On this thread I'll have to agree with Eva against Jay's contention that a
mind is predisposed [by evolution] to reproduce the genes that created it.
A human being is predisposed to get laid, which in bygone ages usually had
the effect of reproducing the genes. Patriarchy, emphasizing reproduction
and transmission of property to the offspring, has been admittedly the most
widespread form of social organization, and it does articulate the supposed
evolutionary imperative of reproduction. However, there are social
structures enough with other assumptions for us to doubt that the
reproductive urge (as opposed to the sexual urge) is an evolutionary given:
societies in which the relationship with one's nephews and nieces is much
more important than the relationship with one's biological children, even
societies where the link between sex and children is not guessed at, which
is presumably also the case for the animals. So isn't it the other way
around? Isn't the theory of an urge to reproduce a pseudo-scientific
reformulation of patriarchal beliefs rather than patriarchy being a
consequence of evolution in action?
Patriarchy was unquestionably one of the most effective forms of
organization for a social group to survive at a certain technological level.
It would not have been so widespread if this were not so. However, it is a
learned behaviour. We see that as a system of belief commanding allegiance,
it started crumbling fairly rapidly once humanity moved on to a higher
technological level.
The practical relevance of the question is this:
If Jay is right about the problem--an urge to reproduce that is an innate
biological imperative--then he is likely right about the solution--that the
only slim hope is a few enlightened leaders imposing their superior
understanding on others. (And he's probably kidding himself about that, as
these "enlightened leaders" could equally well be self-deceived by their
evolutionary urges.)
If Eva and I are right--that only the urge to pleasure is innate and that
people can learn to live quite happily without reproducing themselves--then
we have to look elsewhere for the problem menacing the biosphere and the
solution to it.
The ultimate problem to my way of thinking is the economic order of the
world which places most power in the hands of aberrant individuals who value
nothing so much as counting dollar signs--personally I'd rather get laid or
read a book. More precisely, the social order has now been so restructured
in terms of the dominant institution, the trans-national corporation, that
even those who are not inherently aberrant are co-opted into the service of
the system. The problem is one of overconsumption; the economic world order
demands new markets--new mouths--to keep itself expanding.
The immediate problem then is the re-education of the masses, bearing in
mind that the corporations control the media. As a displaced academic, now
working for many years in a factory, I can say that a surprisingly large
number of ordinary people do see through the system that is ruining us, but
a larger number still swallow the lies and oversimplifications fed to them
in their pro-business newspaper which (here in Ontario) comes with a
SunShine Girl to provide an incentive for buying it.
Live long and prosper
Victor Milne
FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website
at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/
LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE
at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
