From: kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 15:15:54 GMT

 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. 

 You can, however, bring up a child of fools to be a savant (or a 
child of savants to be a fool).
 
 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. 
 
 What this boils down to is that _already_ being economically well-off is 
an advantage in becoming even more wealthy. And this trait is indeed 
inheritable, but not genetically.

 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.

 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.
 
 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. 

 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. 

 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.

 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.

 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| Pro-Environment. Pro-Education. Pro-Family. Pro-Choice. 
     \_| Pro-Change. Pro-America. Pro-Clinton.
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu