but have qualifications on the rest. I'm also
fairly confident that no one else on this list agrees completely with my
last sentence. That being the case, how can we ever come to any agreement on
what, socially, constitutes a memetic disease?

Better to encourage people to be free thinkers. Nothing like a little dose
of rationality to innoculate your brain against pesky little memes like
mass-consumerism and luxury SUVs.

Jason Axtell

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:26:11 PDT