Karl Anderson wrote:
> I don't get this article. Was there ever any reason to doubt that
> natural selection is acting on us?
Some people (who might live on a house near you) seem to be arguing
that there even is such a thing like a natural selection, so yes,
I guess.
> Since when are social factors outside the scope of natural selection?
Some heavy users (keep the glass pipes in the loo) of biological
determinism find it hard to admit that for some critters the
fitness function is largely modulated by social software within
their kin critters, not by the stuff in the landscape you can
stub your toes on.
> Animals with bigger brains and sensitive sensors are able to act
> socially, which increases their chances of reproducing.
>
> Is the point just that giving birth earlier is being selected despite
> other pressures to give birth later?
Don't know. I always suspected that even if total population growth
in the developed world stagnates some subgroups are still growing
like crazy, and finally are bound to break through the pavement, and
become very visible.
Just becoming rich doesn't mean you have to stop to breed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:26:17 PDT