Hi Steve, if you are still on the list. It thought your posts on WSN about socio-biology and population were very relevent to the recent UN report on world population posted on the list. cheers. Mine HTTP://CSF.COLORADO.EDU/mail/wsn/2000/msg00375.html by Steve Rosenthal 18 March 2000 00:04 UTC I agree with Andrew and Mine in their rejection of sociobiology, and I also do not think that Richard is an "enemy of the people." I would like to add a few comments to the points Richard raised. 1. Altruism: Richard has brought up the question of altruism as an example of "progressive sociobiology." If you examine the extensive writings on altruism by sociobiology, you will discover that sociobiologists claim that all altruistic behavior turns out to be a form of selfish behavior. They argue that altruistic behavior is behavior that enhances the survival and reproduction of those with whom one shares many genes. Thus, the altruistic behavior contributes to the survival of one's own genes. Moreover, the more genes you share with others, the more likely you are to behave altruistically toward them. Hence, you are more likely to sacrifice your life for your children or your brother, somewhat less likely for extended kin, less likely for your "race" and not at all for those of other "races." Sociobiologists also make an argument about "reciprocal altruism." They assert that reciprocal altruistic behavior enhances the survival value of both parties, thus contributing to the propagation of their genes. Their "cooperation" thus serves their individual self interest. Socioibiologist Pierre van den Berghe took these arguments to their logical conclusion. He argued back in the late 1970s that it natural for humans to be racist, because we share more genes with those of our own "race," and that this true of all forms of "particularistic" behavior. Van den Berghe asserted that societies that are based on particularisms are more stable and secure than societies which attempt to contravene "human nature." Either he meant that Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa and other such societies are more stable, or perhaps he meant that racism and other paraticularisms help capitalists divide and control the working class and preserve capitalism. Thus, there is nothing progressive about the sociobiological analysis of altruism. Ultimately, it is a cynical Paretan fascist argument that every gene is out for itself, and humans are merely the facilitators of that process. 2. Evolutionary psychology. E.O. Wilson writes in "Consilience" that evolutionary psychology is one of the four "bridges of consilience" between sociobiology and the various non-sociobiologized disciplines that remain to be conquered by biological reductionism and thus made scientific. It is thus a strategy of eviscerating psychology so as to reinterpret human psychology in a biological reductionist framework. In conclusion, I too accept biology and genetics. Indeed, my wife is a biochemist whose research involves genetics. She knows many geneticists. Virtually none of them sees any science in sociobiology. Steve Rosenthal < < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > > | Home -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 12222 ____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international