Re: Evolution

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Matthew Hill: "North American Tribes in danger of Vanishing"
• Previous message: Jay Kotliar: "Antrhopology and the Advantages of Blindness"
• Maybe in reply to: John McCreery: "Evolution"

> > Karl Schwerin writes, . . .It thus should be to everyone's
> > evolutionary advantage to encourage and maintain diversity.
> > That is what is so
> > frightening about this post-modern world where ethnic tensions
> > are growing, racism is re-emerging, and ethnic cleansing seems to
> > be a high priority political goal. If we want to survive we need to
> > get back to a tolerance for our differences and an appreciation for
> > and celebration of human diversity."

I really don't want any part of this discussion, but I have to respond to a
fundamental misconception of evolution repeated here. "Our interests",
evolutionarily speaking, are not for genetic diversity. An individual's interest
is for his/her own genes and not anyone else's. In a narrow Darwinian view, one
does not care what happens to the rest of the species, as long as one's own
genes flourish.
As much as I might agree with the general sentiment expressed above,
evolutionary arguments cannot be cited to support it -- quite the contrary.
Darwinism, racism, and genocide are dangerously compatible. On the other hand,
our moral and aesthetic opinions do not necessarily derive from science.

• Next message: Matthew Hill: "North American Tribes in danger of Vanishing"
• Previous message: Jay Kotliar: "Antrhopology and the Advantages of Blindness"
• Maybe in reply to: John McCreery: "Evolution"