Who's Against Zero Growth and Me First?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2007, at 21:35 UTC, janet_baker76 wrote:
>
> >> it just means that the process of evolution results in the
selection
> >> of genes that increase the chance of those genes being
reproduced.
> >
> > It is more prudent, more Occom's Razor-ish and parsimonious, to
say
> > that the process of evolution results in the selection of genes
that
> > fail to wipe the species out.
>
> Not more accurate, though. Genes that simply don't fail to wipe the
> species out are not selected for; sometimes they hang around just
> because they're not selected against, but only if they don't have a
> significant cost. However, genes that result improve their own
chances
> of being reproduced ARE selected for. This is the basic principle
of
> evolution.
>
> > Species decreased even before modern
> > environmental war on them, and the causes of these decreases
cannot
> > be proved, only speculated.
>
> You sound like a creationist. :) We can only "speculate" why
things
> tend to fall down when you drop them; we can't prove it, nor can we
> prove that the next time you drop something, it will also fall
down.
> Yet gravity is very real. So is evolution, and it works by
selecting
> for reproductive fitness.
>
> > you just aren't reading the same data I'm reading (sometime I'll
> > google it and put the present demographic picture on the list,
but I
> > know other list members must be aware of the situation)
>
> Are you sure I'm not? I read Science and Science News, plus various
> technical journals. Demographic studies are occasionally reported
> there -- a much more reliable source than the Internet, but
basically
> the same information, I would imagine. Nowhere in those studies is
> anything implying that a species could simply choose to stop
> reproducing.
>
> Not only is this supposed problem not implied by the data, it's not
> supported by theory either. If you know how to program, try
writing a
> simulation; if not, just imagine it: assume that desire to
reproduce is
> a trait passed on (imperfectly) from parents to offspring, either
> through genetics, socialization, or both. Now suppose that 99.999%
of
> the population suddenly loses the urge to reproduce. What happens?
> Simple: that 99.999% of the population dies without passing on that
> trait, and the remaining 0.001% (which would be about 60 thousand
> people) end up repopulating the world with people who, on the whole,
> have the urge to reproduce. There is simply no way the problem
you're
> describing could amount to anything unless it affected each and
every
> member of the species. And it demonstrably does not: I have kids,
all
> my married siblings and siblings-in-law have kids; clearly people
are
> still choosing to have kids.
>
> > furthermore, you are ignoring the point, that "as a whole" might
be
> > the deal breaker to us getting a space colony if the culture/gene
> > pool that continues to reproduce and replace Europe's playgirls
and
> > playboys just isn't into space and space colonies.
>
> But we have a counterexample to that, too: I'm into space and space
> colonies, and I'm reproducing. Any other parents here?
>
> > Also, for us humans, the decisions we make, whether they are
> > personal or belong to the body politic, are indeed "evolutionary
> > decisions,"
>
> I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean our decisions
impact
> the evolution of our species, in a tiny way, then sure. If you mean
> that evolution itself makes decisions, then I can't agree. It's
just a
> process, like things falling when you drop them.
>
> > and why, for that matter, do you rule out some decision-
> > making activity among animals, especially higher animals, in all
> > their behaviors, including reproduction? Science hasn't eliminated
> > that possibility nor has it proved there's everything "blind"
about
> > it.
>
> Of course animals make reproductive decisions; that's why peacocks
have
> big brightly colored tails, and why birds sing and so on. (It's
also
> why humans have some needlessly large body parts.) I'm not sure
what
> your point is here... my point was just that we shouldn't
> anthropomorphize evolution.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
>