Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> As far as I can see, in periods during which nothing much changed
> during a generation, many could survive by accepting what they were
> told.
On 6 May 2005, Julia Thompson asked
How often did things change significantly over the course of a
generation?
In the paleolithic? Sometimes frequently, sometimes not. That is the
problem. As far as I know, during glacial periods things were often
predictable. It was warm in the tropics, cold by the edge of the
glaciers.
Weather was predictable, since storm systems tended to move along
paths between the hot and the cold, and the space between the two was
not so wide as now.
So you would have two bad storms every seven days.
(Incidentally, along with the convenient phasing of the moon and of
women's menses, this suggests to me that a `week' become seven days.
Besides, seven is prime and seven objects but not fourteen can be
perceived by most adults ... )
On the other hand, during interglacial periods, the area over which
storm systems move becomes less constrained. Weather becomes less
predictable.
How many iterations would there have to be for listening
*critically* to authorities to be selected for to the point where
over half the population had the traits for the tendency to do so?
I don't know whether `half the population' needs to gain these traits
or whether a small portion (say one in 12 or one in 100) is all that
is necessary. The key is that people not kill such minorities when
nothing happens for 50 or 100 generations. Otherwise their traits
will be lost.
Of course, during predictable eras, people can laugh at the critical
thinkers: as in, `There he goes again, suggesting that this next
storm might be light. Hah! As grandma said, it will be as bad as the
last one.'
In any event, listening critically is a complex behavior.
Consequently, it is likely to require a bunch of genes to make it
possible.
Perhaps the behavior is only expressed within an appropriate culture
and people in other cultures die. This would mean that those with the
capability would be invisible much of the time, so the others do not
need to avoid killing them.
This is a `one the one hand, on the other hand' response ... Put
another way, perhaps a more useful question is
Which contemporary societies provide enough support to those who
listen critically to authorities and which adapt well because of
their critical comments?
Did the US government adapt well enough -- that is to say, learn and
act differently -- to changing conditions during the latter 1930s and
early 1940s?
Did it adapt well enough during the latter 1980s and early 1990s?
Which societies are adapting well enough to the period since 2001?
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
