From: rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 09:34:19 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <1992Aug30.003545.23008@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:


>In article <714832602snx@sloth.equinox.gen.nz> hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.234252.11253@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp writes:
>
>>  > Ron, are you seriously claiming that there is no evolutionary pressure
>>  > for large families?
>
>>You seem to be of the belief that not only is there a direct genetic 
>>imperative to have as many children as possible, but that it outweighs any 
>>other factors involved. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

>You are wrong.  I have said nothing about the relative strength of the
>genetic imperative and environmental pressures, otherwise known as
>nature vs. nurture.  I have pointed out that even if the majority fo
>the variation comes from nurture there will still be a strong advatage
>to having genetic coding that makes one want large families.

[First: On the other thread I've been unable to react, due to my absence
+ a very quick news expiry (<3 days).]

Just a quick question - what about the following formula?
"*if* `wanting large families' can be coded into genes and *if* this is
 then exerting more influence over the persons than culture, in that
 case it might be possible that large families would become more numerous."

I disagree with all "*if*'s" and will even add some more (for starters - 
it's unlikely the gene exists at the moment, therefore it must be a mutation
if it appears. Further, this mutation must have no lethal or debilitating 
side-effects. *And* it must exert a greater influence over people than the
cultural tenets of the civilization in which the mutant lives - or else it
will not make a difference).

The above is what we've been discussing, I believe. And considering the discussion,
it's unlikely we'll get closer on those subjects.
But I could live with the formula given before that.

>>It would seem that a consequence of such a situation would be that, on 
>>average, families in a richer country would be observed to be significantly 
>>larger than those in a poorer country, due to there being a greater ability 
>>to support children in the richer society. 
>
>Note that I said nothing about the relative strength of nature vs.
>nurture in this context.  The evidence you have brought up strongly
>suggests that, at least today, nurture is by far the most important.

Funny. I actually agree with you :).

>It also suggests that over time we would expect version of the genes
>that make us want more kids to arise that are able to resist the
>countervailing pressures from nurture.

And here again I don't :).  What exactly was it that suggested to you that
we could expect versions of the gene to arise that are able to resist the
countervailing pressures? - And do you think the "lesser" variants of the gene 
already exist?

>>Therefore, if your theory (as I understand it) is correct, we can predict 
>>that family sizes (though not necessarily birth rates) in North America and 
>>Western Europe should be larger than family sizes in, say, South America, 
>>Africa and India.  
>>A) Do you agree with this reasoning? If not, where have I gone wrong?
>
>I agree with your reasoning except for the first statement - the bit
>about nature being mroe important than nurture.  Right now, at least,
>it's the opposite.

And it will remain so. But that's the same discussion again.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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