From: rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:04:29 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <1992Aug24.235820.16903@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.112541.20278@cs.ruu.nl> rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg) writes:
>>In <1992Aug20.000415.17392@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug18.113218.8610@cs.ruu.nl> rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg) writes:
>>>>In <1992Aug15.223224.9342@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>>>In article <Bt01vz.L46@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W Lai) writes:
>>>>>>In article <rwallace.713710067@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>
>>>>>>>Again, this is true - but I think the original poster's point was that
>>>>>>>genes for wanting to have as many children as possible are likely to
>>>>>>>become more and more prevalent as time goes on, simply because people
>>>>>>>who choose to have more children are going to have more surviving
>>>>>>>offspring in the next generation.
>>>>>>Genes don't tell us that though.  They just tell us to have sex,
>>>>>>tricking us 
>>>>>>into reproducing.  So we'll end up with a planet full of sex maniacs.  :)
>>>Well, first  off, twins was just a simple example.  Are you really
>>>claiming that a geneticly based desire to have many kids is
>>>impossible?
>>I am. Or rather, it is extremely unlikely that such a complex desire
>>is a) genetically codable and b) so strong that cultural influences and
>>conscious decisions have no effect whatsoever.
>
>Well, a, what about a fear of heights?  

That's a phobia. And according to the student psychology sitting over here,
phobias aren't considered inheritable/genetically codable.

>and b, please don't use straw men.  Of course cultural influences and
>concious decisions can have effects.  I never denied this.  So what?
>All you need is a genetic predisposition.  That gives you all the
>evolutionary advantage you need.

Does it? As long as cultural pressure outweighs the predisposition,
it won't help you at all.

>>>We already seem to have a strong instinctual need to
>>>protect and rear children.  Just look at the cuckoos nest phenomenon
>>>of adoption.
>>But many people can do without this strong instinctual need. Even though
>>adoptions are common, so are couples without kids. (I don't have the figures
>>on both groups though - could be interesting).
>Sure.  So what?  I never claimed that everyone wants kids.  Of course,
>in the long run, that problem is self correcting.

>>>>>>>Are there any effects that would counteract the genetic trend towards
>>>>>>>wanting to have more children? (In the very long term.) Or is there some
>>>>>>>flaw in the reasoning?
>>>>"Wanting to have more children" is a very abstract concept - there is
>>>>currently no evolutionary pressure for this, 
>>>Of course there is.  Say we havethe gene WMK - the want more kids
>>>gene.
>>But again, I strongly deny we have or can have such a gene.
>
>So what?  That has nothing to do with whether or not there is an
>evolutionary pressure in favor of wanting more kids.  For example, I
>don;t think a gene for 'luck' is possible.  Despite this, there is a
>strong evolutionary pressure for luck.  Unfortuantely, there is no way
>to create a 'lucky' organism.

For evolutionary pressure to have any effect at all, the results of
this pressure must be codable - or all the pressure in the world
will be of no avail. So let's say there is such evolutionary pressure
towards WMK (which I deny as well). If you can't code it, it still 
won't have a noticeable effect on our population growth.

>>>In each generation it is going to appear in a larger proportion
>>>of the population, right?  That's virtually the definition of
>>>evolutionary pressure.
>
>>Not if the one with the gene made a conscious decision not to have
>>kids.
>
>WMK.  Want More Kids.  The gene expresses itself as a strong desire
>for children.  Given this why would the person with the gene make a
>concious decision not to have kids?  Well, s/he may, but s/he is
>certainly less likely to do so than someone without the gene.

Less likely, but given enough cultural pressure the results will be
the same.

>>Plus, the gene would have to be inheritable.
>Except for the special case of a lethal gene, how can a gene not be
>inheritable?  

Granted. My thinking got ahead of me there.

>>>>there is no indication that getting children has
>>>>ever been decided on another base than external circumstances.
>>>Sure there is.  Adoption.  Why do childless couples adopt?  What's the
>>>point except to fill an instinctual need that they themselves can not
>>>fulfill. 
>>I suspect that motives other than instinct play a part here - society
>>pushes the family until you choke on it and kids are part of that
>>nuclear family.
>Which society?  The US?  China?  Africa?   (Which part?)

All these societies. Africa is a different case, but most Western-style
and even not-so-Western-style govts. in Africa are pushing the nuclear
family. Ofcourse, tradition is resisting this but I don't think traditional
family structures will hold for more than one or two generations.

>>>>And besides the abstract concept of "wanting more children"
>>>>presupposes a human ruled 
>>>>by instinct (or genes - it all boils down to the same thing). I
>>>>empathically deny that 
>>>>humans cannot make conscious choices about the number of children
>>>>they want to have. 
>
>>>Of course they can make a concious choice.  And what defines what
>>>concious choice they make?  Are you going to claim it is 100% nurture?
>>Not 100%. But culture + nurture might very well approach this figure.
>Ron, I hate to break it to you, but culture is part of nurture.
>Perhaps you have heard the phrase "nature or nurture"?

:). I used nurture in a different meaning there. Sows confusion and I'll avoid it.
Rephrase: No, it's not 100% nurture, but it certainly is the largest part of it.
(Let's not quibble over whether it's 90% or 95% :)).
Ofcourse, nature has some influence over it (we would have a very different society
if we'd not have feet but flippers, and live underwater).

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.

With regards,
-- 
Ronald Kunenborg, Ina Boudier-Bakkerlaan 89-3, 3582 XD Utrecht, The Netherlands

        "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom
	      and democracy, but that could change." - Dan Quayle
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:11591 alt.fan.eddings:982