> This would only come into practice in the last 4000 years or so, with
> the development of a social surplus controlled by a 'ruling class' of
> distinct lineages through which property (control over a laboring
> popualtion) is allocated. At most one could push this back to fully
> developed neolithic village culture.
I am not an evolutionary biologist, and I don't even play one on TV, but this notion that men are genetically programmed to favor their own offspring over other guys' rests on some very improbable assumptions. Either there has to be some physical way for guys to recognize their own offspring -- pheromones or what have you -- or we have to assume a genetic endowment which builds a somatic structure that depends for its operation on a cognitive judgement ("this child is mine"), based on reasoning. Let's see, Wiki-Wiki and I had that romantic evening after the Fermented Mango festival last solstice, and it's been nine moons since then... Heureka! *Gene kicks in*
A gene that has, so to speak, a receptor for an idea? That would be a first.
On balance, the pheromones at least make for a more plausible a-priori narrative -- but there isn't a shred of evidence for 'em, as far as I know.
A lot of SB "just-so" stories turn out to have this kind of awkwardness implicit in them, when you try to think through the possible mechanisms of operation.
-- --Michael J. Smith --mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org