[lbo-talk] Re: lbo-talk Digest, Vol 18, Issue 17

Jim Devine jdevine03 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 2 10:06:04 PDT 2005


On 6/2/05, Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> This does nothing to explain why it is that humans came to have orgasms in
> the first place. Couple slight tweaks to our genetic blueprint and, voila,
> no orgasms. I think even Gould and Lewontin would fess up and admit that
> sex is pleasurable because (over many eons in the past) folks who found sex
> pleasurable were more likely to leave offspring behind. Every evolutionary
> account of a purported adaptation is a "just so" story, but that doesn't
> mean they're all mere fantasies.

I'm no expert on the subject, but Gould and Lewontin would never deny the role of biological explanation -- as opposed to _ex post_ rationalization. Your explanation sounds pretty good.


>Do you think hands are evolutionary accidents?

no. But the number of fingers is.

It's ridiculous to oppose "sociobiological explanation" (i.e., reductionist Darwinism) with "random explanation," assuming that just because one rejects the first, one must embrace the latter.

-- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl M., paraphrasing Dante A.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list