Vorkosigan

In short, we are MORE capable than that which is necessary to survive. And though our higher functions have brought us luxuries and new technologies, they haven't done so to any large degree until VERY recently. So what was the selective advantage that kept all that unused genius going? Why would nature select for something that was for so long unnecessary?

Luv, please, please read the Primer on Evolutionary Psychology I have provided for you many times. Please.

You appear to say here that evolution =survival. But evolution does not equal survival. Evolution (most crudely put) = reproduction (as you concede later). Therefore....

• building shelter [for survival's sake, not for appearance] forming primative medicines [which was, until very recently, largely ineffective], etc.) has not greatly exceeded that of the other primates. In short, we are MORE capable than that which is necessary to survive.

.....is, of course, nonsense. Survival is not relevant, reproduction is. And reproduction requires interaction, at least in the complex societies that primates create, where food sharing status, reciprocity, planning, in/out-group behaviors and identities, and long-term relationships are the order of the day. So what we have are large brains whose logical capabilities, memory, processing biases and so forth are aimed, not primarily at building shelters, but at navigating in the incredibly difficult and complex waters of human sociality. Big brains are not necessary to build shelters, even birds do that. They are crucially necessary to have human social relations.

The human brain solves problems in the world by "bootstrapping" capabilities onto new uses, a common theme in evolution. The lungs you have were once air sacs, the hands you have are fins bootstrapped onto new uses. Similarly, the logical abilities humans have to solve social problems -- "If you participated in the hunt, you get a share of the meat" -- can be applied to new kinds of problems, like puzzling out relationships in the natural world.

And though our higher functions have brought us luxuries and new technologies, they haven't done so to any large degree until VERY recently.

A statement of no importance whatsoever. It was not until very recently that our species finally learned how to organize knowledge production on a reliable basis, and create a social niche for that role. Modern H. sapiens has been around for between 30-70 kiloyears, depending on how you slice it. Sophisticated technology has been around for about 5,000, depending on how you slice it, or one-sixth the timespan of our species. That is not "very recently" in the lifespan of our species.

So what was the selective advantage that kept all that unused genius going? Why would nature select for something that was for so long unnecessary?....And most men at most times haven't done anything any more complicated than farming for the entire history of the species

Luv, nature was busy selecting for apes who could emerge victorious in social relations with other apes. Your error is to use technology as a (mis)measure of men. On what grounds is technological capability a measure of anything? I find it especially ironic, since the "technological measure" was originally deployed by westerners as a racist device to facilitate their exploitation of non-white peoples. See Michael Adas Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance.

Vorkosigan

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Vork,
That's pretty silly given the fact that technology is a genuine advantage. I don't care what racial differences are involved, that is going to be counted by the group that has it as a point of superiority over those who don't.

I don't buy into this nieve and historically falsified delusion that white people aren't perfectly willing to exploit white people if they have a chance. Ditto for blacks, japanese or however you want to divide up 'race'.

Hawkingfan

Nevermind!

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Hawkingfan ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Vork,
That's pretty silly given the fact that technology is a genuine advantage. I don't care what racial differences are involved, that is going to be counted by the group that has it as a point of superiority over those who don't.

Is it? But then how do you account for the fact that it does not show up as measure of superiority until after the 16th century? The ancients didn't count technology for much, for a number of reasons, partly because they didn't conceive of it as a separate domain of knowledge, partly because it had low status -- artisans generally had low status in society, and so on.

Luv's position is that technology means something as far as our big brains our concerned. What does it mean? What are the grounds for deciding so?

I don't buy into this nieve and historically falsified delusion that white people aren't perfectly willing to exploit white people if they have a chance. Ditto for blacks, japanese or however you want to divide up 'race'.

I don't buy into the naive comments of the barely read who critique books and ideas they clearly have neither read nor understood. Nobody argued that whites don't exploit whites.

Vorkosigan