Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> I would strongly urge both of you to review some of the literature
> on the probable sociology of ancient tribes/societies. Anything
> involving "saving" one's self, Christian values, etc. is an "add-on"
> to underlying genetic/cultural operating principles.
The point we were arguing was whether the introduction of contraceptives lead to more promiscuity or just to more people talking about sex (I'm unsure how the latter might come about but I try to keep an open mind). Ancient tribes/societies might be looking too far into the past for this purpose.
> Almost anything that society has done as an "add-on" in the last 3000+
> years is pretty irrelevant compared with our historical evolutionary
> gene-set or situations with huge demographic effects --
> (a) the black plague;
> (b) the migration of the "risk-takers" to the new world;
Wouldn't those people 'down on their luck' be the first to migrate? Thus creating a nation of 'losers' rather than risk-takers.
> (c) the forced selection of Africans into slavery;
The ones intelligent enough to run away stayed in Africa...?
> (d) the genocide commited by Europeans on native Americans
> due to the diseases they carried.
Not to mention the murdering.