Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:04:02 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <q-ly8#c@rpi.edu> kasprj@rpi.edu writes:

> MF= Michael Friedman
> JK= myself

> JK:
>|> There are no genetic traits that lead to prosperity, as far as anyone
>|> knows. 

> MF:
>|> Are you going to suggest that intelligence is not genetic?

> Yes.

>|> If it isn't then please explain why proper upbringing can't turn a 
>|> horse into a savant.

> Because a horse is not a human being. 

May I respectfully point out that the differences between a horse and
a human being are all genetic.

> You can, however, bring up a child of fools to be a savant (or a 
>child of savants to be a fool).

If intelligence is not even a little bit genetic then how did we
evolve to become more intelligent?

> MF:
>|> Also, what about good health and tallness (which has been shown to e a
>|> significant economic advantage)?

> I'd argue that these are more likely to be effects of being well-off than
>causes. A child brought up with a good diet and plenty of exercise is going
>to be healthier (and probably taller as well) than one whose parents can't
>afford to feed them properly. 

Well, you would be wrong.  Studies have been done on the effect of
tallness on success.  They control for initial economic status and
they find that tallness is a benefit.

> JK: 
>|> Your argument seems to be based on the fallacious assumption that
>|> all conscious activity can be traced to one's genetic pattern. I don't
>   ^^^ note that word.  
>|> want to open the "nature vs. nurture" can of worms, so suffice it to say
>|> that it's generally accepted that both have a significant influence on 
>|> human behavior. In other words, people gain the inclination to become 
>|> rich, or to have many children, from other sources than genetic makeup,
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I did not say "solely from other sources".  
>|> so the concept of such habits being "bred out of the race" is silly.

> MF:
>|> Jeeze.  First ytou say it's both, then you say it is all nurture.
>|> Make up your mind, then I'll respond.

> Sorry if I wasn't clear about this the first time.

Well, you still aren't clear.  You seem to be saying that intelligence
is totally nurture and not a single bit nature.  Is that correct?  Is
it the same for the number of children people wnat to have?

> MF:
>|> And what happens in the next generation?  People who are motivated by
>|> prosperity over protecting their bloodline will die out.

> JK:
>|> Yes, the people who are so obsessed with money that they don't bother to
>|> start a family will leave no descendants. But those people are few and 
>|> far between. 

> MF:
>|> And what about the families that have 2 kids instead of 4?  Are you
>|> seriously claiming that they aren't also reducing their genetic stake
>|> in the next generation?

> First: they may be reducing their "genetic stake" (whatever that means), 
>but they're not going to "die out" as you originally said. In fact, a 
>family which has two children isnstead of four will have more wealth per 
>person, and thus increase the children's chance for survival.

By a factor of two?  Don't be ridiculous.  So they won't die out in
one generation.  What about in 10?  In 20?

> Second: I've already pointed out, and so have several other posters, that
>once sentience enters the picture, genetics takes a back seat. If the human
>race were running on pure natural selection, diabetics and myopics (to pick
>two quick examples) would quickly die out, rather than live useful lives 
>with the aid of insulin and corrective lenses. 

Which, of course, is why they did not exist until we invented insulin
and corrective lenses.  Umm, well no.  Looks like people can survive
despite handicaps.  I'm not sure I see your point, however.  How can
sentience compensate for a weaker desire to have children?

> JK:
>|> But how many people do you see, rich or poor, whose goal is to
>|> "out-grow" their neighbors?

> MF:
>|> None.  Get it straight - you don't need a concious goal.

> You do now. See my paragraph above. 

I did.  All you proved is that a concious goal can produce results.  I
totally agree.  You showed nothing about the converse - that results
are impossible without a concious goal.

> MF: 
>|> Those who happen to have the tendency to have shorter generation times
>|> will out-perform their neighbors geneticly without any goals whatsoever.

> And I claim that in a sentient, technological species, out-performing 
>your neighbors genetically don't mean doodly-squat.

Sure it does.  It means that your neighbors genes get bred out of the race.

> MF:
>|> What I am saying is a very precise mathematical statement.  I am
>|> saying that the correlation factor that you get will be smaller.  This
>|> could just as easily happen if the poor start having fewer children.

>|> I'm talking about long term trends.  Some may not have had effects
>|> yet.  If you want to prove me wrong you have to show why evolution
>|> won't work the way I say it will, not that the effects haven't shown
>|> up yet.  

> You're as bad as Nick Szabo with his worries about the population 
>implosion (though at least Nick recognizes that humans are now driven 
>more by economics than genetics). Obviously the only way to completely
>convince you would be to put you on the Relativity Express for a few 
>million years and bring you back to take a look. Sorry I can't do that.

Yup.

> I've been saying that evolution won't work the way you say it will
>because evolution is an unconscious drive, and humans can - and do -
>use their conscious drives to override it.

One thing you haven't explained is why we would do this if the
evolutionary trend was to desire fewer or more children.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.