Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houti!trc From: trc@houti.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: instincts and genes Message-ID: <346@houti.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Jul-83 19:08:42 EDT Article-I.D.: houti.346 Posted: Wed Jul 13 19:08:42 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Jul-83 06:14:26 EDT Lines: 50 Response to Laura Creighton: You state that my "article is full of biological inaccuracies with respect to the behavior of real animals". However, you do not state exactly what inaccuracies you see. My major claims (with respect to biology) were that 1) not all species exhibit altruism, and many of those that do also exhibit selfish behaviors 2) there does not seem to be any conclusive evidence that humans have instincts because 3) cultural factors seem to be predominant in humans, and so would obscure such an instinct unless a precise experiment were arranged to expose it. I also made a comment on the meaning of "Tabula Rasa". I have not yet read "The Selfish Gene", but I have read some reviews and letters discussing it. While I dislike the "anthropomorphization" of genes implied in terms like "selfish" or "altruistic", the general idea that survival of genes as the "motivation" of evolution seems reasonable. I suppose that such terms are justified for getting the idea across, but I hope the author carefully noted that they are really being used metaphorically, not literally. What I believe the author means is that the pattern encoded in the gene survives and interacts through the creatures it helps form with the real world. Thus, the creatures are, relative to the gene, the method of survival. Our genes are not "concerned" with our survival, and we need not examine their genetic code to determine what is right for us - that genetic code is expressed in the nature of humans. Regardless of how their genes may have evolved and survived, humans are what they are. They do have a specific nature, which is obvious - they are alive and have the ability to reason. The latter is what distinguishes them from other animals. Morality, and hence rights, should be in accord with this nature, or else they will be anti-survival. Humans are not bees or ants. "Species altruism" may be instinctive (IE beyond choice) for those creatures, but that does not imply that they are for humans. Humans have *demonstrated* the ability to act in practically every physically possible manner. This implies that, if there are tendencies built into humans, that in other creatures would be instincts, they are easily overcome by the human mind. Altruism is not compatible with consciousness and reason. This is because humans are able to realize the value of their own lives, for themselves, and altruism (or species altruism) opposes this individual life. Perhaps this will turn out to be a poor survival trait (I doubt it - but then I'm biased), but that does not mean we should try to circumvent it. That would require that we change our nature, so as to give up intelligence. Again, I may be biased, but I see rational intelligence as the most interesting "experiment" ever to be conducted by evolution. Tom Craver houti!trc