Evolution
One thing I think about in my spare time while doing stuff is evolution. Darwinian style evolution of course, though the imminent appearance of my psychic laser vision (to be used while flying and being indestructible) has occupied moments of my intellectual existence. This has been more evident recently as I'm reading a few books on the Philosophy of Biology, which of course deals with issues of evolution. Also, I saw this recently, and I'm rather weary of biological reasons for sex differences. Not that I think there are no tendencies evident that can be correlated with one's allocation of X and Y chromosomes. Have I ever mentioned that I know for certain that I do indeed have one X and one Y chromosome? You might not have what you expect - it's not that rare you know.
The thing with biological explanations is that it may be possible that with humans at least social evolution possibilities are more viable. Having said that, I actually ponder the effect of social pressures on biology (for example, the different levels of sexual dimorphism amongst different lineages of people) - has culture made women on average smaller in many societies?
With social evolution I mean the idea that certain characteristics of a particular culture can be explained as things which are likely in a culture that survives. One example of this may be a culture that generally treats murder as wrong - any culture that didn't teach that would not last very long. Of course, the prohibition against murder can be quite limited for a society to maintain itself. Yes, of course you can explain these things in the sense that people aren't stupid and would actively choose such things, but there is nothing wrong with putting it forward from another angle (it's still explainable in evolutionary terms, we don't have societies where people don't think like that because the ones where people didn't are long dead). More importantly though, certain things that maybe we have come to see as unjust or immoral actually have helped cultures survive. Evolution has no moral compass as it were. So cultures that promote a certain aggressiveness towards outsiders are probably going to survive whereas nearby that have a pacifist nature are doomed.
My little piece on why Christianity is evil starts with looking at the basic "goodness" of Christianity (and other religion) and attempts to say the basics are of no significance when assessing if a religion (or similar cultural movement) is ethical, as the basics can be seen from an evolutionary point of view.
In fact, we can look at the basic teachings of a religion and see that they really work to (a) maintain a society (don't kill, don't steal, respect your neighbours), and (b) to perpetuate the views of the religion (don't worship other gods, you're a sinner and the only way to salvation is through this guy). That is, without those basic bits, the religion/culture mix would have been lost in the background of those that have them. What is really important are the teachings that don't affect the persistence of the religion/culture (and the ones that do but that may not be ultimately "flourishing"). Take a look at the ten commandments and think about what I just wrote.
So, with regards to the sex differences for attitudes to jealousy - the question I might ask is, would maintaining this difference through cultural teachings be something that may glue a society together? That is, I'm taking that evolution is not an effect solely at the individual level or the gene level. I'm not sure where I might go with that thought but it links to my thoughts about what role marriage and such like play in societies, and the perpetuation of cultural ideas, as well as control of women reproductive abilities (this point is that maybe a culture can maintain dominance if it stipulates the removal of a woman's control over her own reproductive ability). I have no real arguments behind this, but it fascinates me to think if this could in fact be part explanation for the persistence of patriarchal societies. I think this partly comes from the idea that romantic love has become more important as women have gained more freedom over themselves (and I wonder if it partly functions to indirectly oppress women) - but that's all the bizarre crazy BA teachings talking (and my intense like of talking "wank").
Actually, I generally think that a reason patriarchal societies are dominant are due to physical characteristics of men and women, that is (a) women can be forced to become pregnant, and once pregnant are physically disadvantaged, (b) the outward appearance of human reproduction is that the "seed" comes from the man, and the woman just acts an incubator. One point I had against Christianity was that, given one accepts women are of equal value to men, and that disadvantage can lead to less ability to use ones freewill to be virtuous, if God was good He would have seen that his teachings and examples corrected misconceptions about women. One way this might have been done would be (a) not make Eve the bad guy, (b) make Jesus a woman, (c) not have myth where a woman was used as a baby factory for the seed of Him (and probably a few other examples from the other women in the bible).
But that's all by the way, and just random thoughts. Other random evolution thoughts I have are about the possibility of current human biological evolution. One thing that got me thinking is brain size. Now, bigger brains require more food (brains use about 20% of our energy right?), so they may be a disadvantage if food is tight. We live in a world where many have too much food, and many have very little. Is this actually going to affect physiology? That is, in the food plenty places there is not environmental restriction on having a more food hungry brain. This does not mean that everyone in the "West" will get smarter, it just means that if someone has a "bigger brain" they won't be penalized for it, with regards to their likelihood of surviving to breed. In the absence of any selection to breed based on intelligence (stupid people can breed just as well as not so stupid people in wealthy societies?), you'd just expect a wider range of brain sizes than you might see in food scares societies. Or would you? Maybe, when food is scarce a bigger brain is important to help one survive, so it counters the need for extra food. Or maybe, the balance is too fine, but there is a selective pressure for brains that are "smarter", but more energy efficient (a pressure not existent in the food plenty populations). Is there much need for extra smarts in a world where some people only survive due to food being supplied to them directly?
I take none of this very seriously - all just idle thoughts.
The thing with biological explanations is that it may be possible that with humans at least social evolution possibilities are more viable. Having said that, I actually ponder the effect of social pressures on biology (for example, the different levels of sexual dimorphism amongst different lineages of people) - has culture made women on average smaller in many societies?
With social evolution I mean the idea that certain characteristics of a particular culture can be explained as things which are likely in a culture that survives. One example of this may be a culture that generally treats murder as wrong - any culture that didn't teach that would not last very long. Of course, the prohibition against murder can be quite limited for a society to maintain itself. Yes, of course you can explain these things in the sense that people aren't stupid and would actively choose such things, but there is nothing wrong with putting it forward from another angle (it's still explainable in evolutionary terms, we don't have societies where people don't think like that because the ones where people didn't are long dead). More importantly though, certain things that maybe we have come to see as unjust or immoral actually have helped cultures survive. Evolution has no moral compass as it were. So cultures that promote a certain aggressiveness towards outsiders are probably going to survive whereas nearby that have a pacifist nature are doomed.
My little piece on why Christianity is evil starts with looking at the basic "goodness" of Christianity (and other religion) and attempts to say the basics are of no significance when assessing if a religion (or similar cultural movement) is ethical, as the basics can be seen from an evolutionary point of view.
In fact, we can look at the basic teachings of a religion and see that they really work to (a) maintain a society (don't kill, don't steal, respect your neighbours), and (b) to perpetuate the views of the religion (don't worship other gods, you're a sinner and the only way to salvation is through this guy). That is, without those basic bits, the religion/culture mix would have been lost in the background of those that have them. What is really important are the teachings that don't affect the persistence of the religion/culture (and the ones that do but that may not be ultimately "flourishing"). Take a look at the ten commandments and think about what I just wrote.
So, with regards to the sex differences for attitudes to jealousy - the question I might ask is, would maintaining this difference through cultural teachings be something that may glue a society together? That is, I'm taking that evolution is not an effect solely at the individual level or the gene level. I'm not sure where I might go with that thought but it links to my thoughts about what role marriage and such like play in societies, and the perpetuation of cultural ideas, as well as control of women reproductive abilities (this point is that maybe a culture can maintain dominance if it stipulates the removal of a woman's control over her own reproductive ability). I have no real arguments behind this, but it fascinates me to think if this could in fact be part explanation for the persistence of patriarchal societies. I think this partly comes from the idea that romantic love has become more important as women have gained more freedom over themselves (and I wonder if it partly functions to indirectly oppress women) - but that's all the bizarre crazy BA teachings talking (and my intense like of talking "wank").
Actually, I generally think that a reason patriarchal societies are dominant are due to physical characteristics of men and women, that is (a) women can be forced to become pregnant, and once pregnant are physically disadvantaged, (b) the outward appearance of human reproduction is that the "seed" comes from the man, and the woman just acts an incubator. One point I had against Christianity was that, given one accepts women are of equal value to men, and that disadvantage can lead to less ability to use ones freewill to be virtuous, if God was good He would have seen that his teachings and examples corrected misconceptions about women. One way this might have been done would be (a) not make Eve the bad guy, (b) make Jesus a woman, (c) not have myth where a woman was used as a baby factory for the seed of Him (and probably a few other examples from the other women in the bible).
But that's all by the way, and just random thoughts. Other random evolution thoughts I have are about the possibility of current human biological evolution. One thing that got me thinking is brain size. Now, bigger brains require more food (brains use about 20% of our energy right?), so they may be a disadvantage if food is tight. We live in a world where many have too much food, and many have very little. Is this actually going to affect physiology? That is, in the food plenty places there is not environmental restriction on having a more food hungry brain. This does not mean that everyone in the "West" will get smarter, it just means that if someone has a "bigger brain" they won't be penalized for it, with regards to their likelihood of surviving to breed. In the absence of any selection to breed based on intelligence (stupid people can breed just as well as not so stupid people in wealthy societies?), you'd just expect a wider range of brain sizes than you might see in food scares societies. Or would you? Maybe, when food is scarce a bigger brain is important to help one survive, so it counters the need for extra food. Or maybe, the balance is too fine, but there is a selective pressure for brains that are "smarter", but more energy efficient (a pressure not existent in the food plenty populations). Is there much need for extra smarts in a world where some people only survive due to food being supplied to them directly?
I take none of this very seriously - all just idle thoughts.