Re: RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
norm wrote: >i say that humans, like ALL animals, have a genetic endowment that limits >how we behave. I think it's silly to reject -- as some leftists do -- the fact that there's a genetic determinant to the "nature of human nature." The genetic basis of human nature, however, has a lot of room to move (unlike, say, for cats, whose behavior seems to be mostly -- though not totally -- programmed by their genes). That is genetics determine human _potential_. The point for socialists should be to liberate and to _realize_ that potential, not to turn people into angels. This should be possible given the way that humanity has switched to using culture (including technology) as the main way of surviving and evolving and the many ways in which people's characters have varied over time and between cultures. BTW, Albert & Hahnel's QUIET REVOLUTION IN WELFARE ECONOMICS, like all of their writings that I've read, take the fact that genetics plays a role very explicitly. These are folks whose politics veers toward anarchism or utopian socialism. In this, they are like Noam Chomsky, a more explicit anarchist (he's a self-described "libertarian socialist," isn't he?), who sees a genetic basis for the abstract grammar that he sees as the basis for concrete languages that people have. > further, that social engineers need proceed with caution. My flavor of socialism has always opposed social engineering -- as a version of "socialism from above," imposed by what the "Internationale" terms "condescending saviors." Instead, the emphasis is on working-class collective self-liberation (with parallel principles applying to other oppressed groups). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
In order to know how genetics "limits" us, we would need to know what we would otherwise be capable of if but for our genetic structure (the facts of which we do not fully understand, let alone what we might dream up). This is something of a nonfalsifiable proposition, isn't it, if we depart from the obvious (like we cannot fly unaided because we have no wings)? Since the discussion appears to presuppose social behavioral genes, the argument strikes me as absurd. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI -Original Message- From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 7:48 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior whoa, austin just one minute please! i read your drift that you don't agree with my expert opinions. first, who is "we", like in "We know it is."? the entire world except me? if so, then i vociferously object!!! i say that humans, like ALL animals, have a genetic endowment that limits how we behave. further, that social engineers need proceed with caution. e.g., when falling from a tree, a person can't right him/herself like a cat no matter how much learning the person has because the cat is genetically programmed to perform that behavior better than a human. however, a trampolinist who jumps straight up can use his/her given genetic endowment to fall flat on his/her back by bringing his/her arms swiftly over the head and a high diver can turn through many movements by moving parts of the body in different ways. same principle, but genetic hard-wiring limits what humans can do. (i like those examples because it is an excellent example of Newton's third law and conservation of angular momentum for tutoring wayward Physics students.) if i hear correctly what you are saying, you would maintain that with sufficient learning, a person could do what a cat can do too. if so, then again i object wholeheartedly. that was an extreme example, of course, but the point of it is that humans learn upon a genetic endowment that limits the learning. back to dominance-submissiveness, cooperation-competition, etc. in making social prescriptions, to be on the safe side for the "public interest", i would suggest that social engineers assume SOME genetic wiring so that their prescriptions don't create more problems than they solve. that's why i'm a "gradualist" for social reform. please explain in more detail why you object to these views? norm -Original Message- From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:06 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:5807] RE: co-ops + human behavior We don't have to assume social behavior is learned. We know it is. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI
RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
whoa, austin just one minute please! i read your drift that you don't agree with my expert opinions. first, who is "we", like in "We know it is."? the entire world except me? if so, then i vociferously object!!! i say that humans, like ALL animals, have a genetic endowment that limits how we behave. further, that social engineers need proceed with caution. e.g., when falling from a tree, a person can't right him/herself like a cat no matter how much learning the person has because the cat is genetically programmed to perform that behavior better than a human. however, a trampolinist who jumps straight up can use his/her given genetic endowment to fall flat on his/her back by bringing his/her arms swiftly over the head and a high diver can turn through many movements by moving parts of the body in different ways. same principle, but genetic hard-wiring limits what humans can do. (i like those examples because it is an excellent example of Newton's third law and conservation of angular momentum for tutoring wayward Physics students.) if i hear correctly what you are saying, you would maintain that with sufficient learning, a person could do what a cat can do too. if so, then again i object wholeheartedly. that was an extreme example, of course, but the point of it is that humans learn upon a genetic endowment that limits the learning. back to dominance-submissiveness, cooperation-competition, etc. in making social prescriptions, to be on the safe side for the "public interest", i would suggest that social engineers assume SOME genetic wiring so that their prescriptions don't create more problems than they solve. that's why i'm a "gradualist" for social reform. please explain in more detail why you object to these views? norm -Original Message- From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:06 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:5807] RE: co-ops + human behavior We don't have to assume social behavior is learned. We know it is. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI
