You've asked some pretty tough questions here. I'll respond as best I can.
1) Childern _can_ do drugs all there life and procreate. My best friend
when I was growing up was an alcoholic since the 5th grade. He would sneek
whisky into class. He now has three childern. I'm not saying this is a
good thing, just that it is possible.
2) We don't want our childern doing drugs because it lowers the chance of
our genes being passed on. I'm sure there are additional explainations to
this; what I've presented here is the genetic explaination.
3) As far as crafting a valid theory of evolution goes, we don't _have_ to
explain why we do things that hurt ourself if we base this theory on the
gene and not the individual.
4) I believe drugs create many effects that are beneficial to our gene's
procreation. Sexual arousal and social interaction, for example. Let me
reword this. Our genes want us, from time to time, to get sexually aroused
and interact with other people. Drugs satisfy the need created by the
behavior our gene's want. I'm not saying drugs are good (or bad). I'm
saying genes have created behaviors that see sexual arousal and social
interaction as good. Drugs create sexual arousal and social interaction.
Unfortuanately, drugs can also do damage to the individual that becomes
addicted to them, but what do our genes care about that...
>But referring to my previous paragraph, if damage to the individual
>inhibits procreation of the gene, then why doesn't drug
>addiction/alcoholism eventually become extinct?
On the whole, I don't believe drug addiction (including alcoholism) inhibits
procreation, I think it promotes it. See 4), above. Where my alcoholic
friend has three childern, I have only one (and I'm not an alcoholic).
> And is it really just a
>mutation in the first place?
As I stated above, I think drug use fufills needs within us. These needs
are results of behaviors patterns which in turn are results of our genetic
makeup. This does not mean I think there is a "Let's Do Drugs!" gene, I
seriously doubt there is. Nor does it mean I promote drug use, I don't. I
_do_ promote getting laid and talking to friends.
>What about gang/mob psychology? How do we explain in genetic terms
>sacrifices made in interracial gangs?
I believe gang/mob psychology _is_ part of our genetic make-up. If our
group has multiple races in it, so what, it's still our group.
> Is everything that cannot not be
>explained, genetically, given a backup memetic explanation.
At this point in my understanding, I would have to say "Yes". Of course, we
are limiting this to answering questions about the behavior of living
beings, we're not asking questions like "Why does water boil at 100 C?".
> If so, have
>you not come to a similar argument that religion makes--"here's the
>rationalization; if it doesn't fit, use this all-purpose explanation that
>fits every other situation which explains everything in a circular
>fashion..." This sounds like free will in Christianity (that explains away
>all that icky bad stuff) or karma in Buddhism (because we deserve it).
I'm not aware of any single, all-purpose answer in this field. This "genes
'n' memes" stuff differs from religion in that it is _always_ valid to
question answers. This is the only axiom I'm aware of. There was a "Dogma"
thread on this list that dealt with the very question you ask.
>And perhaps most importantly, is this group stating that there is no
>meaning to life other than the meaning of gene-creation? This amorphous
>soup where we all began--where did it come from? What's on the flip side
>of the universe? I ask these questions because I wonder about them myself
>daily. I ask myself daily because gene creation just isn't enough to
>warrant getting out of bed each morning...
I can only reveal to you the answer to the "Meaning of Life" question after
you have cleaned my apartment for six months. But, because I am such a
wonderful human being, here's a few hints:
1) The Bible said that God gave us the universe in six days. Physics later
showed that to be wrong. This doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist.
2) The Bible said that God created all living beings. Evolution later
showed that to be wrong. This does mean life doesn't exist.
3) The Bible says that God gives meaning to our life. Memes later showed
that to be wrong. This doesn't mean meaning doesn't exist.
Thanks,
Dave Leeper
dleeper@sybase.com
"The Blue Sky is an Illusion created by the Sun to hide an Infinite Black
Void." - David Leeper
------------------------
>I can't speak for Dawkins, but this question isn't as tough as it seems.
> The unit of evolution is not the individual, its the genes. An alcoholic
>can pass on their genes quite well. My mother did. In fact, I've know
>alcoholics who were (sadly) very successful at reproduction. The drug can
>damage/destroy an individual all it wants, if the individual successfully
>passes on its genes, the genes have accomplished their "goal".
Let's evaluate this theory if children were allowed to drink/do drugs.
They would and do drink/take drugs to excess if adults did not control
their behavior through physical force or memetic transfer of
"drinking/drugs are bad". It just isn't easily explained from a gene
perspective. Our genes should want us to drink only to the point that we
procreate, but some drugs, like cocaine, actual inhibit the ability to
procreate. What if we gave cocaine to children? They would become
addicted and be unable to procreate and potentially die before puberty.
But that doesn't explain why everyone would want so much to do them in the
first place.
>While I tend to agree with this theory, I'm not so sure it applies to the
>case of the alcoholic. By making genes, not the individual, the unit of
>evolution, we can answer these "damage to the individual" types of
questions
>by simply ignoring them.
But referring to my previous paragraph, if damage to the individual
inhibits procreation of the gene, then why doesn't drug
addiction/alcoholism eventually become extinct? And is it really just a
mutation in the first place? Since if everyone did crack cocaine (I'm glad
to say I don't know this from personal experience), everyone would become
addicted.
>This one I have to flatly disagree with. Altruisum includes acts such as
>self-sacrifice for the good of the group. This is (was) really a tough nut
>to crack. How do you explain the voluntary destruction of an individual in
>terms of Evolution? It was cases like this that lead to the creation of
>Group Theory of Evolution and answers like the one given above about "more
>joy". A concept that has proven to be simpler and more fit is, again,
>genes. By performing the altruistic act, the individual actually increases
>the likelyhood of its genes reproducing! How? Through relatives. This
>explains Mothers sacrificing themselves for their childern, for example.
> This line of though is well worked out. A clear explaination of it, with
>many examples, can be found it the book "The Moral Animal".
What about gang/mob psychology? How do we explain in genetic terms
sacrifices made in interracial gangs? Is everything that cannot not be
explained, genetically, given a backup memetic explanation. If so, have
you not come to a similar argument that religion makes--"here's the
rationalization; if it doesn't fit, use this all-purpose explanation that
fits every other situation which explains everything in a circular
fashion..." This sounds like free will in Christianity (that explains away
all that icky bad stuff) or karma in Buddhism (because we deserve it).
And perhaps most importantly, is this group stating that there is no
meaning to life other than the meaning of gene-creation? This amorphous
soup where we all began--where did it come from? What's on the flip side
of the universe? I ask these questions because I wonder about them myself
daily. I ask myself daily because gene creation just isn't enough to
warrant getting out of bed each morning...
A wacky woman in KC,
Janet