[lbo-talk] Re: language of contempt

Miles Jackson cqmv at pdx.edu
Wed Jun 7 20:41:10 PDT 2006


Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:


> [WS:] There is a simpler alternative explanation: what matters in
> evolution/natural selection is one and only thing - the chance of survival.
> The traits that increase that chance get transmitted to further generations,
> the ones that decrease that chance eventually become extinct.

This is a common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. What matters is reproductive success, not survival. Granted, often these go hand in hand, but survival in and of itself is not selected for by evolutionary processes.

Simple example: imagine a highly aggressive individual who can take food and resources from weaker members of the species and engages in aggressive behavior if this is challenged. This pattern of behavior enhances the individual's personal chance of survival. Further imagine that this pattern of behavior stigmatizes the individual so that no one wants develop a social relationship with the person. This aggressive individual would have very poor reproductive success, because he/she has few opportunities for sexual relations and does not effectively protect and nurture offspring. --From an evolutionary perspective, the crucial thing is not survival; it is getting genes to the next generation of humans who in turn reproduce.

Miles


>
> It can be argued that large polygamous social units in which the alpha male
> dominates all or most females have a lower chance of survival than social
> units in which females are "spread out" so to speak among multiple males.
> The reason is quite similar to that why people spread out their investments
> - the failure of one does not translate into a total loss, only a partial
> one. In a large polygamous unit, the failure of one male can decrease the
> chance of survival of the entire offspring pool of that unit. In a multiple
> monogamous units society, such a failure would jeopardize but a small
> fraction of that offspring pool.
>
> This is sheer law of probability that has nothing to do with prowess,
> skills, strength, sex appeal or for that matter "the survival of the
> fittest."
>
> Wojtek
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list