Malthus and Darwin

[Rakesh Bhandari]

It is possible that industrial society has forced us to
live and work in conditions for which we are not adapted as a consequence
of our evolutionary history. Perhaps Veblen's critique of industrial
society is based on such an idiosyncratic darwinian understanding of
human nature? I am just guessing; I don't know how the category of
instinct works in his thought.  It seems that the Unabomber finds
humankind ill adapted for life under large scale technological systems as
a consequence of our evolutionary history (he also says something about
how we are not suited to live in metropolises). Is there a human nature?
Can systems develop, independently of conscious design, which work to
frustrate and suppress or exploit that nature we inherit as a result of
our evolutionary history? It would be interesting to write a comparative
essay on the Unabomber and Hayek, I imagine. 

But Kropotkin certainly seems interesting.  

Arthur Jensen is doing his best to keep social darwinism alive. He uses
Cavalli Sforza's genetic research on human diversity (that and human
brain size variation are the most important  evidence he submits for his
theory of deep racial differences in heritable cogntive ability)but does
not seem to understand why CS himself argues that anyone who would infer
from his reconstruction of human migrations out of Africa the possibility
of deep racial differences in intelligence is an idiot--CS's word.  He
surely does a miserable job of refuting CS. CS argues that once we account
for the genes which control for phenotypically striking variations in,
say, head and face shape, , ability to digest certain foods and cope with
vitamin deficiencies or regional diseases, and most of all color --and
much of this scientifically important variation finds plausible
explanation in humanity's adaptation to the different environmental niches
it has filled-- there is simply not enough human inter group variation
left to make a plausible case for deep racial differences in heritable
cognitive ability.

Jensen does even recognize that CS reaches this conclusion even as he
makes distorted use of his evidence.  At any rate,  there will be no stopping 
Jensen and Sarich until they have been allowed to measure  the brains of
black women  and satisfied themselves that   they really are smaller and
that the neurons aren't packed that tightly to boot. 

Vincent Sarich whom Jensen cites taught this nonsense to 500 or so
students a semester in his intro to physical anthropology class at
Berkeley for more than 20 years. I remember how as a freshman some of my
dorm mates  had decided to fill their natural science requirements in that
course while I was taking genetics. I honestly don't think one of them
left with any sense of how biology actually "explains" racial or gender
inequality or homelessness. It's not even clear to me they had any sense
of what a gene is but they had their prejudices and self delusions and
place in the world all confirmed.

Meanwhile, I think I would rather read Deacon and Mitchen, as recommended
by Doyle and Paul. That would be interesting material to have in a
physical anthropology course, instead of debates about whether Head Start
works and why violent crime happens in the inner cities. 

best, rakesh