How does hierarchical organization have a genetic component? Why even assume
this?
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
-----Original Message-----
From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:35 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: co-ops + human behavior
norm said:
>co-ops may be limited by people's limited motivation for cooperation with
>each other. e.g, if we are 25% genetically programmed to cooperate with
>people (for survival purposes) and 75%% genetically programmed to compete
>with people (again, for survival purposes), then cooperative ventures will
>always be subordinate to competitive ventures on the average.
jim said:
As Stephen J. Gould points out, it's a mistake to quantify such things in
biology and I haven't the slightest idea of where you got these numbers
from. In any case, competition can take many forms. It doesn't have to be
the aggressive "take no prisoners" kind of competition encouraged by
capitalism.
norm says:
the %'s were just hypothetical ("e.g.") using co-ops as an example.
everyone knows that cooperative, competitive, hierarchical, "creative", etc.
behavior patterns are a function of both genetics (presently not malleable)
and environment (malleable), but no one knows the influence of each. also,
notwithstanding the "great social thinker" descriptions and prescriptions,
no one knows how LARGE changes in specific laws, codes, cultural values,
etc. will affect individual and group behavior.
if you accept the above statements as facts, then why do ideologues advocate
LARGE economic and political changes when the results of these are unknown?
isn't it in the "public interest" for "interest groups" who want a certain
form of society to prevail to advocate step by step changes toward that goal
and proceed from experience as a safer way to achieve their goal and at the
same time avoid the potential chaos (to the "public interest") of large
changes, the effects of which are unknown?
norm
