From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 20:45:18 MDT
From: gts [mailto:gts_2000@yahoo.com]
> Mez wrote:
>
> > Animals in the wild will hunt their prey to extinction if
> > conditions
> > allow. Primitive humans were no different.
>
> I don't doubt that for a minute. In fact I've been arguing
> that this is in fact what occurred, and that the extinction
> of species gave impetus to the agricultural revolution.
>
> But how is it evidence of a "destructive tendency" in animals
> or paleo humans who knew no better? They were merely trying
> to feed themselves. Only in the last half-century or so have
> any humans even bothered to think about preserving species.
Well, here I think the amazon review you mentioned did a disservice to
Diamond. Diamond doesn't seem to think that humans are destructive
/on the whole/. But in the course of documenting primitive human
species, and human history since then, he notes that every human
culture ever documented has had warfare and other violence.
I think his argument here is that certain human traits - like the
human potentials for violence, vengeance, and short-term focus - were
/adaptive/ in paleolithic times and in hunter gatherer societies up
until now, but are non-adaptive in industrialized societies with the
power to more radically harm each other.
But over all what Diamond is saying is that every human culture shows
signs of the same core set of traits. The net effect has been quite
constructive, but not without some destructive events occurring as
well, and not without more potential for destruction as a result of
certain elements of human nature in the future.
> I'm merely pointing out that I think Diamond is
> wrong if he thinks over-hunting is evidence of a destructive
> tendency in paleo humans. Dropping napalm on the Vietnamese
> might constitute such evidence, but naively over-hunting a
> species in an effort to feed oneself? Where is the logic in that,
mez?
The problem isn't the intention behind the action, or even how the
action played out in paleolithic times. The problem is how that human
behavioral trait might affect the world today or in the next century.
For example, humans seem to have an innate urge to vengeance. That
urge is almost certainly a major contributor to problems in areas like
the former Yugoslavia, Israel/Palestine, Congo, etc... It's also
likely a major contributor to terrorism.
Really if you think about it, this is a very extropian idea. It's
saying that human nature is adapted to the paleolithic environment,
rather than the modern environment. Once you grant that, you're a
step closer to accepting the idea that the modification of human
nature through technology can have /societal/ (not just individual)
benefits.
cheers,
mez
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 20:52:36 MDT