From: rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:48:51 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <1992Aug24.234252.11253@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>If you want to skp to what I, at least, think is the core issue search
>for ***.  Basicly, Ron seems to think that some genetic traits can't
>be passed on to kids.  I think that Ron needs to read up on genetics a bit.

Well, no. Genetic traits can ofcourse be passed on. I just deny that some things
are genetic traits.

BTW - I don't know how many people even bother to read this discussion anymore. So it may 
      be better to move this discussion to e-mail.

>In article <1992Aug20.111447.19190@cs.ruu.nl> rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg) writes:
>>In <1992Aug19.235656.17015@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug18.111637.7239@cs.ruu.nl> rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg) writes:
>>>>In <1992Aug15.223028.9223@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Aug14.113015.3466@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1992Aug12.201344.6642@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
>>>>>>> Has it occurred to anyone else out there that the Moties are really
>>>>>>> not all that different from us?
>>>>>>> Consider:
>>>>>>> Up until quite recently the optimum genetic strategy for a human
>>>>>>> female was to have a few kids and concentrate on them.  The optimum
>>>>>>> strategy for a male was to have as many by-blows as possible but to
>>>>>>> also have a small family that he concentrated his effort on.
>
>>>>What? Exactly the opposite is true: in many cases a large family was
>>>>neccessary to enable the parents to survive their old age, when they
>>>>could no longer work in the fields. It also produced a number of cheap
>>>>(free) laborers. The larger the family the more people to farm & till
>>>>the soil. 
>>>Incorrect.  Parents had many kids, but most died.  Up until technology
>>>began to change things, we were about at a replacement level.
>>This doesn't refute my argument. A smaller family would be at less than
>>replacement level, a larger family would be able to grow more food.
>Sure, but large families where the kids actually survived just didn't
>happen that often.

But all in all more kids survived in large than in small families - relatively
more died, absolutely more survived. And besides, without effective means of
birthcontrol you can't really help having large families. The old methods of
keeping a calendar is very unreliable, as many religious persons are still finding
out.

>>And small families weren't a very good strategy: the strategy was to have
>>as many kids as possible -they couldn't very well stop it without birth
>>control- and try to get them to survive. That it didn't usually work is
>>something else.
>Well, what I'm interested in is the "effective" strategy.  Effective
>as in what actually happened as opposed to the supposed objective.

What happened was that there were many large families in earlier periods.
I'll try and look up some figures on current mortality/natality rates in
the less developed countries.

>After all, in evolutionary terms, there are no actual objectives.
True - many an evolutionist saw something and then tried to attach a 
       purpose to it. In evolution, not everything has a purpose, but
       as long as a trait is successful it's retained.

>>>Simple thought experiment:  Let's say the average adult had 1.5 kids
>>>survive instead of 1.  Well, if you assume a generation time of 25
>>>years you find that in 800 years your population grows by a factor of
>>>over 400,000.  We didn't start that kind of growth until the
>>>nineteenth century.
>>Yes. But that is not because of higher birthrates, but because of lower
>>infant/children's mortality.
>So?  Does it really matter whether the family is small because they
>didn't have kids or because most of the kids died?

Yes. If it is because they don't have kids, better economic circumstances
won't increase the number of children. If it's because of high mortality,
better economic circumstances immediately starts to raise the number of
children. (The famous demographic "shear"-diagram).

>>>>>>> This is no longer the case in most developed countries.  
>>>>On the contrary, it is increasingly so in most countries, even the less
>>>>developed countries. As long as women are given a choice about abortion,
>>>>anti-conception etc. AND have reasonable standards of living. The latter
>>>>is slightly more important though.
>>>I'm afraid I don't understand your point.  What do the factors you
>>>list have to do with optimum survival strategies?
>>Nothing at all. That's precisely my point. Humans can do things that
>>have nothing 
>>to do with optimum survival strategies or even run counter to them.
>
>I would never deny this.  Of course, those who do so are less likely
>to have kids and therefore there are likely to be fewer of them in the
>next generation. Sounds kind of like evolution, no?

Sounds like it. It isn't, though. If most people use contraceptives,
then yes, they're likely to have less children than those that don't.
But a) that behavior is not genetically determined

>>Which is why 
>>any Motie argument falls flat - we're not slaves of our own sexuality
>>or reproductive 
>>drive, we can (and given the opportunity, will) control it.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Sure.  And that's why countries like Bangladesh don't have
>overpopulation problems.

They don't have overpopulation problems - they have economic problems.
For instance, the Netherlands has comparable population densities and has
comparable problems with stopping the sea from flooding half the country.
It's just that the Dutch state can afford to spend billions on 
the "Deltawerken" and dikes while the Bangladeshi state cannot.

And the overpopulation-discussion is something else entirely by the way.
If you want to discuss that, I suggest a new thread, preferably in a political
newsgroup - it's definetely no Science Fiction.

>>>>>>> In the US today, if you have a family of twenty kids you won't have
>>>>>>> fun but you will probably bring all, or the fast majority of them, to
>>>>>>> maturity.  That means you will have a larger share of the next
>>>>>>> generation.  This is true for both men and women.
>
>>>>Maybe so, most women don't want that many children.
>
>>>So?  Do you think we evolve the way we want to?  One thing I'm
>>>predicting is that women will evolve to want 20 kids.
>
>>Why should they evolve to want 20 kids if the cause of that many kids
>>is not the *wanting* of so many, but the lack of effective means of
>>birthcontrol.
>
>I don't follow.  In the West, and in most of the LDCs as well, birth
>control is pretty easily available.
>
>>I repeat, given a choice between a few kids and twenty kids,
>>most or even all women will probably choose the lesser amount. And this is
>>not genetically coded but culturally determined.
>
>All?  Ask an Hasidic Jew or some sects of Fundamentalist Christianity.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Culturally determined groups. They "decide" the number of children on the
base of their religion. Unless you want to say that the people who want more
children are also attracted to religion. Vice versa is true, but not on
a genetic level.

And you're right. Not all women choose to have very few children. But then
you could get philosophical and ask yourself how much choice the women 
in those groups have - cultural pressure can be quite effective.

>Most?  Certainly.  So what?  Those who do want twenty kids will have
>them.  Their kids will form a larger proportion of the next generation
>than the kids of people who only wanted two kids.

But that doesn't mean the children too want to have more kids. Only if they belong
to said sects/cultural groups.

>>>>>>	Perhaps, but (at least in the US) the attitude is not one of
>>>>>>dominating the next generation.
>>>>>Come on, Brett.  Most of your posts are much more intelligent than
>>>>>this.  Who said anything about attitudes?  Do dandelions have
>>>>>attitudes about dominating the next generation when they send out
>>>>>their seeds?  Heck no, but that doesn't stop advantageous traits from
>>>>>spreading an becoming predominant in the population.
>>>>Dandelions =/= humans. 
>>>True, but irrelevant.
>>Not at all. You used dandelions to illustrate your views and then implied
>>that your conclusions were just as valid for humans. I deny that.
>
>Great.  Now explain what makes humans and dandelions different for the
>purposes of our discussion.  Free will?  Are you suggesting that we
                              ^^^^^^^^^^
Well, yes.

>have no instinctual drives?

Oh we have them alright. Free will doesn't contradict instinct.

>Certainly a strong enough desire can
>conquer these drives, but say that we choose not to?  Can't such a

That's free will.

>choice be influenced by instincts as well?

It wouldn't be free will then, would it?

>>>Are you saying that our instincts are not genetic?  We can shape our
>>>minds, but our instincts also shape them.  If a human evolves that
>>>does not want to control its own birthrate does it really have the
>>>ability to control its own birthrate?  Philosophicly interesting, but
>>>from a practical point of view the answer is "No."
>
>>But why should such a human ever evolve? 
>
>Because each incremental step towards such a human is more fit in the
>evolutionary sense than the previous step.
>
>>And even more interesting: is such
>>a desire really codable into genes? I strongly doubt it. Read Steven Rose's
>>book "Not in our genes" or read Prof. Bob Williamson for more
>>scientific detail 
>>on why it's not likely to be codable.
>
>I prefer facts to theory any day.  Look at the strong instinctual
>desire for children.

[Fact: the sun rotates around the earth - everyone can see it. :)
 Theory is neccessary to understand what's going on. All too often
 our senses deceive us. And raw observations can be interpreted in many
 ways. ]

Look at the strong cultural pressures to have some children (or more
accurately, to have a family consisting of one male, one female and 
two children).

>Look at the way some apes in captivity will play
>with dolls.

Some apes play with anything, from old tires to milkcartons. It shows a 
desire to play but not much else.

>Is that cultural or is it evidence for an instinct coded
>in primate genes to want children?

It's cultural. 

BTW I don't think this discussion is going anywhere else than a "nurture/nature"
argument - maybe a renaming of the thread would be in order.

>>>>>>	Actually factors for smaller families include increased leisure time
>>>>>>and a better standard of living.  Images of large families now
>>>>>>evoke pictures of huddled masses.
>
>>>In which case people who don't mind that image will have a larger
>>>share of the next generation and in a while it won't matter because
>>>people will want huddled masses.
>
>>Only if this trait is coded genetically. I think this is our main
>>point of difference - You argue these traits can be coded genetically
>>(AND are passed to another generation AND are dominant, but you could
>>just take this as working hypothesis) and I argue they cannot.
>
>***
>Well, first off, let's take a look at your statement.  I argue that
>these traits can be coded genetically.  Sure.  And that they are
>passed to another generation.  Um, Ron, mind explaining to us how a
>genetically coded trait could not be inheritable?  On its face your
>statement looks like Grade A nonsense.

IF a trait is coded genetically it can ofcourse be inherited. The COMBINATION
of the three was what I found unlikely.

>Also, why do they have to be dominant?  Recessives can also spread
>through a population.

Sure, but how successful are recessive genes? In the end they disappear.
And a gene for "wanting more children" would disappear very fast - every time
the dominant counterpart "wanting less children" would come up, a new generation
with the recessive gene would be even smaller in number.

>>>>But we're dealing with humans here. Not dandelions. 
>>>So?  Humans evolve just as much as dandelions.
>>Yes, but in a different way. Humans have increasing control over their
>>evolution - genetic tests on Down's syndrome for instance, better knowledge
>>of causes and ways to avoid the syndrome will lessen the number of babies
>>born with the syndrome - and are increasingly able to control their
>>birthrates. 
>
>The Down's Syndrome example is obviously irrelelvant.

What about other tests, not only for genetic diseases, but for desirable
genetic traits? I think human evolution could then be steered - if people
would be willing (or forced) to abort children with "undesirable" traits.

I'm not saying I'd be happy - I'd fight this possibility - but it could in
theory be possible to steer human evolution this way.

>As for ability
>to control birth rate, certainly we can.  I am not denyning this.
>What I am claiming is that the human being of the year 3,000 will not
>want to.

I know. I'm just not convinced by your arguments. And I don't think
I convinced you yet :).

>>>>So these factors may be
>>>>evolutionary irrelevant, they aren't irrelevant to the discussion.
>>>Yes they are.  Thse factors motivate some individuals but not others.
>>>Thsoe individuals motivated by these factors will have a smaller share
>>>of the next generation.  Eventually these motives will be bred out of
>>>the race.  
>
>>If motives can be bred into or out of someone. 
>
>Are you denying the existance of instincts that anaimals (including
>humans) are born with?
>
>>And even *if* the motives
>>are bred into someone, is it then impossible to ignore
>>birthcontrol-techniques? 
>I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  I'm arguing that it is
>possible, and in fact probable.  Not impossible.

I'll rephrase that:
   If those motives are bred into someone, is it then
   likely that even under strong cultural pressure, the
   instinct wins out? Not bloody likely, unless this 
   instinct is approaching the strength of the survival
   instinct itself.

>>(Even the survival instinct itself is subject to conscious decisions).
>Sure.  And how often do people decide against it?  Pretty rarely.
True. But any instinct can be overruled by conscious decisions. 
Up to and including the survival instinct.

>>>>>>> If I am right, we would expect the following effects....
>>>>>>> 1.  Women having children at a younger age
>>>>>>	Affluent women have children at an older age.
>>>>>But in society as a whole we do seem to have a recent trend to births
>>>>>at very low ages.  
>>>>Maybe that SEEMS so. It isn't confirmed by facts. In the highly industrialized
>>>>countries, women get less children at an older age.
>>>>In most of the less developed countries this is increasingly so.
>>>But in our fastest growing population groups this is not so.  
>>I'd like to know which groups exactly do you mean? If you mean the women in
>>the Black ghettoes, I for one can understand the high birthrates -
>>infant mortality 
>>there is larger than in many a 3rd-world country.
>So?  The vast majority of kids do reach maturity.  The increased birth
>rate overcompensates.  If it didn't those groups would not be
>increasing their share of our population.
>
>>>>>>> 3.  More premature births - we can take better care of them now
>>>>>>> outside the womb and if you pop them out early you can have another
>>>>>>> kid sooner.
>>>>>>	!  Premature birth is hardly controllable, and not likely to be an
>>>>>>evolutionary factor.  For 100ks of years premature babies have died.  Any
>>>>>>evolutionary pressure would have been that of breeding it out of ourselves.
>>>>>So then why don't we have 24 month gestation periods like elephants?
>>>>>Average gestation periods can evolve up or down.
>>>>Yes, but there was an evolutionary pressure to keep it down as well. Read
>>>>Stephen Jay Gould (I think it's an essay in his latest book Bully for
>>>>Brontosaurus). 
>>>I am aware of that - if there was no pressure to keep it down we would
>>>have 24 month periods.  What I am pointed out is that we have less
>>>pressure now to keep it up.
>>That may be true, but is premature birth a genetic trait? Is it inheritable?
>>I don't think so.
>Whoa.  Are you seriously claiming that gestation periods are not
>genetic traits?  Perhaps it is cultural?

Oh no. Gestation periods are genetic traits. But is a premature birth inheritable?
The birth is "premature" just because it deviates from the norm (genetically 
decided and inherited). I think it very likely that the gestation period we have
(which we've had for a *very* long time) is the one that's inherited, while premature
births are usually caused by things other than genes for "premature births". 

Wasn't there a correlation between cultural factors
such as smoking & drinking and premature births?

>>>>>>> Until something happens to forcibly restrain humn breeding I would
>>>>>>> expect to see a continuing trend that brings us closer and closer to
>>>>>>> the Motie model.
>>>>>>> A race with a doubling period of 100 years that bumped into us even
>>>>>>> today would see us as a plague that could take over the galaxy while
>>>>>>> they are still stuck on a few dozen worlds.  They would be right.
>>>>I doubt it. Our overall growth rate is slightly over 1% and
>>>>declining.
>>>1% per year works out to a doubling period of 70 years.  This is under
>>>heavy population pressure.  What do you think our doubling period
>>>would be on a colony planet?  
>>That depends on the planet AND the period of colonization.
>What do you mean by "period of colonization"?

If we'd colonize in ten years, we'd have a 1% growth rate. If we'd colonize
in 1000 years, all bets are off concerning the growth rate. (I know - you say
it's up. I say it's down, but let's face it - only in 1000 years shall "we" know
for sure).

>>Seriously, if
>>we colonize a planet I don't see any reason whatsoever for changing the 
>>reproductive behaviour of someone.
>
>Sure there is.  If you have lots of room you might as well have lots
>of kids to fill it up.

This never was a consideration for people to have kids.

>If only half the people are convinced of this
>then in the next generation they will be three quarters of the
>population.  Even if this is cultural and not genetic they are likely
>to pass their attitude on to their children.

That's true. But I seriously doubt that women would say "let's pop'em
out while we have the chance". Most of the time it'd be more like 
the current situation - only a few children, and contraceptives afterward.

>>>Even at 70 years, in just 700 years we would have had 10 doubling
>>>periods to their 7.  That works out to a 8 to 1 advantage.  In 1400
>>>years it would be 64 to 1.  If that didn't scare the shit out of them
>>>it would mean they were pretty stupid.
>
>>Only if you suppose co-habitation is impossible,
>
>Ron, use your head.  If we start out equal then in 700 years there are
>8 of us to one of them.  In 1400 it is 64.  In 2100 it is 512.  In
>2800 it is 32768.  With 30,000 people to their one just how much
>attention do you think we would pay to what they wanted?

This all depends on how much their needs and wants differ from ours.
If it differs too much, why are we colonizing the same planets?
If it doesn't differ too much then what they'd want would probably be
just what other parts of the population would want.
They'd be comparable to Earth minorities.

>>>Only if they are foolishly naive.  If our growth rate pushes us to
>>>expand radially faster than they do then, in time, we will encircle
>>>them despite the complete lack of any concious desire to do so.  Once
>>>that happens how do they expand?  
>
>>This only happens if co-habitation is impossible. And if it is impossible
>>it either means 1) a war is already going on or 2) different requirements
>>for sustainment of life, in which case there'd be no argument whatsoever.
>How would you like being a tiny minority inside an alien society?

That depends on the society.

>>>>Ofcourse I don't presume to know the
>>>>alien psychology - but an alien race that paranoid is unlikely to
>>>>survive.
>
>>>Why?  Personally, I suspect that paranoia is a survival trait.
>>Paranoia in a nucleair society tends to be, well, destructive.
>We're pretty paranoid, but we seem to have survived the nuclear age.

We're still in it. And considering the tendencies built into the current
economic system, towards war, we're still in the dangerzone.

>>>>>>	Except that our population is largely regulated by wealth.  If they
>>>>>>wanted to pacify us, all they would have to do is make us all rich.
>>>>>Why the smiley?  In the short run you are totally correct.  I am
>>>>>contending, however, that in the long run the negative correlation
>>>>>between wealth and fertility will disappear.
>>>>Based on what ?
>>>The fact that it is evolutionarily selected against.
>> But I strongly doubt it is.
>
>Ron, are you seriously claiming that there is no evolutionary pressure
>for large families?

I claim that (even should there be such pressure) the cultural pressure will 
outweigh the evolutionary pressure. And yes, I claim there is no such pressure.
(I indicated this more than once in my postings, didn't I?).

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written