Dear Lord this woman is dim

Via Don Boudreaux we find this:

The strong instinctual drive to have children is a vestige of the need to procreate in order to preserve the human species.

What?

The drive to procreate is a function of the urge to perpetuate ones\’ own genes. It has, quite literally, fuck all to do with the species.

Ecopsychology recognizes the interconnection among all beings and the concept of the ecological self—an expanded sense of self that includes the entire web of life. In this view, self-preservation is synonymous with preservation of all beings and ecosystems.

So that\’s an attempt at a science that we can safely ignore then.

It does puzzle me, I have to admit.It\’s the religious fundamentalists who tend to deny evolution and they do tend to be conservatives as well. It\’s, in the American political universe, the \”liberals\”…..ie the lefties….who are all onboard with evolution. But it\’s also those very same liberals and lefties that then go on to resolutely ignore the implications of evolution. As here: it ain\’t a societal thing, it\’s not a collective thing, it\’s not a species thing or drive. It\’s an individual thing.

Perhaps we could annoy them by repeatedly pointing out that, among those from the last couple of millennia, Ghengis Khan has been the most successful human being in evolutionary terms? The person who has come closest to winning the game?

15 comments on “Dear Lord this woman is dim

  1. Yeah whatever, worstall.

    You are simply talking crap. Utter balls. No individual survives without a society. An individual with balls as big as yours will not succeed in a battle of bollocks unless you are supported by cleverer cocks.

    Your ignorance is unfathomable. Evolution is entirely dictated by social success, not individual.

    Unless you’re a millipede. Even then, if the ecosystem isn’t coded to millipedes, then even the most able millipede will perish.

    You didn’t get where you are today because your forefathers were arseholes.

  2. Isn’t this the big dispute between Dawkins, Edward Wilson etc? I think u maybe outta yr depth on this one Timmie.

  3. “The drive to procreate is a function of the urge to perpetuate ones’ own genes.”

    Hmmm… I’m not an evolutionary biologist, but wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the drive to procreate is the result of those having that characteristic actully succeeding in doing so. I don’t think a gene can be said to have “an urge” can it….? Where’s Dawkins when you need him?

  4. Vestige
    a mark, trace, or visible evidence of something that is no longer present or in existence

    so the need to procreate is no longer present?

  5. The difference between American lefties and fundies is the point at which they think evolution stopped: fundies think it can happen within species but that it can’t bring forth new species, whilst lefties believe it doesn’t happen within mankind.

    So fundies are sincerely bonkers while lefties are lying hypocrites, since its only in their words that they deny evolution, not in their deeds.

  6. Surely it has nothing to do with “purpose”, simply at how proficient the procreator is at procreating. Those creatures who manage to spread their genes in great abundance are likely to predominate within their species, and those species that are able to procreate abundantly are more likely to survive the many setbacks that are likely to occur from time to time from disease and other natural disasters.
    The motive for procreation is largely irrelevant.

  7. Arnald, dear:

    “No individual survives without a society”

    The interactions of humans within a society are what economists study.

  8. “Evolution is entirely dictated by social success, not individual.”

    Completely wrong.

    One of the most common examples of speciation (creation of a new, more ‘successful’ species) is a single individual arriving, or ending up in location where there are no competitors – even of their own species. i.e. a pregnant rat or insect arriving on driftwood to a pristine island; geological or climate conditions having destroyed all rivals in an area.

    These animal’s success – and therefore the success of all subsequent generations or iterations – is fundamentally based on there being NO society. These individuals create any subsequent society from their own incestuous offspring.

    We’re all a bit inbred.

    But without this happening we would all still be flatworms, like Arnald.

  9. Continuing on from SR @10, doesn’t the whole Mitochondrial Eve narrative say exactly this. We can all trace our heredity back to a single women in Africa? It’s that notion usually gets used to argue racism has no basis in science. We’re all related.
    Once you head down the “Evolution is entirely dictated by social success, not individual.” route, you’re a helluva long way down the road to the whole race science, national characteristics stuff blighted the first half of last century.
    On the other hand, Arnald – National Socialism, they do sort of go together don’t they? And his beloved mentor, the Murfmeister.

  10. The fact that humans are gregarious and work in teams does not alter the fact that evolutionary drives to preserve our genes reward the genes of individuals who can exploit teams well.

    So the protest that individuals cannot thrive without teams misses the point. Tim-s original claim that it is all about genes and individuals also misses the point, since perpetuation of genes favours help to family and clan, and co-operation with teams whose members share many of our genes.

    What statistical genetics shows so far is that we are a species that works in teams, but mainly because we share genes with team members. Successful individuals like Genghis Khan (or the genes that succeeded through him) succeeded by assembling a team that served mainly him and his genes, but also benefited other team members and their genes to a lesser extent.

  11. Obviously no species would survive if sufficient of its members did not procreate. One might express this, more colourfully than accurately, by saying that the urge to procreate results from the need to propagate the species.

    Similarly, no individual would exist if its ancestors had not procreated. One might express this, more colourfully than accurately, by saying that the urge to procreate results from the need to propagate one’s genes.

    Neither statement is dimmer than the other. The former statement doesn’t explain the evolution of new species, but then, it doesn’t have to explain everything. The latter statement doesn’t explain the behaviour of worker bees, but it doesn’t have to explain everything either.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>