Is it tedious to insist that just because some thinkers use biology to defect reactionary hypotheses, that does not damn the idea that the explanation of human behavior have a biological component to leftist hell? First, not all, not even most, sociobiology operates the way Charles suggests. Nor does it have to. I don't use it that way.
^^^^^^ CB; Anthropology has biological, evolutionary explanations of human behavior. I studied Darwinian evolutionary principles, primatology, genetics, et al. when I was in anthropology. Anthropology is cultural anthropology and _biological_ anthropology. You know, Raymond Dart, the Leakeys, C. Loring Brace, Frank Livingstone, Wolpoff. Why is it that you call your hypotheses "sociobiology" and not "biological anthropology"?
(Actually, some of the bio anthros have rightwing ideas, like Sarich . So, what I said earlier wasn't entirely accurate).
There's something suspicious about studying and theorizing the same thing that bio anthros had been working on for decades , but acting like they ( not you) have founded a new discipline , and giving it a different name. There has to be some kind of academic politics involved.
Hey, I saw something good from Wilson on global warming recently, so "all's forgiven". But I still think it doesn't make sense not to submit "sociobiology" and "evolutionary psychology" to anthropological "peer review".
^^^^^^
Second, to the extent that some sociobiology may offer support for the fact there is a biological component to the explanation of less desirable human capacities, that may be true. It almost certainly is in fact true. If selfishness, etc. were not at least consistent with our biological capacities, these traits would not be realized in any environment.
^^^^^^ CB; Yea, part of our natures are a persistence of the natures of ancestoral species. Prior species were more individualist. The main point is that the uniquely _human_ aspect of us is an increase in sociality , not individuality. In other words, the origin of the human species corresponds to an increase in sociality, not selfishness, as compared with prior species. In other words, bourgeois individualist values are a return to our more ape/monkey like natures, the opposite of what bourgeois anthropology claims.
^^^^
Third, the ideological (setting aside the scientific) mistake in reactionary pop sociobiology is not biological. It is the anti-biological notion, inconsistent with biology, that if a trait has an explanation with a biological component that (a) that trait cannot be changed because it is rigidly manifested in all environments, and (b) is probably a good thing whose realization could be promoted.
As I have explained repeatedly on this list, (a) is a confusion that shows complete failure to grasp the essentials of genetics or evolutionary biology because traits are always manifested in environments, some and not all, and are the result of genetic predispositions of an organism to behave in or manifest some traits given environmental circumstances that are favorable to the trait. Further, (b) is not a biological hypothesis at all but a sort of quasi-ethical one which is so ridiculous that it cannot withstand being stated. The capacity to be infected with plague or HIV is a result of our genetics (as well as, of course, our behavior), and is not a trait that is to be celebrated.
^^^^^^^^^^ CB: I think I agree with you here. You might add that humans are famous for being able to "override" our instincts, for having "plastic" instincts; for having a lot of behavior that is socially, not biologically based. Our nurture dominates our nature, exactly because we are so social.
I would add to your (a) and (b), (c) a lot of sociobiology seems to want to claim that bourgeois favored behavioral traits, especially selfishness, have basis in the history of _human_ biological evolution; and seemingly to counter anthropological findings and biological explanations of non-bourgeois behavioral.
Here's a prime example. Humans are characterized by highly _socialized_ labor as compared with other species. The bourgeois anthropological model of "Robinson Crusoe", isolated individual labor as the earliest human labor, is fundamentally wrong. Increased socialized labor increased human adaptive fitness at the origin of our species. The adaptive significance of language and culture is that they increase our sociality , in labor, and reproduction, and all around. So, that's an evolutionary biological explanation of human highly socialized labor, language and culture.
Of course, not only that, but, capitalist production is, in fact, the most socialized labor in the history of the species. The division of labor is greater than ever before. The individual entrepreneur is _not_ the key component of the power of capitalist production; the world wide web of labor is. The fundamental contradiction of capitalism is the social nature of production contradicts the private (individual) nature of appropriation (private property). The bourgeois anti-social version of human nature is least true for bourgeois production itself.
Anyway, I'm glad you are doing left sociobiology. I invite you to start considering yourself doing biological anthropology, which can be left too. That's what I do. Left bio anthro.
Peace in ^^^^^^^
Yes, my explanation does seem similar to Morris', minus the "Poleax" hypothesis, which seems pretty silly to me. Horizontality, it serves the function of preventing sperm from leaking out and that is adaptive, seems to be much more naturally explained by the fact that it hard to have sex standing up -- it can be done, but given gravity and human anatomy. And I do not think the upright stance is plausible explained by the reduction in leaking. As for orgasms exhausting the female, I think most women would say, We Wish! Most of you guys are not nearly so good!
^^^^^^ CB: Yea, I thought it was guys who were exhausted after one orgasm. Women can have multiples. The key male skill might be to hold off on orgasm while the woman has lots of them. There's anthropological evidence that that's what they did in the Garden of Eden, and all was swell :>) Ancient anti-premature ejaculationism :>)
That "multipoles" joke the guys were making was pretty funny.
Make love, not war.