Thanks to Thinking Meat for this article in the Economist. It challenges the idea that our Pliocene hunter gather past was some form of ideal society. Romanticism without evidence was a de facto theme of my recent concern about Dave Pollard and his polyamorous intentional communities. I have given up there by the way, see the comments here.
Now there is a lot we can learn from that past, but we need to be careful. It is not only the danger of idealism, but also of naive scientific determinism. I have the Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology on the table beside me and it has some great material. However an evolutionary disposition, does not make a certain type of behaviour inevitable, it just makes it more likely with the right environmental trigger. It is the old nature/nurture argument again: nature creates dispositions, but nurture provides the stimulus, and therein lies our pragmatic responsibility.
Comments (1)
May I recommend a book by Joan Roughgarden - 'Evolution's Rainbow'? She revisits a lot of Darwin - particularly sexual selection - and has a fresh look at a good deal of biological data. She points out that many animal societies are much more co-operative than hitherto thought, and proposes a 'genial gene' in the same manner as the 'selfish gene'. Some fairly uncompromising recommendations for evolutionary psychology as well.
Posted by Brian Sherwood Jones | January 13, 2008 7:53 PM
Posted on January 13, 2008 19:53