A response to David Wong

[petrichor_fizz]

 Hi - I wrote a blog post in response to David Wong's 'Monkeysphere' article in Cracked (which is rather old now). I thought it might be of interest to someone here, and of course I'm open to input and/or criticism of my argument (although, as I point out in the post, I'm very much not an expert, just an interested amateur).

Comments

[tisiphone]

Your math is wrong - 200,000 - 500 = 195,500, not 19,500.

[petrichor_fizz]

Haha, sorry. I will fix that immediately.

[kenosis]

So what's this "pro-capitalist argument" that you see in this?

[petrichor_fizz]

"Later, a far more realistic man sat the monkeys down and said, "You want bananas? Each of you go get your own. I'm taking a nap." That man, of course, was German philosopher Hans Capitalism.

As long as everybody gets their own bananas and shares with the few in their Monkeysphere, the system will thrive even though nobody is even trying to make the system thrive."

[kenosis]

Oh, there was a second page ... :)

I read that as being much more about the inability to make a centrally planned economy work well than about capitalism being a superior way to live. Do you know how GOSPLAN priced their goods? They based them off a Sears catalog they had.

[petrichor_fizz]

Ha, no, I didn't know that! That's really interesting.

I'm just suspicious of (what I interpret as) the 'capitalism works' rhetoric, I guess, because in actual fact there are a huge number of people who are opposed to capitalism and struggle against the inequities of the system. I saw a really interesting Noam Chomsky video earlier about that subject. He (Wong) may not be saying that capitalism is superior necessarily, but he does say 'the system will thrive', which I would take issue with personally.

[caerbannogbunny]

Okay, some issues with your response...

But, first, some suggested articles:

Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Hurtado, A. M., & Lancaster, J. (2001). The embodied capital theory of human evolution. Reproductive ecology and human evolution (pp. 293-317). Hawthorne, New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence, and Longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9(4), 156-185.

(Explains some of the caloric production/intake regarding gender in hunter-gatherer tribes.)

Additionally, google and read up on the recent work on "Parochial Altruism".
What an evolutionary evolved adaptation does is improve the relative efficiency of the organism compared to others of its species or possibly give it some trait that has an advantage. When you talk about the "monkeysphere" concept, there's a correlation between the neocortex size (the part of the brain that's the newest, and most complex) and the number of people an individual typically can and will

[petrichor_fizz]

Thank you, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of your comment. Thanks for the suggestions.

[caerbannogbunny]

I'm an undergrad almost done with a BS in Psych and minors in Biological Sciences, Anthropology, and Sociocultural Anthropology and planning on graduate school in (I hope) evolutionary anthropology

[petrichor_fizz]

I should probably admit that I'm a big fan of Elaine Morgan (although you probably gathered from the post), who is obviously a divisive figure, especially as (like me) she came from a humanities rather than a science background - obviously she also talks about looking at evolutionary anthropology from a female perspective. Of course, somebody who hasn't studied physical anthropology, or even biology, academically is at a disadvantage in many ways, but on the other hand being outside that circle CAN at least allow you to come at things from a different angle. I'm sure I (and Morgan) get a lot wrong, but there can be some value in viewing a subject with fresh eyes that haven't been steeped in the received wisdom of the established community. Of course it sounds as though you strike a good balance anyway, I guess I'm just trying to defend my ill-informed dabbling!