Comments on: E.O. Wilson for Governor of Alabama, 2010

By: Glynn Wilson

Glynn Wilson — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:29:02 +0000

Thanks for the contribution, Yana. Now if we could get Jack Zylman to weigh in. I know he has some disagreements with Wilson – E.O. Wilson that is : )

By: Yana Davis

Yana Davis — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:54:55 +0000

A good read in the “nature vs. nuture” discussion is the book “Guns, Germs and Steel.” The author, whose name escapes me at the moment, posits that social evolution on the Eurasian continent, framed by acquired tolerance to germs, domestication of the horse, and finally pre-industrial development of steel and then guns, sealed the dominance of Eurasian nations worldwide.

This dominance was rooted in the earliest civilizations, notably in Mesopotamia, ancient China and Egypt (which qualifies, even though in Africa, due to location.) It was sealed from about 1500 on with the colonialist expansion, most notably of European nations, around the globe, virtually unchallenged, except in East Asia.

The author notes that there is no significant DNA difference between Europeans, Africans, Asians and Native Americans that would explain this phenomenon, and, incidentally, no scientific basis for supposing one “race” of humans is superior over another. Along those lines, in his book “Mapping Human History,” Steve Olson shows that the genetic differences between different “races” of human beings is very minute. Again, this is an argument for nuture versus nature, although obvious differences such as skin color, hair color and texture, cranial and bone differences, etc., can be explained, at least in part, as adaptation to climate and environment over many thousands of years.

By: Glynn Wilson

Glynn Wilson — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:47:43 +0000

I think you are right about racism. Social pressures can be brought to bear to change it. Not sure that really contradicts Wilson, however, who as far as I know, doesn’t address that question.

He was accused of being on the side of eugenics when he first came out, but he’s adequately explained how that is not true since. He’s not making a real time political argument. He is talking about evolution over millions of years.

Some say it’s in the genes, and only the genes. Some say it’s in the culture and only the culture. Some say it’s both (and that’s where I come down). He’s saying culture influences genes over time. No blank slate. That’s what’s interesting about it. And he’s backing it up not with critical theory or an editorial opinion, but with quantitative research from looking at the genetic code.

I say he’s the top living brain from Alabama soil. And most people here have never heard of him.

Now let the talk radio hosts argue about that and maybe we can change that too : )

By: jim gundlach

jim gundlach — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:10:25 +0000

My major problem with Wilson’s notion that the structure of cultural adaptation is genetically determined. I think a more accurate view is that humans adapt both biologically and culturally and given that there are two adaptation mechanisms there is the possibility of interaction effects. An example would be the evolution of white skin. It is well established that dark skin biologically evolved to fit in with the environment of the area where humans biologically evolved, probably somewhere near what is now known as Ethiopia in Africa. However, once humans evolved the ability to pass knowledge, as well as genes, on to the next generation, culture became possible. And, it is through cultural adaptation that humans were able to create ways of life that allowed them to live in areas beyond their evolutionary nest. Once humans created and passed on ways of living that allowed them to move into what is now Northern Europe, they faced a rather unique challenge. They found themselves living in an area where it was no longer possible to obtain an adequate amount of calcium from the food available in the natural environment without domesticating deer and milking them. This turned out to be an all too effective response to calcium deficiency problem and led to the consumption of more calcium than the body was able to process. This led to the formation of calcium deposits on the bones and when these deposits formed on the bones lining the birth canal, it resulted in a high rate of natal and maternal deaths. Under the pressures of this culturally introduced pressure, the survival rates of individuals with lighter and lighter skin, which allowed the production of more vitamin D and processing of excess calcium, to increase. It is the survivors of these de-pigmented Africans who later used skin color to easily identify people who could be owned versus those who could not. The resulting racism is easily explained as a cultural and economic institution that can be changed without waiting for humans to evolve beyond racism. I agree that there are genetic explanations for much of what humans do but to extend genetic explanations to such institutions as racism tends to lead to conclusions that we cannot change these sources of inequality when in fact we can.