From: rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:56:23 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <gapdrr.714068324@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> gapdrr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Daniel R T Rothman) writes:

>ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles) writes:
>
>>jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
>
>>>In article <gapdrr.713727865@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> gapdrr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Daniel R T Rothman) writes:
>>>>evolution IS catching up with us...  The upper echelons of the industrialized
>>>>societies have a non-replacement birth rate. The majority of population 
>>>>growth in first-world countries is coming from lower-income large families,
>>>>and many of these are relatively immune to economic pressures, because these
>>>>large families are subsidized by governments.
>
>>>This isn't evolution.  Income isn't genetically determined; just
>>>because you're poor doesn't mean that your children will be poor.  Also,
>>>the current events are happening over much too short a time scale to
>>>constitute a real change in the human race.  The relative proportions of
>>>different ethnic groups might be changing, but that's different than saying
>>>that the human race is evolving.
>
>>Hmmmm. I think the origianl posting made the all-too-common
>>mistake of confusing trends in society with evolution....
>>there is a simple, but easy to find difference.... if you come
>>back in a million years, one of them will have made a 
>>noticible change.
>
>i apologize for my less-than-clear post. One of the currently well-accepted
>theories in genetics is that evolution occurs over bursts, with relatively
>long periods of inactivity. It is very possible that the human race is
>going through one of the "growth spurts" before our very eyes. As a previous
>poster (lost the reference..) mentioned, evolution tends to operate either
>when external conditions alter, or when a new factor is added to the
>population.
>
>Over the past 200 years, the conditions in which human beings exist have
>changed radically, principally because humans CAUSED these changes.
>Part of the current manifestation is the reproductive predominance of
>several subsets.

Subsets of what? Humans? If you want to imply that colored people in the
less developed countries are "breeding too fast" (quote of racist
politician over here) I'd like to argue that they a) have more space to do
so and b) faster than whites? what's so bad about it? their color?
[ In "the population bomb" Paul Ehrlich showed a decidly racist side of
the whole argument in the first few pages, when in Delhi all he saw was 
"people, people and more people" while in much more densely populated Paris &
London he hadn't noticed them - the difference was one of color]

>While behaviours have not been shown to be genetically determinate, 
>parenting behaviours are learned from parents, as are many other survival
>behaviours, especially in a species whose principle survival characteristic
>is their ability to learn new behaviours.

New!!! behaviours - unlike those of our parents. People usually do not
mindlessly imitate their parents. My father's mother had 7 children, my mother's
mother had three and my own mother just two. And she's not the odd one out as I
see in many cases. In three generations most of the workers in Holland have gone
from more than 5 kids (avg.) to less than 2 (avg.).

>Part of what I currently
>perceive is that the reproductive advantage lies with those who are
>unwilling or (for whatever reasons) unable to educate themselves and
>become materially prosperous.

So poverty is caused by "unwillingness to educate"? And I suppose
IMF policies, exploitation, hunger and all that are all just minor difficulties?
Of no consequence whatsoever? - I'll just remind you of the impossibility of
education in lots of countries. 

Brasilia - death penalty (unofficial) for anyone
teaching the ABC to fieldworkers (Chico Mendez). Nicaragua - no schools available,
severe repression against teachers, students (under Somoza. The sandinistas
launched a massive and successful literacy campaign). El Salvador - being a student
or teacher is dangerous.

The list goes on and on. And the USA: after attacks on affirmative action the number
of Blacks & Latinos in schools has been dropping - not because of higer standards but
because these students can't afford the education. In sharp contrast to the children
of alumni -mostly white- who're allowed entry by default.

>As soon as it occurs that a member of this
>group becomes educated and/or materially prosperous, that persons
>reproductive strategy changes, and he leaves fewer off-spring.
>
>This sounds very much like selective breeding, and it does NOT require
>the untold passage of generations for active selective breeding to have
>a profound effect on the population in question.

It may sound like selective breeding, it sure as hell isn't. Because
as soon as the offspring of the "selectively bred" person is materially
prosperous, it's reproductive strategy will change immediately (as you
pointed out) and it will then go over to the other side, so to speak.

>Just to start a new flame-war: Has anyone noticed recently that 
>socio-economic status is a highly correlative factor in mate choice 
>(specific profession for that matter...)?
>Is it just possible that we're BREEDING distinct haves and have-nots?

In our society material wealth is inheritable. It's not a genetic but
a cultural treat though - I can't see bank accounts being coded into the
genes in the near future. As many other things you put forward, it is a 
question of culture and society, rather than genes.

Greetings & 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
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written