Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] re-evaluating Lysenko
>>No, it would have been _less_ efficient. No one would, I thin, argue otherwise. But _efficiency_ is a stupid criterion for human activity. It constitutes what I call the Trap of the Present -- a trap glorified by Bernstein (The Movement is Everything) and decisively condemned by Luxemburg in her speeches at the a898 Converence of the SPD. Some former members of the SWP like to quote Cannon to the effect that "The art of politics is knowing what to do next," which is just another way of featureing efficiency rather than intelligence in political thinking. Carrol<< I think my point was that the Manhattan Project was extravagantly wasteful as well as authoritarian. That would be the strong points of my argument. Back to the wheat: in one sense Lysenko was right, and that was the Medelians weren't helping him produce better wheat. One issue was that the non-Mendelian plant breeding tradition of the 19th century (it could accomodate Lamarkism or Mendelism) that so helped the US become the world's 'bread basket' didn't help Russia move wheat northward. It ran its own timeline--when longer term climate took its toll and created the dust bowl and ecological ruin of what was plains and prairie that should never have been put under the plow. Much later the Soviet Union took outside advice on winter wheat and did move it northward, and then had some years of success--only to suffer severe crop failures when there was a series of very cold winters. So the US hits its limits with precipitation and the Soviet Union hit their with the cold. Bring on the wheat purchases of the 1960s. Borlaug combined plant breeding techniques and some Mendelian understanding to create 'miracle wheat' for Mexico, but those techniques didn't produce a miracle wheat for the Soviet Union, regardless of Lysenko's or beliefs (which were pro-plant breeding, negative on most aspects of Mendelian genetics) or Borlaug's beliefs (which were Mendelian training, but traditional plant-breeding in practice). Efficiciency might be a good criterion for agriculture if you have a shortage of labor, a shortage of transport and a shortage of storage--as well as a shortage of fertlizer. You had make the best use of what you got. I see Lysenko more as someone who understood what the peasants were facing every year, which probably made him too skeptical of the science (and the competing schools of thought). This isn't the only clash between practical, real-world farming techniques being reluctant to take on the state-of-the-art science. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] re-evaluating Lysenko
JF:If you are going to bring up the Manhattan Project, then I think it ought to be compared with the German A-bomb project, which failed to produce a bomb. Why did it fail?<< My point was more than science is scattershot and sometimes it's a matter of getting lucky. Why did the Germans prove better at 'rocket science'? Why did the Soviet Union after the war make better use of this science and technology than the Americans? It looks like the US has run out of happy accidents anyway, and when it can't borrow anymore money, it won't be able to buy them from other parts of the world. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
[Marxism-Thaxis] hull_sociobiology Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org Wed Jan 25 15:11:26 MST 2006 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Domains of knowledge, particular spheres; levels of organization of reality; materialist dialectic Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] hull_sociobiology Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > More specifically, Segerstråle attempts to discover exactly what the >views of the biologists she studied were and why they held them. On what >basis do the sociobiologists as well as their opponents evaluate >sociobiology? For example, the versions of evolutionary theory that >sociobiologists extended to behaviour and social structure tended to be very >individualistic and competitive. Sociobiologists tend to think that >selection occurs only at the lowest levels of organization, a position their >critics attribute to their economic leanings: the individual is paramount in >free-enterprise economic systems. The Marxist opponents of sociobiology tend >to think that selection can occur at higher levels of organization, >including groups. Is this an accurate way of putting the distinction? ^ CB; I don't think so. It is still individual members of species that either survive long enough to produce offspring or die before they do. The "group" that is thereby selected for or against is the multiple offspring ( or lack of offspring) and offspring of offspring...and who bare the trait that causes survival to reproduce or failure to survive long enough to reproduce. There is the slight sense that this is true in that , especially with humans, it is the high level and qualitatively unique sociality or socialness as compared with other species, culture, that gives humans high relative fitness. In this sense it is "groupness" not "the group" that was selected for in the first human individuals. >In Marxism, groups are more important than individuals. >Capitalists view nature as competitive, whereas these Marxist critics tend >to view it as being much more cooperative. This is false through and through. CB: I think you might be rejecting the stereotype of Marxism as anti-individual. You are correct. I'd say there might be some vague sense in this in that I think we can say that it was advances in the quantity and quality of cooperation ( socialness, and culture, tradition, which is social connection to dead members of the species that other animals don't have, "cooperation" with the dead through the culture they leave) that was the great advantage of _human_ nature at our origin. ^ > As Segerstråle notes, one problem with posing the issue in the way >she does is that sociobiology's opponents lived in exactly the same array of >societies and subsocieties as their opponents. During their formative years, >nearly all of the protagonists in this controversy were raised in >competitive, sexist and racist societies. Why did some of them internalize >these features of their societies whereas others did not? Was Wilson really >a racist, or did his work just exhibit tacit racism? Segerstråle makes no >mention of anyone calling Lewontin a racist. How did he avoid picking up >this feature of his society? > > According to externalists, political leanings influence the >scientific views that scientists hold. Lewontin, Levins and Gould are >Marxists; hence, their views on evolution should be influenced by their >Marxism. But John Maynard Smith was a more active Marxist than any of these >people. Yet he held and still holds views on evolution that are at variance >with those of other Marxists and in support of such capitalist running dogs >as Wilson and Dawkins. If both internal and external factors affect the >course of science, these influences are extremely complicated and at times >they conflict. This whole line of argumentation under review seems pretty crude. CB:I have to agree with you. Anyway, the author himself is saying that there are Marxists on either side of the dispute, so evidently political ideology is not determining the scientific position. >Segerstråle does not just relate what she has read or what her >respondents have told her; she evaluates it and passes judgement on it.>Looking back over the past quarter-century, she considers one of the>gratifying developments to have been that we have a "relative vindication of >the sociobiologists unfairly accused at the beginning of the controversy". In what does this vindication consist? ^ CB: I don't know. I don't know of much that sociobiologists have been vindicated on with respect to humans, however, I am not familiar with a wide range of sociobiology. Sociobiologists have no basis for establishing a discipline with a name different from anthropology. ^^^ >To complicate matters further, Segerstråle was engaged in the same >sort of activity as her subjects. She was a
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
http://iopscience.iop.org/0038-5670/27/7/R03;jsessionid=BA548348AC9FC50922E2EC91B65F8304.c1 Soviet Physics Uspekhi All Fields Title/Abstract Author Affiliation Fulltext PACS/MSC Codes Last Week Last Month This Year Last Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years All Dates All journals This journal only Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience Authors Referees Librarians The essence of biological evolution Author M V Vol'kenshteĭn Journal Soviet Physics Uspekhi Create an alert RSS this journal Issue Volume 27, Number 7 Citation M V Vol'kenshteĭn 1984 Sov. Phys. Usp. 27 515 doi: 10.1070/PU1984v027n07ABEH004028 Article References Cited By REVIEWS OF TOPICAL PROBLEMS Tag this article Full text PDF (988 KB) Abstract The current state of the theory of biological evolution is reviewed. Evolution is compared with the cosmological processes of structure formation. Both occur in dissipative systems and are governed by export of entropy. The objections to Darwin's theory are discussed and rejected. A sufficient material for evolution is indicated, as determined by the vast supply of variability of organisms. The reasons for this variability are described. The problems of speciation are discussed and its similarity to phase transitions is demonstrated. The phenomena of punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are described and examples of both are given. Special attention is paid to directional evolution. The views of L.S. Berg are examined in detail. Directionality is governed by natural selection, and also by the type of organism that has evolved and its possible variations. The link between individual and evolutionary development is studied. Wolpert's theory of positional information is presented and the concept of the model theory of morphogenesis is outlined. It is shown that a number of traits of organisms may have no adaptive value. The evolution of the visual organ is described. The molecular foundations of evolution and the neutralist theory, according to which the evolution of proteins and nucleic acids occurs to a considerable extent independently of natural selection, are studied in detail. Arguments in favor of this theory are presented and its physical meaning disclosed, which reduces to degeneracy in the correspondence between the primary structure of a protein and its biologic function. The results are presented of current studies that indicate the inconstancy of genomes, with various pathways of altering their structure and regulation. Various aspects of applications of information theory to problems of evolution are examined in detail. The evolutionary significance of the value of information, as defined as its nonredundancy, or irreplaceability, is stressed. The connection between the value of information and its complexity is studied. The value of information increases in the course of evolution. In conclusion, the sufficiency of material and time for evolution and the correctness of Darwin's theory are noted. Current problems of evolutionary theory are pointed out. PACS 87.14.E- Proteins 87.14.G- Nucleic acids 87.23.-n Ecology and evolution 87.15.B- Structure of biomolecules Subjects Biological physics Environmental and Earth science Dates Issue 7 ( 31 July 1984) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Jim Farmelant : If you are going to bring up the Manhattan Project, then I think it ought to be compared with the German A-bomb project, which failed to produce a bomb. Why did it fail? Well, primarily because it was never funded, anywhere, close to the level that the Manhattan Project was funded. The Germans simply didn't have the money and they were in far more desparate straights than the Americans were at the time. However, that's not the only reason for its failure. Another reason is that its head, Werner Heisenberg made some serious errors in his cailculations. A lot of people when commenting on the failure of the German A-bomb project seem to stop there. But the question in my mind is why didn't anyone working on the project step forward and correct Heisenberg's errors. And that, I think, speaks to what was then a major difference between the way American science operated (even under the relatively authoritarian and militaristic conditions of the Manhattan Project) and the way German science operated. In Germany universites of that time, senior professors were like little gods. They reigned supreme in their own departments and no mere underling would have dreamed of criticizing them or correcting them. Even if a scientist working in the German A-bomb project had become aware that Heisenberg was making mistakes in his calculations, he would, most likely, not dared to step forward to correct the great man, since that was simply not the done thing in German science at that time. In the Manhattan Project, despite the efforts of General Groves to impose military discipline on the scientists, things were still relatively loose and freewheeling among them, and that, I would submit, contributed to the success of the project. If a senior scientist, even an Oppenheimer or a Fermi, had made an error in his calculations, there would have been other, perhaps more junior, scientists who would have been willing to step forward to make the necessary corrections. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant CB: This seems to be authoritarianism at the university level. On the other hand, this university authoritarian atmosphere did successfully produce the Heisenberg uncertainty discoveries , evidently (smile). I'm glad Heisenberg got his uncertainty stuff correct and his atom bomb calculations incorrect. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
On 3/26/10, Jim Farmelant wrote: > > The Roy Rappaport mentioned here is the professor who got me into > > anthropology. I had anthro 101 with him. (It was during the 1970 > > BAM > > strike at University of Michigan, which we are commemorating in a > > couple of weeks. Rappaport held classes off campus to support the > > strike. He did an ethnography _Pigs for the Ancestors_ within the > > cultural adaptation/ecological paradigm, Papua New Guinea. > > What was his relationship with Marvin Harris? > His views seem quite similar to Harris's. > > > Jim Farmelant > http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant ^ CB: Yes, they are in the same anthropological school of thought, cultural materialism/evolutionism Rappaport was in the ecological subschool of that. I don't recall Harris being associated as specifically with "ecological" school, but his theoretical discussion in _The Rise and Fall of Anthropological Theory_ or whatever he name, cultural materialism, includes "ecological anthro". Rappaport got his Ph.d at Columbia where Harris was. Conrad Kottak, got his Ph.d there too. Kottak is another Univ of Mich. cultural materalist. Kottak is married to Harris' daughter , I think ( we note these kinship connections in anthro ; smile). In the 50's and 60's there was a big Michigan -Columbia connect in the cultural materialist school. Sahlins got his Ph.d at Columbia , too. Mervyn Meggitt. Michigan's Leslie White started the cultural evolution/materialist school, overall, in the 1920's at University of Michigan, Neo-Morganism. Lewis Henry Morgan was of course the major foundation for Engels' _The Origin_. Julian Steward was early associated with the "ecological" branch. In _The Rise_, Harris explicitly says he's not a dialectician. His _The Nature of Cultural Things_ is very posivitistic. > > > > > CB > > > > Roy Rappaport > > > > Roy A. Rappaport (1926–1997) was a distinguished anthropologist > > known > > for his contributions to the anthropological study of ritual and to > > ecological anthropology. > > > > > > Hotel > Hotel pics, info and virtual tours. Click here to book a hotel online. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=6Y2Q4ZTzabTkq117h98GjgAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAATRAA= > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Jim Farmelant wrote: > > > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:41:54 +0900 CeJ writes: > >> > > I guess if the project hadn't been authoritarian, it would have ben > > more 'efficient' and yielded enough bombs to wipe out even more of > > Japan. > > No, it would have been _less_ efficient. No one would, I thin, argue otherwise. But _efficiency_ is a stupid criterion for human activity. It constitutes what I call the Trap of the Present -- a trap glorified by Bernstein (The Movement is Everything) and decisively condemned by Luxemburg in her speeches at the a898 Converence of the SPD. Some former members of the SWP like to quote Cannon to the effect that "The art of politics is knowing what to do next," which is just another way of featureing efficiency rather than intelligence in political thinking. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:41:54 +0900 CeJ writes: > Caroll Cox's limitation is he has, like Chomsky, this almost quaint > left-wing libertarian view about intellect, science, research and > academia. Perhaps he ought to sit down and do a Marxist critique of > his own career. > > Now about science in an authoritarian atmosphere. Look at the > Manhattan Project. MOST of it was a multi-billion dollar waste of > money. Most of it was bogus research projects that never yielded a > single achievement. It was done under a highly secretive and for > most > workers authoritarian program. After all that, two successful bomb > designs emerged in time to drop them on civilian populations in > Japan. If you are going to bring up the Manhattan Project, then I think it ought to be compared with the German A-bomb project, which failed to produce a bomb. Why did it fail? Well, primarily because it was never funded, anywhere, close to the level that the Manhattan Project was funded. The Germans simply didn't have the money and they were in far more desparate straights than the Americans were at the time. However, that's not the only reason for its failure. Another reason is that its head, Werner Heisenberg made some serious errors in his cailculations. A lot of people when commenting on the failure of the German A-bomb project seem to stop there. But the question in my mind is why didn't anyone working on the project step forward and correct Heisenberg's errors. And that, I think, speaks to what was then a major difference between the way American science operated (even under the relatively authoritarian and militaristic conditions of the Manhattan Project) and the way German science operated. In Germany universites of that time, senior professors were like little gods. They reigned supreme in their own departments and no mere underling would have dreamed of criticizing them or correcting them. Even if a scientist working in the German A-bomb project had become aware that Heisenberg was making mistakes in his calculations, he would, most likely, not dared to step forward to correct the great man, since that was simply not the done thing in German science at that time. In the Manhattan Project, despite the efforts of General Groves to impose military discipline on the scientists, things were still relatively loose and freewheeling among them, and that, I would submit, contributed to the success of the project. If a senior scientist, even an Oppenheimer or a Fermi, had made an error in his calculations, there would have been other, perhaps more junior, scientists who would have been willing to step forward to make the necessary corrections. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant > I guess if the project hadn't been authoritarian, it would have ben > more 'efficient' and yielded enough bombs to wipe out even more of > Japan. > > CJ > > ___ Hotel Hotel pics, info and virtual tours. Click here to book a hotel online. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=Y5MOQRdCMvGvV28togFoGgAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAATRAA= ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
The Soviet Union was obsessed with one grain in particular: wheat. And on quite a number of occasions Lysenko and his researchers were criticized for not producing a variety that could grow well in the short growing season. And then there was the controversy over winter vs. spring wheat (with the wrong approach apparently originating from the US actually). At any rate, eventually the Soviet Union over-planted and over-extended the range of winter wheat for the climates, and after a series of harsh winters, experienced disastrous crop failures requiring them to import huge amounts of wheat. But wheat is a complex plant that doesn't yield easily to Mendelian genetics. It's a haploid hybrid of three diploid grasses. In the terms of the more advanced genetics, it is genomically unstable. Mendelians mocked Lysenko when he reported grains of rye appearing in ears of wheat grain. But Lysenko was right about this; it's quite possible for wheat to introgress with diploids like rye as well as tetraploid species. There is even a hybrid of wheat and rye now produced commercially (this was done without advanced GM techniques). The Soviet Union had long been interested in this, but as Lysenko himself reported, the results they got were sterile. They also tried crossing wheat with other native grasses to make it more hardy and productive in the harsher climates of the Soviet Union. Success at getting a wheat-rye cross that could reproduce came much later. The major advances in improving wheat production came in the 19th century more or less indifferent to Mendelian genetics. Mendelian genetics and inbreeding techniques in the first half of the 20th century did yield some gains into disease resistance. This was combined with the traditional plant breeding methods (of which Michurin and Lysenko approved) in Mexico to yield the so-called Green Revolution's hybrids (the key was old-fashioned cross-breeding with E. Asian dwarf wheat). One irony would be that such a big step forward was based on such an old technique. The other irony might be that it couldn't be done today because some company or government might have a patent on the Japanese wheat's genes! http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/msi196v1 Introgressive hybridization has played a crucial role in the evolution of many plant species, especially polyploids. The duplicated genetic material and wide geographical distribution facilitates hybridization and introgression among polyploid species having either homologous or homoeologous genomes. Such introgression may lead to the production of recombinant genomes that are more difficult to form at the diploid level. Crop genes that have introgressed into wild relatives can increase the capability of the wild relatives to adapt to agricultural environments and compete with crops, or to compete with other wild species. Although the transfer of genes from crops into their con-specific immediate wild progenitors has been reported, little is known about spontaneous gene movement from crops to more distantly related species. We describe recent spontaneous DNA introgression from domesticated polyploid wheat into distantly related, wild tetraploid Aegilops peregrina (syn. Ae. variabilis), and the stabilization of this sequence in wild populations despite not having homologous chromosomes. Our results show that DNA can spontaneously introgress between homoeologous genomes of species of the tribe Triticeae and, in the case of crop-wild relatives, possibly enrich the wild population. These results also emphasize the need for fail-safe mechanisms in transgenic crops to prevent gene flow where there may be ecological risks. Keywords: Introgression; Wheat; Triticum aestivum; Aegilops peregrina; Polyploidy; Transgenic crops. http://www.desicca.de/plant_breeding/Rye_introgression/body_rye_introgression.html Current list of wheats with rye introgression of homoeologous groups 1, 4 and 5 After the first reports on spontaneous wheat-rye chromosome substitutions 5R(5A) by Katterman (1937), O'Mara (1946) and Riley and Chapman (1958), during the past three decades particularly, 1R(1B) substitutions and 1RS.1BL translocations were described in more than 200 cultivars of wheat from all over the world (Blüthner and Mettin 1973; Mettin et al. 1973; Zeller 1972; Zeller 1973; Zeller and Fischbeck 1971). Their most important phenotypic deviation from common wheat cultivars is the so-called wheat-rye resistance, i. e. the presence of wide-range resistance to races of powdery mildew and rusts (Bartos and Bares 1971; Zeller 1973), which is linked with decreased breadmaking quality (Zeller et al. 1982), good ecological adaptability and yield performance (Rajaram et al. 1983; Schlegel and Meinel 1994). The origin of the alien chromosome was intensively discussed by genetic and historical reasons. It turned out that basically four sources exist - two in Germany (it might be one source, see Schle
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Borlaug is often called the 'father of the green revolution' and in later life came to be identified with Mendelian genetics and even for his advocacy of GM crops. HOWEVER, the accomplishment that started the 'revolution' was him doing the SAME sort of inter-species hybridizing as Burbank, Michurin and Lysenko (when he was an active horitculturalist). Basically, he crossed Mexican wheat with E. Asian wheat to get a hybrid that had short straw so the crop could take heavy doses of fertilizer. He then crossed that with E. African to get a more drought resistant variety. The Mendelian aspects of this were worked out AFTERWARD. The techniques didn't require Mendelian genetics (which at the time concentrated on research of INTRA-SPECIE breeding). http://www.idrc.ca/evaluation/ev-115017-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html Now that horses have been replaced with machines, the need for long straw has largely disappeared, and the dangers of lodging have also disappeared. This is because the modern trend has been towards the exact opposite of long straw. The so-called dwarf and semi-dwarf wheats have very short straw, measuring as little as two feet in length. These dwarf wheats have the advantage that they can be given heavy doses of fertilizer without danger of lodging. As a result, their yields can be increased considerably. This was the basis of the Green Revolution. In the 1940s, the Rockefeller Foundation decided to undertake agricultural research in non-industrial countries and, with the cooperation of the Mexican Government, they started in Mexico. One of their scientists was Norman Borlaug who was breeding improved varieties of wheat. He became aware of the falling prices of fertiliser, of the yield increases that could be obtained from this fertiliser, if there were no lodging, and of the possibility of developing dwarf wheats that were resistant to lodging. This became the basis of his research. The dwarf character in wheat originated in Japan, and it was incorporated into American wheats by O. A. Vogel. Borlaug took Vogel's dwarf wheats to Mexico in 1954. He bred new dwarf wheat varieties from them, and they yielded so well that it was economic to grow them with artificial fertilisers, on irrigated land, in northwest Mexico. The increase in wheat production was dramatic. Within a few years, Mexico became self-supporting in wheat. The next development was that scientists in India heard about these new varieties and, after a few experiments, they imported bulk quantities of seed from Mexico. Very soon, India changed from being a wheat importing nation to being a wheat exporting nation. Similar increases in production occurred in Pakistan, China, and various countries of the Middle East and North Africa. In the meanwhile, other scientists of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were copying Borlaug's work in the Philippines, except that they were working with rice. They too produced new dwarf varieties that could be grown with cheap fertiliser, and which then had greatly increased yields. Quite quickly, countries such as the Philippines, India, Indonesia, and Thailand, increased their rice yields as much as the wheat growers had increased their wheat production. The public relations people of these two Foundations coined the terms "miracle wheat", "miracle rice", and "green revolution". We can forgive them for their euphoria, and their Madison Avenue terminology. The effects of the green revolution really were stunning. Here, at last, was technical aid, from the Industrial World to the Non-Industrial, that really meant something. Millions of people were saved from starvation, and at least one billion people were saved from serious malnutrition. And, as we saw in the last chapter, Norman Borlaug was given the Nobel Peace Prize. It was possibly the most richly deserved Peace Prize ever awarded. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
JF:>>The problem was that Lysenko with the baking of the Soviet regime continued to hang on to neo-Lamarckiansm, and more importantly was able to coerce other Soviet scientists into hanging on to it, long after it had been discredited in the West. That caused immeasurable harm to Soviet biology, especially when that led to scientists like Vavilov being imprisoned for being Mendelians.<< That is an assertion of all the harm done, but no actual support, even in reasoning, is offered here. It could be the reaction--the backlash-- was as much an issue in holding back science as anything Lysenko said or did. The Mendelians didn't really pioneer the 'green revolution'--the techniques turned on horticultural techniques of crossing strains based on their adaptation to certain environments, looking for hybrids that expressed the desired traits and passed them on. Much of what held back the Mendelians turned on a simplistic idea of the relationship between chromosomes and other units of genetic inheritance and expressed traits. That was Lysenko's points about statistics--the patterns were there, but they weren't yielding the information required to come up with new strains required to improve agriculture. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Caroll Cox's limitation is he has, like Chomsky, this almost quaint left-wing libertarian view about intellect, science, research and academia. Perhaps he ought to sit down and do a Marxist critique of his own career. Now about science in an authoritarian atmosphere. Look at the Manhattan Project. MOST of it was a multi-billion dollar waste of money. Most of it was bogus research projects that never yielded a single achievement. It was done under a highly secretive and for most workers authoritarian program. After all that, two successful bomb designs emerged in time to drop them on civilian populations in Japan. I guess if the project hadn't been authoritarian, it would have ben more 'efficient' and yielded enough bombs to wipe out even more of Japan. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
>>The second question is one that Levins & Lewontin raised: the political methods by which his theories were made an orthodoxy. That would have hampered biolgoical theory even if his science had been 100% correct. Science cannot flourish in an authoritarian atmosphere.<< But does Lysenko get all the blame for that? The other side proclaimed he was a bad Marxist and tried to get him purged as well. Goddamn that Stalin anyway. He was so stupid and vain, and yet still he managed to get to the top. He was so stupid and bloody-minded and paranoid and purged his army of good officers, and yet still the Soviet Union won WW II. The Soviet Union did everything wrong, the Bolsheviks were doomed from the start, and yet still they beat the Nazis. Stalin was so anti-science and ignorant, and yet still the SU got to space first, got the A-bomb, the H-bomb, and put an H-bombed on a missile first. Part of the problem is that hindsight is not insight and hindsight is shot through with anachronism. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:40:26 -0400 c b writes: > The Roy Rappaport mentioned here is the professor who got me into > anthropology. I had anthro 101 with him. (It was during the 1970 > BAM > strike at University of Michigan, which we are commemorating in a > couple of weeks. Rappaport held classes off campus to support the > strike. He did an ethnography _Pigs for the Ancestors_ within the > cultural adaptation/ecological paradigm, Papua New Guinea. What was his relationship with Marvin Harris? His views seem quite similar to Harris's. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant > > CB > > Roy Rappaport > > Roy A. Rappaport (19261997) was a distinguished anthropologist > known > for his contributions to the anthropological study of ritual and to > ecological anthropology. > > Hotel Hotel pics, info and virtual tours. Click here to book a hotel online. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=6Y2Q4ZTzabTkq117h98GjgAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAATRAA= ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Memes, and Related Ideas about the Evolution of Culture 31 Dec 2009 16:57 Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man. But they don't bite everybody. ---Attrib. Stanislaw Lem Just what is a meme? Dawkins calls it an imitable behavior, but most people who use the notion are more concerned with ideology than how to lay the table, and even Dawkins cites religion as a bundle of memes --- "viruses of the mind," is his phrase. Which brings me to: Metaphorical uses, as opposed genuine research. Spread of the meme-meme (just the other year I saw in the cultural studies section of the local bookstore a tract called Media Viruses whose palpitating dust-jacket makes it appear as though the secret workings of the world are to be laid bare by the author using the magic tool of "viruses of the mind"; and whose index and bibliography don't even mention Dawkins.) And thought-cliches. And pseudo-events. And propaganda. Is the reputation of The Selfish Gene as a piece of crude Social Darwinism a meme? How far back does the contagion analogy for ideas go? Can one have a "memetic illness," the same way some people have genetic illnesses? What would it look like? Organized religion? A millenarian movement? See also: Archaeology; Evolution; Evolutionary Economics; Evolutionary Epistemology; Historical Materialism; Religion; Sociology; Universal Darwinism. Recommended: J. M. Balkin, Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology [Full text free online] Raymond Boudon [Studies of the mechanisms which make people receptive to ideas, especially bad ideas, by giving them what seem like good reasons to believe them --- sometimes they even are good reasons.] The Analysis of Ideology The Art of Self-Persuasion Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, ch. 11 Daniel Dennett Darwin's Dangerous Idea "The Evolution of Evaluators" "Memes and the Exploitation of the Imagination" "Memes: Myths, Misunderstandings and Misgivings" Herbert Gintis, Game Theory Evolving The on-line Journal of Memetics Stanley Lieberson, A Matter of Taste: How Names, Fashions, and Culture Change [See under sociology.] Aaron Lynch Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads throug Society [This would be one of the best books on memetics, even if there were more than, oh, say, five of them. Review: The Case for the Meme's Eye View] "Units, Events and Dynamics in Memetic Evolution," Journal of Memetics 2 [Lots of sound math, few metaphors] Franco Moretti "On Literary Evolution," the last essay in Signs Taken for Wonders (2nd ed. only) [Interesting things to say about how literary forms evolve, but some of his ideas about organic evolution are strange, e.g., that natural selection does not act during radiations.] "The Slaughterhouse of Literature", Modern Language Quarterly 61 (2000): 207--227 Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History W. G. Runciman The Social Animal [Primer on sociology, from an evolutionary/memetic point of view. Summary and revision of the highlights of his Treatise on Social Theory.] WGR, "On the Tendency of Human Societies to Form Varieties," Proceedings of the British Academy 72 (1986): 149--165 [The 1986 Radcliffe-Brown Lecture in Social Anthropology. An early version of his general theory. The title, of course, deliberately echoes that of the paper by Darwin and Wallace announcing natural selection.] WGR, "The 'Triumph' of Capitalism as a Topic in the Theory of Social Selection," New Left Review 210 (March-April 1995): 33--47 [Application of the theory to the classic problem of historical sociology (see: Marx, Weber).] Michael Rustin, "A New Social Evolutionism?," New Left Review 234 (May-June 1999): 106--126 [Exposition and critique, from the standpoint of the weird mix of Marx, Nietzsche and Althusser that NLR is into these days] WGR, "Social Evolutionism: A Reply to Michael Rustin," New Left Review 236 (July-August 1999): 145--153 "Socialising Darwin," Prospect, April 1998 [Summary of The Social Animal; no longer available online to non-subscribers] "The Diffusion of Christianity in the Third Century AD as a Case-Study in the Theory of Cultural Selection", European Journal of Sociology 45 (2004): 3--21 [Nice illustration of one of Runciman's goals, in that it "eschews any attempt at" "law-like cross-cultural generalizations ... in favour of a selectionist analysis explicitly focused on the particular historical environment", while in no way doubting "the existence of universal psychological capacities and dispositions".] Dan Sperber, Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach [Review: How to Catch Insanity from Your Kids (Among Others); or, Histoire naturelle de l'infame. Though Sperber would disclaim being a memeticists, this is one of the two best books on memetics. Sperber also ties all this in neatly to evolutionary psychology.] Stephen Toulmin, Human Understanding, vol. 1, The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts [Genuinely evolutionist --- as in, varia
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *TheProofofthePudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Feb 19 13:19:37 MST 2002 http://rjohara.uncg.edu/darwin/logs/1996/9609a.html Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:56:22 CST From: ggale at CCTR.UMKC.EDU To: DARWIN-L at RAVEN.CC.UKANS.EDU Subject: evolutionary thinking in archeology In this week's _Science_ (30 August 96) is a review of book, _Zapotec Civilization_, which might interestDarwin-Listers. Here is a salient passage from the review: "Building on the theoretical foundation laid by his anthropological predecessors at the University of Michigan--Leslie White, Elman Service, and Marshall Sahlins, among others--Flannery made the concepts of adaption and selection from the theory of biological evolution central to explaining why, under certain environmental and cultural conditions, some forms of social, political, and economic institutions tended to develop while others withered away." (p. 1178) CB: Kent V. Flannery is one of the major archaelogist in the cultural evolutinonary school. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proofofthe Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Feb 20 13:43:09 MST 2002 Here is what seems to be a significant error in Diamond's thesis ( I quote Carling's discussion of Diamond) Kottak points out in his basic anthro text ( _Cultural Anthropology_,1991) that domestication of plants and animals begins somewhere between 12 and 10,000 years ago in Southwest Asia ( "Middle East") . European world dominance only arises about 300 years ago. Before that "Europe" ( Northwest Asia) was a backwater for much of the time. So, whatever distribution of plants and animals "Europe" had did not cause it to "expand" anymore than any other region until almost 10,000 years after the first human domestication of plants and animals. This shoots a pretty big hole in Diamond's white supremacist thesis. In fact , using one of the theses from Sahlins and Service's _Evolution and Culture_, " the law of evolutionary potential", we might hypothesize that Europe rose in dominance about 3 - 500 years ago because it was the most backward society in its neighborhood, not the most advanced. The law of evolutionary potential states that the least specifically adapted society has the most potential to make the next general advance ( Recall Sahlins thesis on specific and general advance). I think Service says they got this from Trotsky or Lenin on the analogy of Russia being the weakest link in the capitalist chain. The logic is that the society that is least adapted is most dissatified with the status quo, and would be more amenable to whatever new comes along. Thus , Europe adopted capitalism first, because European feudalism was the most unstable society in the world or region; it had the most evolutionary ( or revolutionary) potential because it was the most backward, not because it had the richest natural environment. In fact , there are a number of studies , I believe that show that rich natural environments tend to promote stability, the reasoning being that natural abundance promotes satisfaction and deters change, the change that is necessary for "advances" of the type Diamond discusses. Charles Brown "Diamond s evidence will be considered in detail in Chapter 7. The main point to note here is that the rise and spread of agricultural societies depended on the original distribution, and subsequent geographical spread, of the animal and plant species that were amenable to domestication by humans. The secret of Europe , and of subsequent European expansion is that European flora and fauna included a uniquely numerous and diverse set of wild yet domesticable species, including wheat, peas and olives on the plant side; sheep and goats among the beasts. Domestication increased the productivity of agricultural societies, which led in turn to the development of social stratification, the growth of city and state formations, and so on. As these more highly productive societies encountered less productive hunting-gathering societies, it was the latter that gave way systematically to the former, which is precisely the outcome that Competitive Primacy predicts. This is the general pattern, but there are some fascinating exceptions that serve to support the theory too. These are instances in which populations with an inherited tradition of bio-technology and culture regressed technologically because the environments into which they migrated were relatively impoverished. Occasionally the competition between social types went back and forth over long periods of time, with no clear winner. Sometimes societies would meet in which each society had a technological advantage in some respect but not in others, and a synthesis might emerge with elements of both. The Polynesian archipelago is a particularly fertile source of such examples, because of the isolated nature of the island communities, coupled with their variety of habitat and climate. The region provides Diamond with a kind of natural laboratory for social evolution akin to the role played by the Galapagos Islands for Darwin and his finches. " ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof of the Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Feb 20 07:55:49 MST 2002 Mr. Carling, If I might comment further on your thesis, I think you ignore the first clause of Marx and Engels famous aphorism below in your development of a sort of absolute "unintentionality" in the development of human society. M and E say people "make their own history...". This implies some intention. This is in unity and contradiction with the statement "but they do not make it just as they please." As they are dialecticians, we should not be surprised that their statement contains a contradiction. But my point here is that they are saying that the development of society is both intentional and unintentional. The important issue for your thesis is that you do not have to discard all impact of human intention in the development of social forms. So when you say: "It seemed appropriate to call this mechanism Competitive Primacy (of the forces of production) and to support its claims against alternative conceptions, especially Intentional Primacy (of the forces of production).[30] The latter conception envisages the deliberate creation of relations of production of a type that will enhance the development of the forces of production. It says essentially that relations attached to superior forces prevail because people have taken successful collective action designed to bring about this result, motivated by the economic and social benefits superior productivity brings in its train. But this requires the intentional creation of social structure, which has been ruled out by the arguments of Chapter 4. So the only theoretically defensible version of historical materialism is the one that centres on the concept of Competitive Primacy. " Arguments by intention should not be absolutely ruled out. They can play a role in contradictory unity with arguments by unintentional selection. In other words, there is something of a "LaMarckian" mechanism at this level as well. Charles Brown "According to Marx s celebrated saying, people make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. [1] The purpose of this book is to do justice if possible to both sides of the contrast introduced by Marx: to explore the relationship between the received circumstances of history on the one hand, and its active making on the other. " ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's reply Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Feb 20 07:44:50 MST 2002 >>> farmelantj at juno.com 02/20/02 04:55AM >>> - Forwarded message -- From: Alan Carling Carling says: The final set of questions you pose seem to me the central ones for any 21st Century egalitarian. My worry is essentially this: if Competitive Primacy is true (as I now think may be the case), do there exist egalitarian alternatives to capitalism which are capable of competitive survival against it? If the answer to this question is 'No', then (successful) Marxist theory has (ironically, or tragically) ruled out Marxian politics, and the Marxist/socialist/enlightenment egalitarian project is dead in the water. So I have a considerable personal and intellectual investment in the answer being 'Yes', and I regard the various market socialist proposals as promising candidates in this respect. But even if one or other of these proposed solutions could survive in the globally-competitive environment created by contemporary capitalism, can it be brought into existence by intentional political action? ^ Charles B: This competition with capitalism is the reason that the state cannot whither away in socialism until there are no more capitalist states. On the issue of intentional politics, the general answer is that with Marxism the question of intentionally shaping society turns into its opposite, i.e.it becomes possible to consciously guide the development of society, contra Carling's general proposition against Intentional Primacy or "Human Intention" in his four ways that the appearance of design can come about. In other words, Marxism is an objective understanding of human society. Once one has an objective science of human society ( as no previous society did) it becomes possible to consciously and intentionally guide its development. In other words, Marx and Engels's discovery allows the overcoming of one of their propositions concerning all previous society. To apply Engels approach on science in general, to know something is to be able to make it. Once we know society , we can make it. So socialism can intentionally compete with capitalism. cc: Alan Carling On 3/26/10, c b wrote: > Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's reply > Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com > Wed Feb 20 02:55:29 MST 2002 > > Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] An exchange with Alan Carling > Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fw: Monty Python on "Bombing for Peace" > Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > > > > - Forwarded message -- > From: Alan Carling > To: Jim Farmelant > Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:30:04 + > Subject: Re: Selectionism: Me, Popper, and Hayek > Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20020102183004.00a4d310 at pop.brad.ac.uk> > Received: from mx6.boston.juno.com (mx6.boston.juno.com [64.136.24.38]) >by m11.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA8DGWPXAZYQPLJ >for (sender ); >Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:30:13 -0500 (EST) > Received: from hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk > [143.53.238.3]) >by mx6.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA8DGWPXAUHFBLJ >for (sender ); >Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:30:13 -0500 (EST) > Received: from acarling.brad.ac.uk (max-33.dial.brad.ac.uk > [143.53.239.33]) >by hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id > g02IUBY05895 >for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:30:11 GMT > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Return-Path: > X-Sender: ahcarlin at pop.brad.ac.uk > In-Reply-To: <20011225.091555.-517799.0.farmelantj at juno.com> > Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20020102183004.00a4d310 at pop.brad.ac.uk> > > Dear Jim, > > I was very pleased to receive your perceptive message, especially as it > was > apparently sent on Christmas morning (Maybe you were trying sensibly to > escape from the festivities!). The questions you pose are very pertinent > ones, to which I don't have any very satisfactory answers. > > As you will have gathered, I reached the position that the only > plausible > version of historical materialism is a selectionist one through an > engagement with Jerry Cohen's work, and Analytical Marxism more > generally. > It was only subsequent to that realisation/discovery that I saw a > parallel > with the work of the 'bourgeois' social selectionists you mention. I > think > Dennett is wonderful on the general power of the selectionist paradigm, > Dawkins is always interesting, and Blackmore is slightly derivative. The > 'meme' idea I do not find especially persuasive however, and by far the > most impressive of the bourgeois selectionists in my view is > W.G.Runciman. > I'm in the middle of writing a critique of his Treatis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's reply Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com Wed Feb 20 02:55:29 MST 2002 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] An exchange with Alan Carling Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fw: Monty Python on "Bombing for Peace" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] - Forwarded message -- From: Alan Carling To: Jim Farmelant Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:30:04 + Subject: Re: Selectionism: Me, Popper, and Hayek Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20020102183004.00a4d310 at pop.brad.ac.uk> Received: from mx6.boston.juno.com (mx6.boston.juno.com [64.136.24.38]) by m11.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA8DGWPXAZYQPLJ for (sender ); Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.3]) by mx6.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA8DGWPXAUHFBLJ for (sender ); Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from acarling.brad.ac.uk (max-33.dial.brad.ac.uk [143.53.239.33]) by hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g02IUBY05895 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:30:11 GMT X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-Path: X-Sender: ahcarlin at pop.brad.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <20011225.091555.-517799.0.farmelantj at juno.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20020102183004.00a4d310 at pop.brad.ac.uk> Dear Jim, I was very pleased to receive your perceptive message, especially as it was apparently sent on Christmas morning (Maybe you were trying sensibly to escape from the festivities!). The questions you pose are very pertinent ones, to which I don't have any very satisfactory answers. As you will have gathered, I reached the position that the only plausible version of historical materialism is a selectionist one through an engagement with Jerry Cohen's work, and Analytical Marxism more generally. It was only subsequent to that realisation/discovery that I saw a parallel with the work of the 'bourgeois' social selectionists you mention. I think Dennett is wonderful on the general power of the selectionist paradigm, Dawkins is always interesting, and Blackmore is slightly derivative. The 'meme' idea I do not find especially persuasive however, and by far the most impressive of the bourgeois selectionists in my view is W.G.Runciman. I'm in the middle of writing a critique of his Treatise on Social Theory, and I'd be happy to send you a copy when it's finished if you are interested. Although I've obviously known about Popper and Hayek in general terms for a long time, I've only recently appreciated their direct relevance, and I don't know enough about them to answer your question. It may be that my gardening is not all that different from Popper's piecemeal social engineering, and I will no doubt have to give this issue serious attention in any book that appears. The final set of questions you pose seem to me the central ones for any 21st Century egalitarian. My worry is essentially this: if Competitive Primacy is true (as I now think may be the case), do there exist egalitarian alternatives to capitalism which are capable of competitive survival against it? If the answer to this question is 'No', then (successful) Marxist theory has (ironically, or tragically) ruled out Marxian politics, and the Marxist/socialist/enlightenment egalitarian project is dead in the water. So I have a considerable personal and intellectual investment in the answer being 'Yes', and I regard the various market socialist proposals as promising candidates in this respect. But even if one or other of these proposed solutions could survive in the globally-competitive environment created by contemporary capitalism, can it be brought into existence by intentional political action? My impression is that the exponents of market socialism do not generally engage with this crucial question of transition (which brings Popper back into the frame). The problem is that revolutionary socialists had (a few still have!) a dogmatically-held and ultimately indefensible (though personally sustaining) set of answers to this question, centred around the proletariat, the party apparatus, and their favourite version of Leninism (or Trotskyism). Analytical Marxists and others have rightly abandoned the dogmatism and Leninism, but they haven't elaborated any alternative theory of political agency. Neither have I, but this is the problem on which my sights are now set firmly. I would hope to say something useful about it in the book. The fundamental point is that the theory of political agency (whatever it is) must be woven from the same cloth as the theory of social evolution, since to act politically is to intervene in the reproduction of social structures. Perhaps I could close by asking some questions of you. You are obviously very knowle
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proofofthe Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Feb 19 12:29:02 MST 2002 Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proofofthe Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Feb 19 12:29:02 MST 2002 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof ofthe Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *TheProofofthe Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More on the anthropological school of thought that has delved into Carling's hypothesis at length. Note White's energy capture thesis which is based on an interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Charles Brown Neoevolutionism Leslie White began working with evolutionary theories in the 1930's. At the time, unilineal evolution was unpopular with anthropologists because generalizations were made based on little evidence. Also, unilineal evolution seemed to encourage racist ideas by equating evolution with progress. However, it was being observed that cultures did change, or evolve. White began studying evolution to attempt to understand why evolution in cultures occurs. Neoevolutionism is characterized by this attempt to find a mechanism for cultural change, which is typically environmental adaptations. White also believed that evolution is a unilineal process. However, he eliminated the use of racial terms and ranking of cultures. He also came up with a mechanism for evolution. He felt that cultures evolved as a result of their ability to capture and use more energy. His equation describing this is C=E × T. C stands for culture, E stands for energy and T stands for technology. White thought of societies as sociocultural systems and studied sociocultural change on a global scale, so his theories are called general evolution. Julian Steward felt that White was too broad in his theories. Steward instead focused on how individual cultures evolved and how environment affects culture. Because Steward emphasized the role environment plays, he became the first proponent of cultural ecology, and his ideas influenced later cultural materialists. He felt that similar environmental challenges resulted in similar cultural outcomes. He tested this theory by studying the evolution of the earliest agricultural societies. Steward felt that while it is true that all cultures evolve, they don't all necesarily evolve in the same way. He called his approach multilinear evolution, as opposed to Tyler and Morgan's unlineal evolution, and what he called White's universal evolution. Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service formed an evolutionary theory that unified White's and Steward's approaches to evolution. They defined two forms of evolution, specific evolution and general evolution. Specific evolution refers to specific societies and relates to Steward's approach. General evolution encapsulates White approach and refers to a general prograss of human society, in which higher forms, which capture more energy, arise from and surpass lower forms. More on the anthropological school of thought that has delved into Carling's hypothesis at length. Note White's energy capture thesis which is based on an interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Charles Brown Neoevolutionism Leslie White began working with evolutionary theories in the 1930's. At the time, unilineal evolution was unpopular with anthropologists because generalizations were made based on little evidence. Also, unilineal evolution seemed to encourage racist ideas by equating evolution with progress. However, it was being observed that cultures did change, or evolve. White began studying evolution to attempt to understand why evolution in cultures occurs. Neoevolutionism is characterized by this attempt to find a mechanism for cultural change, which is typically environmental adaptations. White also believed that evolution is a unilineal process. However, he eliminated the use of racial terms and ranking of cultures. He also came up with a mechanism for evolution. He felt that cultures evolved as a result of their ability to capture and use more energy. His equation describing this is C=E × T. C stands for culture, E stands for energy and T stands for technology. White thought of societies as sociocultural systems and studied sociocultural change on a global scale, so his theories are called general evolution. Julian Steward felt that White was too broad in his theories. Steward instead focused on how individual cultures evolved and how environment affects culture. Because Steward emphasized the role environment plays, he
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
[Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof ofthe Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Feb 19 07:40:35 MST 2002 Following up the below, as I was walking home last night I realized that there has been an enormous empirical project in pursuit of the general experimental design suggested by Carling has been carried out in cultural and evolutionary materialist anthropology, following Leslie A. White and others. The culminating theoretical book of that school is _Evolution and Culture_, by Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service. ( Sahlins is no longer sanguine about the approach). There the adaptive metaphor from Darwinism is applied fully to cultures. Many , many anthro and archaeology profs and grad students have done field work and writing based on this schema. Actually the below discusses this in summary http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/material.htm _Evolution and Culture_ is circa 1960 not 1988 ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORIES: A GUIDE PREPARED BY STUDENTS FOR STUDENTS Dr. M.D. Murphy AMERICAN MATERIALISM KAREN SMITH Basic Premises Key Works Accomplishments Sources and Bibliography Points of Reaction Principal Concepts Criticisms Relevant Web Sites Leading Figures Methodologies Comments Basic Premises Materialism, as an approach to understanding cultural systems, is defined by three key principles, cultural materialism, cultural evolution, and cultural ecology, and can be traced back at least to the early economists, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (see Principal Concepts). These basic premises, defined below, have in common attempts at explaining cultural similarities and differences and modes for culture change in a strictly scientific manner. In addition, these three concepts all share a materialistic view of culture change. That is to say, each approach holds that there are three levels within culture --- technological, sociological, and ideological --- and that the technological aspect of culture disproportionately molds and influences the other two aspects of culture. Materialism is the "idea that technological and economic factors play the primary role in molding a society" (Carneiro 1981:218). There are many varieties of materialism including dialectical (Marx), historical (White), and cultural (Harris). Though materialism can be traced as far back as Hegel, an early philosopher, Marx was the first to apply materialistic ideas to human societies in a quasi-anthropological manner. Marx developed the concept of dialectical materialism borrowing his dialectics from Hegel and his materialism from others. To Marx, "the mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness" (Harris 1979:55). The dialectic element of Marx's approach is in the feedback or interplay between the infrastructure (i.e., resources, economics), the structure (i.e., politcal makeup, kinship), and the superstructure (i.e., religion, ideology). The materialistic aspect or element of Marx's approach is in the emphasis placed on the infrastructure as a primary determinate of the other levels (i.e., the structure and the superstructure). In other words, explanations for culture change and cultural diversity are to be found in this primary level (i.e., the infrastructure). Marvin Harris, utilizing and modifying Marx's dialectical materialism, developed the concept of cultural materialism. Like Marx and White, Harris also views culture in three levels, the infrastructure, the structure, and the superstructure. The infrastructure is composed of the mode of production, or "the technology and the practices employed for expanding or limiting basic subsistence production," and the mode of reproduction, or "the technology and the practices employed for expanding, limiting, and maintaining population size" (Harris 1979:52). Unlike Marx, Harris believes that the mode of reproduction, that is demography, mating patterns, etc., should also be within the level of the infrastructure because "each society must behaviorally cope with the problem of reproduction (by) avoiding destructive increases or decreases in population size" (Harris 1979:51). The structure consists of both the domestic and political economy, and the superstructure consists of the recreational and aesthetic products and services. Given all of these cultural characteristics, Harris states that "the etic behavioral modes of production and reproduction probabilistically determine the etic behavioral domestic and political economy, which in turn probabilistically determine the behavioral and mental emic superstructures" (Harris 1979:55,56). The above concept is cultural materialism or, in Harris' terms
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-February/017522.html [Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof of the Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Feb 18 14:35:57 MST 2002 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof of the Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Flooded civilisations and HM Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Jim, I read this paper when you posted it on Marxmail. Thank you again. I think the answer to Carling's question in the following passage is , in part, that language, symbolic behavior, what cultural anthropologist generalize to culture, is a mechanism by which acquired characteristics can be inherited ( non-biologically of course). In other words , culture is a LaMarckian mechanism. It should be obvious why a LaMarckian mechanism would meet Carling's requirement that what he is looking for is an adaptive mechanism that is not a Darwinian selective mechanism. Culture or language and symbolling allow the experiences of one generation to be the basis for learning without going through the same hardknocks of experience for future generations. This is a much more rapid process than Darwinian selective adaption. Carling says on page 4: "But now the special explanatory puzzle presented by this case becomes clear. Given an overarching commitment to Darwinian explanations for the existence of all mental traits (modular and non-modular alike), how does it come about that it was in the genetic interest of proto-humans that certain of their behaviours (i.e. the ones governed by non-modular mental processes) were released from genetic control? Or, putting the puzzle in even more pointed terms: why did natural selection act so as to work genes out of a job? We are seeking, in short, a neo-Darwinian explanation for the non-applicability of neo-Darwinian sociobiology. It was noted above that the premise of this problem is the existence of some non-modular human mental traits, without the need to specify in detail which traits are modular and which are not.[7] But we also know enough to know that the principal traits at issue are those that involve language, meaning and reference. This focus on the means of symbolic communication reflects an emerging consensus about the central distinctiveness of the human species.[8] " Later in the essay Carling says: "But the existence of such consequences is a plausible contention, since, as Engels expressed the point, ideas are a material force. To drive the point home, imagine a proto-human world populated by egos and alters.[10] In this world, ego s thoughts and beliefs affect what ego does (including ego s speech acts), and what ego does or says affects what alter thinks and believes, and therefore what alter does, which has possible consequences for ego too. And the same goes not just for alter 1, but alters 2, 3 and 4. The emergence of symbolic communication thus allows the output of each brain to become an input to many other brains, and this creates a network of interaction effects. " CB:Here Carling addresses what I term the "expanded sociality" that symbolic use and language allows. However, the biggest expansion of sociality is that between generations in the non-genetic inheritance that culture allows. Seems to me that complexity theory's notion of self-organization is supported by things like crystal structure in rocks. It seems to be the principle of aesthetics in nature. A beautiful sunset is self-organizing. So, I agree with Carling that they can be a factor in a process but not a replacement for selection. However, symbolizing can include such aesthetics and therefore some culture has order in it which is not related to selection. Of course the following is controversial in that many believe that Marx and Engels etc. had already given their theory a "coherent theoretical statement". Perhaps it is better said that Cohen clarified things for himself , Carling and others. But isn't Marx's theory one of class struggle determinism, not technological determinism ? "It is widely agreed that the most significant event in the recent history of Marxist scholarship was the publication in 1978 of G.A.Cohen s Karl Marx s Theory of History: a Defence.[28] Two of the book s multiple achievements stand out in the present context. First, it was shown that the classical Marxist theory of history, as summarised most perspicaciously in Marx s 1859 Preface, can be given a coherent theoretical statement. This statement centred on the role played by the (technological) forces of production in either promoting or inhibiting the historical development of the (social) relations of production. The treatment was analytical in its mode of presentation and classically Marxist in content, althoug
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Alan Carling is the one with the selectionist theoretical approach to cultural evolution. Charles http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-February/017520.html Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof of the Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com Sun Feb 17 08:13:32 MST 2002 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fw: Israel peace lobby grows; defies expectations Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof of the Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On September 12, Alan Carling presented a paper at the Marxism Conference 2001 of the Political Studies Association in which he presented a synopsis of a new, yet to be published book, in which he develops and defends his selectionist version of historical materialism, and relates his theorizing concerning historical materialism and Darwinism with the work of various bourgeois thinkers who have been attempting to relate Darwinism to the human sciences including the sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists, Karl Popper with his evolutionary epistemology, the social evolutionism of F.A. Hayek, and memetics as proposed by folk like Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore, and Daniel Dennett. Carling discusses and critiques these folks' work and attempts to make a case as to why his own selectionist historical materialism represents a superior approach to the problems that these other people have been attempting to deal with. Carling's paper can be found online at http://www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/marxism/carling.htm Jim Farmelant ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko -- A Query
On 3/26/10, Carrol Cox wrote: > I haven't been able to follow this thread, and dobutless the query I > have has already been discussed. > > Lysenko constitutes TWO quite separate/independent questions. > > The first is raised by his scientific theories. Judging them is of great > interest no doubt, but they do not constitute the real problem. > > The second question is one that Levins & Lewontin raised: the political > methods by which his theories were made an orthodoxy. That would have > hampered biolgoical theory even if his science had been 100% correct. > Science cannot flourish in an authoritarian atmosphere. > > Carrol > ^^^ CB: I agree that there is some separation of the questions, although , and I have to go back and think it through, but there is some level of philosophy of science/epistemological debate in Lysenko, Stalin etc. position. The potrayal of Stalin as a philosophical fool is Hollywood silent movie simplistic villain thinking. As to whether science can "flourish in whatever, a lot of science very much flourishing in the Soviet Union during Stalin's time. It anti-Soviet, anti-Communist lies in the face of overwheming evidence before the whole world that the Soviet Union led in many areas of science. So that dog won't hunt. Remember the atom bomb, Sputnik . Those are just the "sexy" examples. There are many many more. Science is one area that definitely flourished in the history of the SU. Vernadsky was in an authoritarian atmosphere under Czarism. Vladimir Vernadsky Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky Born March 12, 1863 (1863-03-12) Saint Petersburg, Russia Died January 6, 1945 (aged 81) Moscow, Soviet Union Residence Russian Empire Soviet Union Nationality Russian Ethnicity Ukrainian and Russian Fields Mineralogist, geochemist Institutions Moscow State University National Academy of Science of Ukraine Alma mater Saint Petersburg University Known for Noosphere biogeochemistry Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (Russian: Владимир Иванович Вернадский, Ukrainian: Володимир Іванович Вернадський; 12 March [O.S. 28 February] 1863 – 6 January 1945) was a Russian and Soviet mineralogist and geochemist who is considered one of the founders of geochemistry, biogeochemistry, and of radiogeology.[1] His ideas of noosphere were an important contribution to Russian cosmism. He also worked in Ukraine where he founded the National Academy of Science of Ukraine. He is most noted for his 1926 book The Biosphere in which he inadvertently worked to popularize Eduard Suess’ 1885 term biosphere, by hypothesizing that life is the geological force that shapes the earth. In 1943 he was awarded the Stalin Prize. Contents [hide] 1 Biography 2 Works (selected) 2.1 Diaries 3 Notes 4 See also 5 References 6 External links [edit] Biography Vernadsky was born in Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire, on March 12, 1863, of mixed Russian and Ukrainian parents. His father, a descendent of Ukrainian Cossacks,[2] had been a professor of political economy in Kiev before moving to Saint Petersburg, and his mother was a noble woman of Russian ethnicity[3] (Vernadsky himself considered himself both Russian and Ukrainian, and had some knowledge of the Ukrainian language[4]). Vernadsky graduated from Saint Petersburg University in 1885. As the last mineralogist had died in 1887 in Russia, and Dokuchaev, a soil scientist, and A.P. Pavlov, a geologist, had been teaching mineralogy for a while, Vernadsky chose to enter Mineralogy. He wrote to his wife Natasha Vernadsky on 20 June 1888 from Switzerland: "...to collect facts for their own sake, as many now gather facts, without a program, without a question to answer or a purpose is not interesting. However, there is a task which someday those chemical reactions which took place at various points on earth; these reactions take place according to laws which are known to us, but which, we are allowed to think, are closely tied to general changes which the earth has undergone by the earth with the general laws of celestial mechanics. I believe there is hidden here still more to discover when one considers the complexity of chemical elements and the regularity of their occurrence in groups..." While trying to find a topic for his doctorate, he first went to Naples to study with the crystallographer Scacchi, who was senile at that time. The senility of Scacchi lead Vernadsky to go to Germany to study under Paul Groth. There, Vernadsky learned how to use the modern equipment of Groth who had developed a machine to study the optical, thermal, elastic, magnetic and electrical properties of crystals, as well as using the physics lab of Prof. Zonke, who was also working on crystallisation. Vernadsky first popularized the concept of the noosphere and deepened the idea of the biosphere to the meaning largely recognized by today's scientific community. The word biosphere was invented by Austrian geologist Eduard Suess, whom Vernadsky had met in 1911. In Vernadsky's theory of how the Eart
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko -- A Query
I haven't been able to follow this thread, and dobutless the query I have has already been discussed. Lysenko constitutes TWO quite separate/independent questions. The first is raised by his scientific theories. Judging them is of great interest no doubt, but they do not constitute the real problem. The second question is one that Levins & Lewontin raised: the political methods by which his theories were made an orthodoxy. That would have hampered biolgoical theory even if his science had been 100% correct. Science cannot flourish in an authoritarian atmosphere. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Ralph Dumain There are other things to look at in addition to recycling this crackpot horseshit. For example: (1) The misuse by vulgar ignoramuses of the well-intentioned but logically muddled notions of Engels, who habitually confused subjective with objective dialectics, conflated empirical laws and logical constructs, and created an ambiguous structure to be abused by lesser intellects who acted as if empirical matters could be decided by a priori metaphysics. CB: How self-serving to your phantom arugments for _you_ to decide that people you disagree with are ignoramuses and that Engels is muddled and confused. Where are your arguments ? Not too many people care much about what you have decided in private or among some small group of geniuses. Repeatability of results is an aspect of the objectivity standards of science and logic. You don't exhibit much logical prowess around here. ^^^ (2) The crude instrumentalism of Stalin, but also the naive conceptions of scientific labor promulgated by Bukharin (cf. Polanyi), resulting in the crushing of autonomous scientific work in favor of a vulgar pragmatism in which all intellectual activity--science, philosophy, literature, the promulgation of atheism, etc.-- was subordinated to the master task of "building socialism"--which of course was not socialism at all, but crash industrialization. CB: Without which crash industrialization all intellectual activity would have been subordinated to the task of building fascism after the Nazis conquered the SU. Where do you get that there is supposed to be scientific work autonomous of the state power in socialism under major imperialist seige. Get a motherfucking clue. You are living in your head, it's obvious and you don't even realize how far that is from the Marxism of Marx. ^^^ (3) The very irrationality of a despotic state structure mimicking the worst features of Czarism in which the subjective wish fulfillment of an egomaniacal absolute dictator surrounds himself with boot-licking yes-men incapable of providing accountability or any objective check in an overpoliticized ideological environment. (4) What is really involved in addressing gaps in scientific knowledge at a given point in time, and who is worth taking seriously, on what basis. Reading the posts over the past few days makes me want to vomit, and reminds me why I resigned from so many Marxist lists at the end of the '90s. ^^^ CB; Poor unappreciated genius, under a Cassandra curse. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Re-evaluating Lysenko Ralph Dumain rdumain at autodidactproject.org Fri Mar 26 00:04:27 MDT 2010 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] There are other things to look at in addition to recycling this crackpot horseshit. For example: (1) The misuse by vulgar ignoramuses of the well-intentioned but logically muddled notions of Engels, who habitually confused subjective with objective dialectics, ^^^ CB: Like where specifically ? This is a conclusory assertion unsubstantiated by argument. ^^^ conflated empirical laws and logical constructs, and created an ambiguous structure to be abused by lesser intellects who acted as if empirical matters could be decided by a priori metaphysics. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Wow ! CB ". Interestingly, this method applies a Lamarckian model of genetics, in which environmental adaptations of an individual's phenotype are reverse transcribed into its genotype and become heritable traits (sic). " ^^^ http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/76804/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function Garrett M. Morris 1, David S. Goodsell 1, Robert S. Halliday 2, Ruth Huey 1, William E. Hart 3, Richard K. Belew 4, Arthur J. Olson 1 * 1Department of Molecular Biology, MB-5, The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037-1000 2Hewlett-Packard, San Diego, California 3Applied Mathematics Department, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuqurque, New Mexico 4Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California email: Arthur J. Olson (ol...@scripps.edu) *Correspondence to Arthur J. Olson, Department of Molecular Biology, MB-5, The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037-1000 Funded by: National Institutes of Health; Grant Number: GM48870, RR08065 Keywords automated docking • binding affinity • drug design • genetic algorithm • flexible small molecule protein interaction Abstract A novel and robust automated docking method that predicts the bound conformations of flexible ligands to macromolecular targets has been developed and tested, in combination with a new scoring function that estimates the free energy change upon binding. Interestingly, this method applies a Lamarckian model of genetics, in which environmental adaptations of an individual's phenotype are reverse transcribed into its genotype and become heritable traits (sic). We consider three search methods, Monte Carlo simulated annealing, a traditional genetic algorithm, and the Lamarckian genetic algorithm, and compare their performance in dockings of seven protein-ligand test systems having known three-dimensional structure. We show that both the traditional and Lamarckian genetic algorithms can handle ligands with more degrees of freedom than the simulated annealing method used in earlier versions of AUTODOCK, and that the Lamarckian genetic algorithm is the most efficient, reliable, and successful of the three. The empirical free energy function was calibrated using a set of 30 structurally known protein-ligand complexes with experimentally determined binding constants. Linear regression analysis of the observed binding constants in terms of a wide variety of structure-derived molecular properties was performed. The final model had a residual standard error of 9.11 kJ mol-1 (2.177 kcal mol-1) and was chosen as the new energy function. The new search methods and empirical free energy function are available in AUTODOCK, version 3.0. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Comput Chem 19: 1639-1662, 1998 Received: 3 February 1998; Accepted: 24 June 1998 Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(19981115)19:14<1639::AID-JCC10>3.0.CO;2-B About DOI On 3/26/10, c b wrote: > Science 7 April 2000: > Vol. 288. no. 5463, p. 38 > DOI: 10.1126/science.288.5463.38 > Prev | Table of Contents | Next > > News Focus > GENETICS: > Was Lamarck Just a Little Bit Right? > Michael Balter > Although Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is remembered mostly for the > discredited theory that acquired traits can be passed down to > offspring, new findings in the field of epigenetics, the study of > changes in genetic expression that are not linked to alterations in > DNA sequences, are returning his name to the scientific literature. > Although these new findings do not support Lamarck's overall concept, > they raise the possibility that "epimutations," as they are called, > could play a role in evolution. > > > > Read the Full Text > ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Science 7 April 2000: Vol. 288. no. 5463, p. 38 DOI: 10.1126/science.288.5463.38 Prev | Table of Contents | Next News Focus GENETICS: Was Lamarck Just a Little Bit Right? Michael Balter Although Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is remembered mostly for the discredited theory that acquired traits can be passed down to offspring, new findings in the field of epigenetics, the study of changes in genetic expression that are not linked to alterations in DNA sequences, are returning his name to the scientific literature. Although these new findings do not support Lamarck's overall concept, they raise the possibility that "epimutations," as they are called, could play a role in evolution. Read the Full Text ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Roy A. Rappaport (1926-1997, United States) Roy A. Rappaport was a cultural materialist who explained cultural phenomenon in terms of material factors among people and the surrounding natural environment. One of his famous books, Pigs for the Ancestors, was an example of his cultural materialistic approach. This book describes the role of a religious ceremony among Tsembaga, a community of horticulturalists in New Guinea. This community conducted a ritual, called kaiko, when they won new land from warfare. In the ceremony, the Tsembaga planted ritual trees on the border of new territory and slaughtered a large number of pigs for pork. The Tsembaga explained to Rapapport that they slaughter pigs in order to offer the pork to their ancestors, and they plant ritual trees in order to create a connection with ancestral souls on their new land. In addition to describing Tsembaga’s point of view, Rappaport calculated caloric exchanges among the community, the natural environment, and neighboring populations. As a result of this calculation, Rappaport found that the kaiko ritual was articulated with the ecological relationship among people, pigs, local food supplies, and warfare. Warfare and the succeeding kaiko ritual occurred every couple of years and this cycle corresponds with the increasing pig population. In other words, the ritual kept the number of pigs within the capacity of the natural environment and prevented land degradation. At the same time, the kaiko ceremony distributed surplus wealth in the form of pork and facilitated trade among people. Rappaport’s analysis on kaiko ritual is typical of cultural materialist point of view. In general, religious ceremonies are strictly cultural and can be explained in terms of values and other non-material concepts. However, Rappaport revealed how the kaiko ritual is interrelated with material aspects of the Tsembaga society and their surrounding natural environment. Biography of Rappaport Sources: Barfield, Thomas 1996The Dictionary of Anthropology. Malden: Blackwell. McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms 2004 Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New York: McGraw Hill. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
The Roy Rappaport mentioned here is the professor who got me into anthropology. I had anthro 101 with him. (It was during the 1970 BAM strike at University of Michigan, which we are commemorating in a couple of weeks. Rappaport held classes off campus to support the strike. He did an ethnography _Pigs for the Ancestors_ within the cultural adaptation/ecological paradigm, Papua New Guinea. CB Roy Rappaport Roy A. Rappaport (1926–1997) was a distinguished anthropologist known for his contributions to the anthropological study of ritual and to ecological anthropology. Rappaport received his Ph.D. at Columbia University and then held a position at the University of Michigan. One of his publications, Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People (1968), is an ecological account of ritual among the Tsembaga Maring of New Guinea. This book is often considered the most influential and most cited work in ecological anthropology (see McGee and Warms 2004). In that book, and elaborated elsewhere, Rappaport coined the distinction between a people's cognized environment and their operational environment, that is between how a people interpret their ecological niche and how their reality actually exists. Rappaport served as Chair of the Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, and as a past president of the American Anthropological Association. Rappaport died of cancer in 1997. [edit] Works McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms (2004) Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New York: McGraw Hill. Rappaport, R.A. (1968) Pigs for the Ancestors. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rappaport, R.A. (1979) Ecology, Meaning and Religion. Richmond: North Atlantic Books. Rappaport, R.A. (1984) Pigs for the Ancestors. 2nd edition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rappaport, R.A. (1999) Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [edit] External links Biography by Julia Messerli Obituary, The University Record (University of Michigan), October 15, 1997. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Rappaport"; Categories: 1926 births | 1997 deaths | American anthropologists | Anthropologists of religion | Psychological anthropologists | University of Michigan faculty | Columbia University alumni ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsTry Beta Log in / create account Navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Search Interaction About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia Donate to Wikipedia Help Toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this page Languages Deutsch Svenska This page was last modified on 15 September 2009 at 11:25. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/cultadap.htm CULTURE, ADAPTATION, & MEANING A Philosophical Prologue According to Rappaport (1971:246), Nature is seen by men through a screen composed of beliefs, knowledge, and purposes, and it is in terms of their cultural images of nature, rather than in terms of the actual structure of nature, that men act. Therefore...if we are to understand the environmental relations of men [it is necessary] to take into account their knowledge and beliefs concerning the world around them, and their culturally defined motives for acting as they do. But...although it is in terms of their conceptions and wishes that men act in nature it is upon nature herself that they do act, and it is nature herself that acts upon men, nurturing or destroying them. Rappaport (p 247) goes on to say that in order to deal with discrepancy between cultural beliefs about the environment and the environment as it really is, the anthropologist must construct 2 models of reality: one = the "cognized model," the other = the "operational model" He argues that the cognized model is part of a human population's "distinctive means of maintaining itself in its environment" (p 247) Thus, a cognized model should be judged not on how accurate it is (i.e., in comparison with the operational model) but on its "functional and adaptive effectiveness" -- the extent to which it motivates behavior which favors the biological well-being of the population and its ecosystem (ibid) What Rappaport is wrestling with here is an example of recurrent tension between emic & etic analyses in the human sciences: ?emic (after phonemic, and rhyming with it) = description or analysis in terms meaningful to member of a given culture (Rappaport's "cognized model") ?etic (after phonetic, and ditto) = description or analysis in terms meeting logical & empirical criteria of natural science (Rappaport's "ope
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Up through the 1920s and 1930s, neo-Lamarckianism was still quite a respectable viewpoint in biology. The experiments that discredited it were not done until the late 1930s and into the 1940s. So during the lifetimes of Michurin and Pavlov, neo-Lamarckianism was still scientifically respectable. And that was still the case when Lysenko first came on the scene. The problem was that Lysenko with the baking of the Soviet regime continued to hang on to neo-Lamarckiansm, and more importantly was able to coerce other Soviet scientists into hanging on to it, long after it had been discredited in the West. That caused immeasurable harm to Soviet biology, especially when that led to scientists like Vavilov being imprisoned for being Mendelians. One consequence of this was that after Lysenkoism fell in 1965, there was a backlash against anything that was seen as smacking of Lyensenkoism. Conversely, Soviet scientists and intellectuals became very enthusiastic supporters of Mendelian genetics and of anything that could be portrayed as being grounded in it. Thus, when E.O. Wilson began publishing on sociobiology, his work received a generally favorable reaction in the Soviet Union. Many Soviet scientists and officials during the 1970s and 1980s began to publicly avow hereditarian explanations for social problems like crime. This hereditarianism was used to exculpate Soviet social institutions of responsibility for the persistence of social problems like crime, alcoholism, shiftlessness etc. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant -- Original Message -- From: c b To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:10:14 -0400 This from wikipedia says that Pavlov was a LaMarckian. So, maybe that had some play in the Lysenko situation. CB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism Neo-Lamarckism Unlike neo-Darwinism, the term neo-Lamarckism refers more to a loose grouping of largely heterodox theories and mechanisms that emerged after Lamarck's time, than to any coherent body of theoretical work. Home Improvement Projects Improve your home. Click for products, services, and project ideas. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=FRd_fDJ1eAmIWLA5uqOJ_AAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAAShAA= ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Darwin's Defenders Go Neo-Lamarckian by Joy Nick Matzke and Mesk made comments in several threads yesterday [Feb. 21] about how "information about the environment" is encoded in genomes. This set me to thinking (look out!) about how positively Lamarckian that sounds, even as used in purely defensive terms against objections to the current theory's arbitrary restrictions on adaptive "information" and its actual origin. Matzke readily admits that life forms (and their genomes) "closely match" – are adapted to – their environments. I doubt that many biologists would dispute this, not even Richard Dawkins, who admits that life "looks designed." The issues revolve around how life acquired the appearance of design. The currently favored model is Neodarwinism, simplified to the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection [RM-NS]. Darwin himself favored a more Lamarckian version of variation (mutation) called "pangenesis," and Herbert Spencer was a positive Lamarckian. Neo-Lamarckism was very popular among American scientists at the turn of the twentieth century, and served as one of the philosophical underpinnings of 'scientific eugenics' in its positive forms. It has survived in a number of evolutionary models among dissident scientists chafing under the spiked bridle of "Darwinian Orthodoxy" as discoveries pile up suggesting strongly that not all genes are acquired by random mutation in old genes, that expression can be enhanced or suppressed by epigenetic processes, and that the good ol' Weismann barrier – which was proposed as means to prevent somatic genome developments from crossing into germline cells – is non-existent in cases where the acquired genes come with attached promoters. http://telicthoughts.com/darwins-defenders-go-neo-lamarckian/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
[edit] Lamarckism and societal change Jean Molino (2000) has proposed that Lamarckian evolution may be accurately applied to cultural evolution. ^^^ CB: So, did Charles Brown , right here on Thaxis. I also wrote a letter to Lewontin on this issue and he responded to me, which I reported here. I'll have to find the posts in the archives. This was also previously suggested by Peter Medawar (1959) and Conrad Waddington (1961). K. N. Laland and colleagues have recently suggested that human culture can be looked upon as an ecological niche like phenomena, where the effects of cultural niche construction are transmissible from one generation to the next. CB: Exactly. There is a whole school of ecological cultural anthropology. Yehudi Cohen published to readers of essays in this vein. The notion of culture as an extrasomatic adaptive mechanism unique to the human species is fundamental to the cultural materialsim of Leslie White and others. ^^^ One interpretation of the Meme theory is that memes are both Darwinian and Lamarckian in nature, ^ CB: The Lamarckian principle doesn't "violate" Darwin's laws, but Mendel's. No inheritance of acquired characteristics is a Mendelian, not Darwinian dogma. Yes. Culture as a LaMarckian-like mechanism as in addition to being subject to selection pressures based on their ability to differentially influence Human minds, memes can be modified and the effects of that modification passed on. Richard Dawkins notes (in Blackmore 2000: The Meme machine, page 13), that Memes can be copied in a Lamarckian way (copying of the product) or in a Weismann-type evolutionary way (copying of the instruction) which is much more resistant against changes. CB: Jim F. found a fellow who uses selectionist model in this context. Will look to the archives. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
This from wikipedia says that Pavlov was a LaMarckian. So, maybe that had some play in the Lysenko situation. CB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism Neo-Lamarckism Unlike neo-Darwinism, the term neo-Lamarckism refers more to a loose grouping of largely heterodox theories and mechanisms that emerged after Lamarck's time, than to any coherent body of theoretical work. In the 1920s, Harvard University researcher William McDougall studied the abilities of rats to correctly solve mazes. He found that children of rats that had learned the maze were able to run it faster. The first rats would get it wrong 165 times before being able to run it perfectly each time, but after a few generations it was down to 20. McDougall attributed this to some sort of Lamarckian evolutionary process.[citation needed] Oscar Werner Tiegs and Wilfred Eade Agar later showed McDougall's results to be incorrect, caused by poor experimental controls.[10][11][12][13][14] At around the same time, Ivan Pavlov, who was also a Lamarckist, claimed to have observed a similar phenomenon in animals being subject to conditioned reflex experiments. He claimed that with each generation, the animals became easier to condition. However, Pavlov never suggested a mechanism to explain these observations. Soma to germ-line feedback In the 1970s the immunologist Ted Steele, formerly of the University of Wollongong, and colleagues, proposed a neo-Lamarckian mechanism to try and explain why homologous DNA sequences from the VDJ gene regions of parent mice were found in their germ cells and seemed to persist in the offspring for a few generations. The mechanism involved the somatic selection and clonal amplification of newly acquired antibody gene sequences that were generated via somatic hyper-mutation in B-cells. The mRNA products of these somatically novel genes were captured by retroviruses endogenous to the B-cells and were then transported through the blood stream where they could breach the soma-germ barrier and retrofect (reverse transcribe) the newly acquired genes into the cells of the germ line. Although Steele was advocating this theory for the better part of two decades, little more than indirect evidence was ever acquired to support it. An interesting attribute of this idea is that it strongly resembles Darwin's own theory of pangenesis, except in the soma to germ line feedback theory, pangenes are replaced with realistic retroviruses.[15] Epigenetic inheritance Forms of 'soft' or epigenetic inheritance within organisms have been suggested as neo-Lamarckian in nature by such scientists as Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. In addition to 'hard' or genetic inheritance, involving the duplication of genetic material and its segregation during meiosis, there are other hereditary elements that pass into the germ cells also. These include things like methylation patterns in DNA and chromatin marks, both of which regulate the activity of genes. These are considered "Lamarckian" in the sense that they are responsive to environmental stimuli and can differentially affect gene expression adaptively, with phenotypic results that can persist for many generations in certain organisms. Although the reality of epigenetic inheritance is not doubted (as countless experiments have validated it), its significance to the evolutionary process is uncertain. Most neo-Darwinians consider epigenetic inheritance mechanisms to be little more than a specialized form of phenotypic plasticity, with no potential to introduce evolutionary novelty into a species lineage.[16] Lamarckism and single-celled organisms While Lamarckism has been discredited as an evolutionary influence for larger lifeforms, some scientists controversially argue that it can be observed among microorganisms.[17] Whether such mutations are directed or not also remains a point of contention. In 1988, John Cairns at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England, and a group of other scientists renewed the Lamarckian controversy (which by then had been a dead debate for many years).[18] The group took a mutated strain of E. coli that was unable to consume the sugar lactose and placed it in an environment where lactose was the only food source. They observed over time that mutations occurred within the colony at a rate that suggested the bacteria were overcoming their handicap by altering their own genes. Cairns, among others, dubbed the process adaptive mutation. If bacteria that had overcome their own inability to consume lactose passed on this "learned" trait to future generations, it could be argued as a form of Lamarckism; though Cairns later chose to distance himself from such a position.[19] More typically, it might be viewed as a form of ontogenic evolution. There has been some research into Lamarckism and prions. A group of researchers, for example, discovered that in yeast cells containing a specific prion protein Sup35, the yeast were able to gain new genetic material, some of which g
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
>>(4) What is really involved in addressing gaps in scientific knowledge at a given point in time, and who is worth taking seriously, on what basis.<< I'd suggest Feyerabend, but you are probably going to say that is horseshit. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
And I'll be sure to avoid anything with autodidact=crackpot horseshit on it. I really would like to see what you think a 'fair argument' and 'balanced discussion' is. No wait, I feel it coming on. Ralph has a better worked out version of the dialectic than Engels. Now let us all remain subjectively silent in awe and wonder. I'm sure subjective fantasies about your standing up to Stalinist boot-licks are more fun anyway. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
There are other things to look at in addition to recycling this crackpot horseshit. For example: (1) The misuse by vulgar ignoramuses of the well-intentioned but logically muddled notions of Engels, who habitually confused subjective with objective dialectics, conflated empirical laws and logical constructs, and created an ambiguous structure to be abused by lesser intellects who acted as if empirical matters could be decided by a priori metaphysics. (2) The crude instrumentalism of Stalin, but also the naive conceptions of scientific labor promulgated by Bukharin (cf. Polanyi), resulting in the crushing of autonomous scientific work in favor of a vulgar pragmatism in which all intellectual activity--science, philosophy, literature, the promulgation of atheism, etc.-- was subordinated to the master task of "building socialism"--which of course was not socialism at all, but crash industrialization. (3) The very irrationality of a despotic state structure mimicking the worst features of Czarism in which the subjective wish fulfillment of an egomaniacal absolute dictator surrounds himself with boot-licking yes-men incapable of providing accountability or any objective check in an overpoliticized ideological environment. (4) What is really involved in addressing gaps in scientific knowledge at a given point in time, and who is worth taking seriously, on what basis. Reading the posts over the past few days makes me want to vomit, and reminds me why I resigned from so many Marxist lists at the end of the '90s. At 09:56 PM 3/25/2010, CeJ wrote: >JF:>>Shouldn't we also take >a look at the life and >career of the Soviet >geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, >who was the leading Mendelian >geneticist in the Soviet Union >of his time and who suffered >imprisonment, where he died, >because of his opposition to >Lysenkoism?<< > >Good point. I think it was Vavilov who helped Lysenko rise to the top. >The accomplishments of Michurin probably meant more than the work of >Lysenko or Vavilov in terms of crop production and diversification in >the SU. But Vavilov appears to have been on the way towards a 'green >revolution' himself had he not been so vitiated and ruined by the >system. I would also point out, however, that the figure held up as >the father of the green revolution, the American Borlaug, DID NOT make >use of an Mendelian understanding of the genetics of wheat. Rather, he >used intuitive and 'seat of the pants' judgements about what to >hybridize in order to adapt wheat to Mexico (such as bringing in >strains of wheat that were hardy in Kenya). The very sort of thing >Burbank, Michurin and Lysenko would have approved of. There is >something, at least until the research of the 1950s and onwards, about >Lysenko's dismissiveness about the pea and fruit fly counters--they >weren't improving agriculture. > >In retrospect, I think it is fairly easy to see that (even without >reverting to simplified ideas of dialectics), Soviet biology, genetics >and agronomy would have benefited from a much more open debate between >the the two dogmas. Back to my original point, with a bit more detail: >I think it is unfair to blame Lynsenko for the failures of Soviet >agricultural policy. And the US was hardly the model for agricultural >improvement at the time of the Dust Bowl. The Soviet Union suffered >from a lack of its own scientific communities in understanding the >climates they had to deal with (that the farmers had to deal with), >and issues in transport and storage probably hampered agricultural >production more than anything Lysenko did. > >CJ > >___ >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list >Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
JF:>>Shouldn't we also take a look at the life and career of the Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, who was the leading Mendelian geneticist in the Soviet Union of his time and who suffered imprisonment, where he died, because of his opposition to Lysenkoism?<< Good point. I think it was Vavilov who helped Lysenko rise to the top. The accomplishments of Michurin probably meant more than the work of Lysenko or Vavilov in terms of crop production and diversification in the SU. But Vavilov appears to have been on the way towards a 'green revolution' himself had he not been so vitiated and ruined by the system. I would also point out, however, that the figure held up as the father of the green revolution, the American Borlaug, DID NOT make use of an Mendelian understanding of the genetics of wheat. Rather, he used intuitive and 'seat of the pants' judgements about what to hybridize in order to adapt wheat to Mexico (such as bringing in strains of wheat that were hardy in Kenya). The very sort of thing Burbank, Michurin and Lysenko would have approved of. There is something, at least until the research of the 1950s and onwards, about Lysenko's dismissiveness about the pea and fruit fly counters--they weren't improving agriculture. In retrospect, I think it is fairly easy to see that (even without reverting to simplified ideas of dialectics), Soviet biology, genetics and agronomy would have benefited from a much more open debate between the the two dogmas. Back to my original point, with a bit more detail: I think it is unfair to blame Lynsenko for the failures of Soviet agricultural policy. And the US was hardly the model for agricultural improvement at the time of the Dust Bowl. The Soviet Union suffered from a lack of its own scientific communities in understanding the climates they had to deal with (that the farmers had to deal with), and issues in transport and storage probably hampered agricultural production more than anything Lysenko did. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Levins & Lewontin on Lysenko, was Re: Cuban cows To: Subject: Levins & Lewontin on Lysenko, was Re: Cuban cows From: "Charles Brown" Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:12:12 -0400 Levins & Lewontin on Lysenko, was Re: Cuban cows by Louis Proyect 21 May 2002 19:40 UTC >Lou, you've referred off and on to Levins & Lewontin, _The Dialectical >Biologist_. They don't treat Lysenko at all like this. See Chapter 7, >"The Problem of Lysenkoism." There were many elements involved, and it >was no matter of mere quackery. > >Carrol Yes, of course. There is another side to Lysenko. In fact Stephen Jay Gould treats him with considerable respect in one of his essays although I can't remember the technical details. ^^^ CB: As I understand it, Lysenko's theory ran afoul, somewhat, of the fundamental biological dogma against the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Theories of inheritance of acquired characteristics are sometimes termed LaMarckian. Cloning as a method of breeding an individual organism with particularly desirable characteristics is not LaMarckian, as long as the characteristics that one seeks to reproduce in the clones are inherited and were not acquired during the life time of the organism which is the "stud". ^^^ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
Dialectical biology In The Dialectical Biologist (Harvard U.P. 1985 ISBN 0-674-20281-3), Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin sketch a dialectical approach to biology. They see "dialectics" more as a set of questions to ask about biological research, a weapon against dogmatism, than as a set of pre-determined answers. ^ CB: There is a chapter in _The Dialectical Biologist_ on Lysenko. It is less critical than many. Lysenko's LaMarckianism is a seeking of an "epistemological break" (in Althusser's terminology) with the biological Dogma (law) in modern genetics that there is no inheritance of acquired characteristics. Ironically, Stalin and Lysenko were sort of postmodernists on this issue. Postmodernists don't usually think of themselves as Stalinists (smile) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Re-evaluating Lysenko
It is also interesting to re-visit the 'Lysenko' controversy. I don't think the problem was Lysenko but rather Stalin and Stalinism. For a start, Burbank the wildly famous American was more Lamarkian than either Michurin or Lysenko. M and L were trying to push agronomy (much of it collected folk wisdom) forward into the realm of experimental science to help relieve the SU's desperate food problems. Borlaug, the Nobel-winning 'father of the green revolution' used a time-tested method of hybridizing wheat that Lysenko would have approved of! (And Borlaug, ever enmeshed in the US side of Cold War politics, always referred to Lysenko as the charlatan). That doesn't mean that M and L were right about everything, or that what they were right about they were necessarily right about for the best, most nuanced of reasons-- but that the idea that somehow they irrationally destroyed the 'correct' neoMendelian science of the era in the Soviet Union is just sterile. Skilled artful agronomy is what pushed crop yields up and extended crop range into previously unviable territory, not neoMendealian 'genetic science'. I know it might make me sound like a Stalinist, but Lysenko does not deserve the dismissal and ridicule he gets. Nor was he an ignorant fool as he is always depicted. http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/jan2010/lysenko.html Lysenko has been dismissed and ridiculed in the West and eventually even in the Soviet Union for going against the orthodox theories of evolution and genetics of Weisman and Morgan. But rather than giving proof of the correctness of Weisman and Morgan, as many have tried to maintain, developments in the understanding of the complex biochemistry of living organisms, seem to be moving in a direction of supporting Lysenko. The essence is, to emphasise it yet again, that the environment and changes brought about by the environment, can, in appropriate circumstances, influence the heredity of the organism. Lysenko quoted Michurin�s motto as: �we cannot wait for favours from nature; we must wrest them from her� (ibid. p.34) - Conclusion Lysenko is opposed, or mostly ignored, by many eminent scientists. Yet in spite of this, the more this whole matter is looked at, the more his theories appear to be consistent with reality. New research, while apparently causing confusion because it raises questions about orthodox genetics, the genetics of Morgan, seems to be laying the ground for a better understanding of what Lysenko was saying, and a better understanding of heredity in living organisms. Lysenko has not been proved wrong. However, in the theories of the opponents of Lysenko there is much that is inconsistent, is unsubstantiated, and does not accord with reality. Lysenko�s work, which was very important in the development of Soviet agriculture, in the building of socialism, cannot easily be dismissed, and promises to reassert itself. We will leave the last word, or two words, to Michurin, who was the inspiration for Lysenko. Michurin had worked for many years under very difficult conditions and by 1914, at the age of 60 he wrote the following, which is an extract from a brief autobiographical note. �Throughout the many years of labour devoted to improving varieties of fruit plants in Central Russia, I never received any subsidies or grants from the state, let alone thousand rouble salaries. I worked the best I could on the means that I obtained by my own labour. Throughout the past period I constantly struggled against poverty and endured all kinds of hardship silently. I never asked for assistance from the government so that I might more extensively develop this work so highly useful and so very necessary to Russian agriculture. On the advice of eminent horticulturalists, I submitted several memoranda to our department of agriculture in which I tried to explain the vast importance and necessity of improving and increasing native varieties of fruit bearing plants by raising local varieties from seeds. Nothing came of these memoranda. And now, at last, it is too late - the years have gone by and my strength is exhausted. For my part, I have done what I could; it is time to rest and take care of myself, especially since I constantly feel the effects of failing health and diminishing strength. �It is very painful, of course, to have laboured for so many years for the common good with no recompense and then to be deprived of security in old age. The consequences are that I shall have to go on with my arduous work to the end - an unenviable prospect.� (I.V.Michurin Selected Works Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1949, p 2 - first published in 1914 in Sadovod, No 6) That is what Michurin wrote in 1914. Lenin recognised the importance of Michurin�s work, and after the revolution in 1917 he was put in charge of a horticultural station and that developed so that his work was used throughout the Soviet Union. When he was 80, Stalin sent him a telegram to m
