Reply to Lieber

Rob Quinlan (C611417@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU)
Mon, 5 Dec 1994 19:16:30 CST

Thanks Mike for your little nasty-gram. I have a question for you. What in
the world makes your cybersystems approach (or any other approach for that
matter) more appropriate for policy development than sociobiology? Question
2: What's your problem with sociobiology? It appears to me that it's not
something you even understand -- why the vehemence?

I think my comments were appropriate as YOU brought up Yanomamo infanticide as
a case where collectivism overrides individual action. That's not my take on
on infanticide. Why get so shitty over it?

The paper that I mentioned about about Yanomamo sex-ratio was by Chagnon et al
in Chagnon and Irons (1979) _Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior_.
If you know of some other citation where he says it's for population
regulation, then by all means do share it.

As far as taking informants statements as the gospel truth is concerned . . .
you can't be serious. Some people say they have a special worm sack in their
abdomen and you have to take care to keep the worms in balance. Do you beleive
that? I don't . . . as much as I think it's a cool idea.

I really, really, really don't understand why people are so knee-jerk (in some
cases just plain jerk) set against biosocial approaches. All I can figure is
that the reality of it (like discussions of cancer and aids) frightens people
to death. Or are you just imagining genetic determinism? Do you deny that
your brain is an evolved organ?


P.S. Please don't quote little snippets of this followed by glib remarks.
It's a whimpy rhetorical strategy.