Keith, Just for the record, I would like to state that there is no absolutely clear evidence from biology, anthropology, or sociology that states unequivocally that it is part of human nature to stive for status to the detriment of others.
I know you believe you know the "TRUTH" in this matter and I chooses not to argue with you about it because when I have presented evidence to the contrary of your evidence in the past your response has been to question my credentials, but, again, just for the record, I do not believe it is part of human nature to strive for status in a way that may hurt others and I would not like it to be assumed by everyone on this list that everyone here agrees with Keith's assumptions about this. Cordially :-), Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 3:45 PM Subject: Waifer-thin survival (was Re: [Futurework] 105. Dumbed-down state education is the real threat > Brad, > > At 08:23 27/09/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >I think there is time to teach both science and technology to > >address Keith's concerns, and also for some liberal arts > >experience -- if we dump the "crap", among whcih I would > >include all forms of interpersonal competition, competition > >in sports, competition for grades, etc. > > But why do you keep crying for the moon? We may be primates+, but we are > still primates and for several million years, intra-group competition for > status and inter-group fighting for dominance has been built into our > genes. We can't get rid of these traits. Once we have the wisdom to accept > that we can never change these, then we can start to seriously consider > what sorts of institutions we need so that these inevitable conflicts are > confined to as small a scope as possible. By trying to ignore these > predispositions or by trying to overlay them with impossible ideals -- > which never succeed, or at least not for long -- we are not tackling the > problem, but just waiting for the next big catastrophe or the next big war. > And then we wring our hands again and say how awful it was and then > reiterate our ideals -- but, in reality, not having learned a thing but > living in a state of denial as to what creatures we really are. > > >Do we really ahve time and energy to expend struggling > >against each other? Is a system which consumes > >so much energy to produce energy the best way we can motivate > >persons? > > All this apparently "wasted" energy is, in fact, the energy that has > enabled species to evolve. It results in a waifer-thin gain in efficiency > (within the current environment) from one generation to another -- or from > one century to another. Otherwise, no evolution would have ever occurred. > Do you want to deny that we have evolved, or that we should not have ever > evolved, but have been created ex nihilo as an item of perfection? > > This afternoon in a valley of maybe two or three square miles in area north > of here I was watching a pair of buzzards. They traversed the valley two or > three times in a few minutes looking for a mouse or a baby rabbit or even > an adult rabbit if they were lucky but they saw nothing and passed over the > hill and into the next valley where they would have done the same and the > next one . . . and the next one. I'm not quite sure what the territory of a > pair of buzzards is but it's probably something between 15 and 20 square > miles, and they might fly all day in order to catch a mouse. Over the > course of a day, or a couple of days, they might gain 1% more energy from > eating their prey than they expended in flying. In that case they survive. > If they hadn't they wouldn't survived. They would be forced out of the way > by another pair of buzzards who were just that little bit more skilful -- > with just that extra waifer-thin margin of efficiency. > > What we have are massive frontal lobes which give us the capacity to think > more deeply than other mammals can. These, hopefully, can cause us to > change the circumstances in which we operate. But they can't change *us*. > We're still animals which act with ferocious savagery all too easily. > > If you want to deny the efficiency of competition then you'll have to wind > the clock back 3.5 billion years and start with a completely new design > plan. I'm afraid we're stuck with being what we are. Our institutions are > amenable; we're not. Fortunately, not all our traits are 'bad' ones, and > many are 'good' ones which bind us together and cause us to be kind and > generous. > Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, > <www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk> > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
