Because sociobiology offers a powerful if partial explanation of various aspects of human behavior. It doesn't have much much to contribute to an understanding of the dynamics of capitalism or the discovery of relativity theory, but if you are interested in why women have (the equipment to) orgasms, what other explanatory resources would you deploy? Intelligent design? Cultural construction? What is the allergy to biological explanation? Yes, I know, it is often used for conservative purposes. But the, economics isn't?
Bottom line: we are animals, descended from Pleistocene hunter gatherers, whose central nervous systems are basically designed for life that sort of life in small groups in the African veldt. The ten or fifteen thousand years we've been civilized is evolutionarily irrelevant, no significant natural selection can take place in such a period (apart from out not-too-improbable self-extinction).
We are not just animals, we are social beings and our social interactions explain a lot of our behavior holding the biology constant. But it would be pretty strange if 2.2 million or so years of evolution had no explanatory relevance to our behavior. Particularly when biologically central questions are concerned. And if orgasm isn't biologically central, what is?
jks
--- Jim Devine <jdevine03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/05, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> > They don't have to exist for a reason (that's the
> > spandrel theory), but speraking sociobiologically
> they
> > pose an interesting puzzle that calls for
> explanation.
>
> why do we have to sperak sociobiologically?
> JD
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html