Actually, no, individuals in other species don't do what works well for the species, they do what works well for the individual. As it happens, that is often quite bad for other individuals of their species.

If you were to compare behavior to various mathematical models of game theory, you'd find that close relatives in many species have some level of "cooperation", which is often beneficial to all. But when you go further from the immediate family, often there is only enough cooperation to avoid mutual immediate destruction.

In fact, on the scale of most individualistic to most social animals, I'd say we're well on the social end. The fact that we're able to recognize our own failings notwithstanding.

And as for this notion of other species doing "what works well for their environment" and not destroying their environment - that's just silly. The instinct of every animal is to consume every available resource, and in some cases, this results in repeated population boom and bust cycles. Having most of a young generation starve to death - or fail to find enough resources to be able to bear young - and then repeating that process over and over - is that a model you'd like to see humans strive for?

GO

No, of course not. Notwithstanding my counter-example (of other species doing what works well instinctually) being refuted, the point that I was trying to make about humans still stands, I think. Humans don't always do what works well.

You just keep saying, things are this way, they are the way they are, they always have been this way, therefore this way of doing things is genetically programmed.

I am saying, things have been the way they are only since relatively recent past in the human history, therefore, they are not genetically programmed.

If you haven't read "Sex at Dawn" that camhead suggested up-thread, and you enjoy thinking about the subjects raised in this thread, you should read it. It gives examples better than I could.

Cool, and if you haven't read it, I suggest "The Selfish Gene", which is also relevant to the subject.

yeah, Lena, read some genetics already, jeez. Educate yourself.

IMO rmsusa has oversimplified it to the point where it's no longer correct, so I hate to come to his defense, but... rmsusa is pulling his claims more or less directly from the chapter in The Selfish Gene labeled "Battle of the Sexes". So it is reasonable to refer her to it directly.

My synopsis of the chapter is that despite the fact that both parents commit equal amounts of genetic material, females are inherently more invested in each child. And that this leads to a variety of imbalances in both mating strategies and general morphology between the sexes.

It's a cool chapter, well worth reading. Whether or not it really supports rmsusa's point is debatable, but it certainly does help explain some of the inherent differences seen in many species, including our own.

BTW, in some ways (relatively similar size, shape, coloring) humans look like a species that should have fairly small inherent differences in behavior based on sex, while other elements (long gestation period, long nursing period, long period until adulthood) set us up for very large potential disparities. It's no wonder it's confusing!

Lastly, I hope it's clear to all that in acknowledging whatever our biological drives may be, that is by no means a declaration that those drives define us. We as humans have the unique capacity to recognize them and control them to more than a little degree.

GO

Cool, and if you haven't read it, I suggest "The Selfish Gene", which is also relevant to the subject.

Yes, I have read "The Selfish Gene" but while it is a good book, I do not think it supports your argument.

The problem with that reductionist, adversarial view is that rmusa is espousing ....... So to take what exists today and posit inherent-ness on it... is totally unsupported.

in acknowledging whatever our biological drives may be, that is by no means a declaration that those drives define us. We as humans have the unique capacity to recognize them and control them to more than a little degree.

I don't think I'm saying anything adversarial. I think that's an incorrect inference, though my problems in being clear may have caused it.

All I've said (I think) is that females are sexual attractors, that this is a genetic characteristic of sapiens and that it lies behind the whole "pretty" or "visually attractive" thing. It is, unabashedly, reductionist. The particular things we consider "visually attractive" are certainly partly, maybe even largely, cultural.
...

It would be the farthest thing from my mind to "take what exists today and posit inherent-ness" without thinking about it quite a lot.

Does that explain things like "marriage", "jail" and "defense department"? :-)

So what does define us as a species? Is there something beyond the biology that builds our bodies, wires our brains and allows us to write on the internet?

Please don't talk to me about the bearded guy in the sky.

I think this is where you are not quite right.

Gender differences are hardwired into human beings, as well as any animals, but the females being pretty and males being bold idea has a lot more to do with a switch to patriarchy and the whole inheritable private property and wealth concept (e.i. ultimately the advent of agriculture, only a few thousands of years ago) than it has to do with biology.



And that is good.


This is where we start to really diverge. In my version of the future equality both males and females wear makeup and dress up -- if they so choose, of course!


Hmmm, last time I checked, the majority of males in the US do NOT go to the gym regularly, whether it is to get strong or to look hot.



Yes, it is indeed interesting. But the problem is, nobody, including geneticists, can tell you exactly what behaviors are determined by genes, and which ones are not. You seem to believe that more things are determined by genes than I do, for example.

A funny story:

In my attempt to raise kids in a gender-neutral way, I introduced my son to dolls. My Mom got him a BOY doll (do you know how hard it is to even find one?-- we are not talking about Barbie's "Ken" accessory, we are talking about just a doll looking like a little boy).

Anyway, it was a little toddler boy doll, complete with shorts and checkered shirt outfit, and a backpack full of camping accessories. My son didn't want ANYTHING to do with that doll. Or any other doll, for that matter, ever. He was about 2yo at the time, and had not been exposed to ANY TV, or really any significant "cultural" influence. he didn't even speak English, and he was in a home daycare situation. Dolls just weren't his thing.

Whenever he played with his cars and trucks and LEGOs, the games usually involved collisions, loud noises, bangs, lights flashing, dinosaurs devouring fire trucks, etc. etc.

His younger sister, growing up amid a collection of cars and garbage trucks and LEGOs and no dolls attempted to swaddle and nurse a fire truck at some point. Her cars always talked to each other very politely, and invited each other for tea. Eventually she got dolls, and was oh-so-happy about it.

Ha! That made me literally LOL. After what I've written thus far, you think I have any use for a bearded guy in the sky?

What defines us as a species is a blend of our physical and simple behavioral characteristics which are genetically programmed... the fact that we're all capable of producing fertile offspring with each other. and that any two given groups of humans will, generally, do just that when they encounter one another.

fixied.

Wait, what? Did you just give examples of where your children showed classic gender biased behavior that you accepted (nurtured?) and yet you are wanting a society without it?

Oh, and on a side note, I am ever vigilant for gender bias with my kids. My daughter is strong and my son is beautiful.

And we help pick the influences that come in our door / TV. For example this is my kid's (son and daughter) current hero: https://www.facebook.com/ReidenbergING (although I think my son relates to Dawkins a little more). And, yes, my 7 year old daughter watches animal dissection shows.

What defines us as a species is a blend of our physical and simple behavioral characteristics which are genetically programmed... *plus* what we *do* with those things. And, more than any other species, what we do is really quite incredible. It is often elaborate, sometimes far reaching, and ranges from the marvelous to the horrific.

More than anything else, I think what defines us is our incredible evolving culture. And by "culture", I mean everything that is built upon the knowledge of previous generations.

I think your description of mating strategies is adversarial between males and females. Males wanting one thing, females wanting an incompatible thing.

When I am envisioning gender-neutrality, I am not envisioning everyone being the SAME, no more than everyone is the same now. I am simply hoping for a reduced pressure to comply with culturally-determined and unequal gender roles.

NO, there isn't really any way to stop people making those comments. The comments are meant to be nice, and usually people don't even realize that they are using different language for boys and girls.

This goes back to the question of how pervasive this attitude is...

The strongly negative attitudes ("you belong in the kitchen woman! Go bring me my beer and shut up!") have clearly diminished/bacame unacceptable to be expressed widely in society.

But the same message is communicated in seemingly positive ways (really, what parent would do anything other than smile and say thank you, when a good-intentioned stranger comments on how pretty her daughter is?). It is not the message that the little girl is pretty that is wrong, in itself. It is what other messages are not being communicated to the little girls. Because absence of praise can speak quite as loudly as the praise...

I know I'm dredging up an old conversation - forgive me for that. But it was one of the most interesting discussions I've had in a long time, so it stayed on my mind.

When I recently read this short article, it made me think of this conversation. The article seems like a perfect response, so I wanted to get y'alls take on it.

GO

I know I'm dredging up an old conversation - forgive me for that. But it was one of the most interesting discussions I've had in a long time, so it stayed on my mind.

When I recently read this short article, it made me think of this conversation. The article seems like a perfect response, so I wanted to get y'alls take on it.

GO