"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above." --Katharine Hepburn to Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen, 1951
Evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond of the University of California at Los Angeles once classified humans as the "third chimpanzee" (the second being the bonobo). Genetically, we are very similar, and when it comes to high levels of aggression between members of two different groups, as I noted in last month's column on "The Ignoble Savage," we also resemble chimpanzees. Although humans have a brutal history, there's hope that the pessimists who forecast our eventual demise are wrong: recent evidence indicates that, like bonobos, we may be evolving in a more peaceful direction.
One of the most striking features in artificially selecting for docility among wild animals is that, along with far less aggression, you also get a suite of other changes, including a reduction in skull, jaw and tooth size. In genetics, this is called pleiotropy. Selecting for one trait may generate additional, unintended changes.
The most famous study on selective breeding for passivity began in 1959 by Russian geneticist Dmitri Belyaev of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Siberia. It continues today under the direction of Lyudmila N. Trut. Silver foxes were bred for friendliness toward humans, defined by a graduating series of criteria, from the animal allowing itself to be approached, to being hand fed, to being petted, to proactively seeking human contact. In only 35 generations the researchers produced tail-wagging, hand-licking, peaceful foxes. What they also created were foxes with smaller skulls, jaws and teeth than their wild ancestors.
----------------------------- Like silver foxes, humans have become more agreeable as we've become more domesticated. -----------------------------
The Russian scientists believe that in selecting for docility, they inadvertently selected for paedomorphism--the retention of juvenile features into adulthood--such as curly tails and floppy ears found in wild pups but not in wild adults, a delayed onset of the fear response to unknown stimuli, and lower levels of aggression. The selection process led to a significant decrease in levels of stress-related hormones such as corticosteroids, which are produced by the adrenal glands during the fight-or-flight response, as well as a significant increase in levels of serotonin, thought to play a leading role in the inhibition of aggression. The Russian scientists were also able to accomplish what no breeder had ever achieved before--a lengthened breeding season.
Like the foxes, humans have become more agreeable as we've become more domesticated. Whereas humans are like chimpanzees when it comes to between-group aggression, when it comes to levels of aggression among members of the same social group, we are much more like peaceful, highly sexual bonobos. Harvard University anthropologist Richard W. Wrangham proffers a plausible theory: as a result of selection pressures for greater within-group peacefulness and sexuality, humans and bonobos have gone down a different behavioral evolutionary path than chimps have.
Wrangham suggests that over the past 20,000 years, as humans became more sedentary and their populations grew, selection pressures acted to reduce within-group aggression. This effect can be seen in such features as smaller jaws and teeth than our immediate hominid ancestors, as well as our year-round breeding season and prodigious sexuality; bonobos were once called the "pygmy chimpanzee" because of their paedomorphic features. (Emory University psychologist Frans B. M. de Waal has documented how bonobos in particular use sexual contact as an important form of conflict resolution and social bonding.) Wrangham also shows how Area 13 in the human limbic frontal cortex, believed to mediate aggression, more closely resembles in size the equivalent area in bonobo brains than it does that same area in chimpanzees. A plausible evolutionary hypothesis suggests itself: limited resources led to the selection for within-group cooperation and between-group competition in humans, resulting in within-group amity and between-group enmity. This evolutionary scenario bodes well for our species--if we can continue to expand the circle of whom we consider to be members of our in-group. Recent conflicts are not encouraging, but in the long run there is a trend toward including more people (such as women and minorities) within the in-group deserving of human rights.
------------------------------------------------------ Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com) and author of Why People Believe Weird Things.
Thoughts on the Mechanics of assimilating out-groups and expanding the in-group.
Why worry about out-groups becoming part of the in-group? There are many out-groups. For the purpose of this thread, we’ll focus on a specific out-group. There are some who explain that the homosexual movement to gain entry into the in-group via marriages rights and rights in general is comparable to the overall struggle of humanity’s expansion of the in-group. This explanation starts out feeling right, but then it fades away as we look at what it is to 'become' homosexual.
What’s different about this out-group? In 6,000+ years, most of the groups that tried to become part of the in-group are fundamentally different from the out-group of homosexuals.
There is a process in 'becoming a homosexual' that is a different social trait that advances their group (indoctrination versus procreation). Very loosely and generally speaking, children are mistreated ( physically or emotionally or lack of proper education ) and later fall pray to the homosexual population that does in fact need to increase it's group size in order to survive because it otherwise does not reproduce itself. This makes it fundamentally different from all other groups. The weaker, unprepared, misdirected younger adolescence age group is were the majority of the homosexuals come from. We can begin to see what other points can be made from here even though this trait is highly disputable within the homosexual out-group.
We’re not bashing! I do not want to hurt the homosexuals and single them out like we have so many out-groups of the past ( for good or bad ). In fact, imagine if the lepers-out-group would have fought for rights to keep their individuality. Or the plague-victim-out-group? The out-group that infected small pox? The difference to this aberration is that even the out-group infected with those physical diseases 'desired to be cured'. But what if they hadn't? The difference of the 'state of mind' is what can define the beginning or the ending of a particular out-group within the social environment. Our state of mind ( in general ) was to create a cure for small pox. We rid that out-group as they also desired to be cured.
Can one survive a brush with almost becoming a part of the out-group? For anyone who has survived the process of the homosexual out-group trying to indoctrinate them into believing that they were always gay and that it is ok, could easily say that they survived a difficult, trying, exhaustive, situation. The homosexual out-group grows because the newly recruited members are not socially prepared to combat the onset of the indoctrination into the homosexual culture. Homosexuality in this light is more like a sickness upon the normal group and that is in fact avoidable – ‘if desired’.
Still not bashing! No, we cannot hate the homosexual out-group – that is not the answer. Just as we do not hate anyone who comes by us and who has a cold. We hold our breath if someone with a flu coughs etc. We all get flu shots, vaccines etc. But we don't hate the sick do we?
So how does the in-group let the out-group in under these circumstances? Well, are we sure we have to? Did we let in the small-pox out-group? The plague out-group? There are many people who remain heterosexual because at the end of the day, they were simply taught a different mindset and it was molded and nurtured in a strong parental environment and it was one of few defenses they had to drive away the indoctrination of homosexuality into their life. They have gone on to procreate and further their group. The decline of the out-group of homosexuals starts with the next generation of adolescence. With proper education and strong healthy relationships, the adolescent will not normally seek affection from a socially inept culture that does not fit with the larger trend of procreation for the advancement of the group in general.
Sometimes it is clear how to limit the assimilation of a particular out-group – for example, the pedophile-out-group. Other times it seems tough. Should the overall nature, character, behavioral traits, and culture be measured? Should they be scored against whether they advance the in-group versus prey on the weaker within-group members for the expansion of their circle?
How do we decide which out-groups should become part of the in-group? Deciding this now along the way could help sustain a future state of mind in another 300 or 400 years when the in-group is contending with the serial-murderer-out-group or the pedophiles-out-group or xyz-out-group that want to be part of the in-group. How can we decide the mechanics that allow the in-group to include the out-group? Hindsight will always be able to look back and draw the line in history where the in-group made the decision to absorb the next out-group. But time moves forward as well as backward and when we are driving we want to know what is coming. How can we decide which group comes in?
Back to the desire or state of mind – time to decide! Is it a matter of the state of mind of the in-group in general? If tomorrow the ‘prince of peace’ came riding in, wouldn't that change the state of mind and divide the in-group strongly between those that see and those that are blind? Wouldn't then the mechanics we have in place now to guide the absorption of new out-groups break down? Is there a mechanics built in already? Don't some see it as evolutionary and others as divine? But it is there – isn’t it?
If we choose not to use a moral precedent sufficient to exclude a particular out-group from becoming an accepted member of the in-group, does it leave us to draw the law a priori. If the out-group depends upon members of the otherwise normal within-group member in order to sustain it’s own group-wide numbers, is it suitable for inclusion? If the conduct of the out-group overall lends toward a reduction of the in-group members in favor of more out-group members, is it fit for inclusion?
[b]Closing The expansion of the in-group is the historical march of humanity. Our continued evolution depends upon how we manage the expansion of the in-group.
By drawing close to one out-groups desire to be ordained as in-group, we might be able to ascertain if we are equipped to design the mechanics that would one day be used to argue for or against an inclusion into the in-group.
I hope that we can find some good thoughts to help us all answer some of these questions. There is probably some out-group members on this board who might at first feel cornered on the issuse. Knowing your sentiment will help us learn and help us teach our adolescents and give them good defenses for their life so that they can make decisions that they can be proud of as well. Please poor out your thoughts freely.
Re:The Domesticated Savage by M. Shermer
« Reply #2 on: 2004-05-20 18:12:33 »
Calm-Fair^2, It's good that you don't want to partake in gay-bashing. With that in mind, I question your use of the phrase, "fall prey" to the homosexual population. This word, which comes from the word "predator" is a value-laden word that makes it clear you pass moral blame on people for being homosexual. So, it's more than a sickness in your eyes-- after all, if I contract a cold, have I been '"preyed on" by people with colds?
Was this just a poor choice of words on your part, or do you really consider the homosexual population to be sexual predators?
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
Re:The Domesticated Savage by M. Shermer
« Reply #3 on: 2004-05-24 14:02:44 »
I'm reading a book right now called An Intimate History of Humanity by Theodore Zeldin. Just last night I read a chapter which contains the following: "Homosexuality has been more or less accepted in about two-thirds of human societies at some time or other..." "It was only in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that a mass repression of homosexuality began in Europe, as part of a campaign against heresies of all sorts..." So maybe homosexuals aren't as 'out-group' as people think.
Actually verifying this stuff would take more research than I'm currently willing to put into it; I just thought I'd throw it out there for the rest of you. If anyone's interested in the bibliographic notes for that section let me know, it's two or three dozen books.
By the way, how did a discussion of silver fox teeth twist into a discussion of homosexuality?
For Matt_Arnold: Probably a poor choice of words. As a matter fact, there is support in relatively equal volume for what could be called chosen, learned, or genetic homosexuality. After this satarical entry, let us remove from the equation our personal opinions of the homosexual-out-group. Mr. Shermer's theories on in-group/out-group is suggesting that ( although hindsight is 20/20 ) the homosexual-out-group will eventually become in-group because that is the overall trend of humanity. With this in mind, what are the mechanics that we would need to employ in order to expand the in-group?
For brack: The reason for posting underneath the article for Shermer was to refute the idea that although domesticated, humanity will continue to expand thoughtlessly by simply expanding the definitions of what the in-group considers to be the barrier.
The homosexual-out-group wants to expand the in-group definition of marriage and they base this on: 1) they find the current law discriminatory 2) their relationship is based upon mutual consent 3) their relationship doesn't hurt another person or marriage
With this being the fundamental underlying 'mechanics' proposed to expand the in-group definition of marriage, what are your thoughts about these mechanics? Is this the only rule that needs to be applied in this case in order to redraw the barrier, redefine marraige, and expand the in-group?
Re:The Domesticated Savage by M. Shermer
« Reply #5 on: 2004-06-03 12:04:27 »
We would also need to include in those mechanics the fact that heterosexual in-group marriage is not just the 'in' thing, it's also crystallized in law. But the same law applies to hetero- and homosexuals, so we need to take some legal mechanics into account. Now that I think about it, it may be incorrect to even classify homosexuals as an out-group. They are citizens, coworkers, friends, and family with everyone else; how are they an out-group?
Re:The Domesticated Savage by M. Shermer
« Reply #6 on: 2004-06-03 12:22:58 »
Brack,
It's true that marriage in the traditional way, one man and one woman for one lifetime, is enshrined on a pedestal in the law, over and above alternative forms of marriage such as gay marriage, temporary serial marriages, or polyamory. That's the position of unfair priviledge traditionalists enjoy for being the in-group. It's not correct to say that the law applies equally to traditionally sanctioned relationships and others, when heterosexual permanent monogamy is given such special treatment in the law.
And what group doesn't include any citizens, co-workers, friends and family? Then how can these disqualify a group from being an out-group, unless there is no such thing as an out-group? Homosexuals have had to keep themselves secret to avoid being marginalized and abused, and thrown out of the rights of citizenship, out of a job, out of friendship and out of family. This abuse was sanctioned by the larger society. If that's not an out-group, nothing is.
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
Like the foxes, humans have become more agreeable as we've become more domesticated. Whereas humans are like chimpanzees when it comes to between-group aggression, when it comes to levels of aggression among members of the same social group, we are much more like peaceful, highly sexual bonobos.
Quote:
Wrangham suggests that over the past 20,000 years, as humans became more sedentary and their populations grew, selection pressures acted to reduce within-group aggression.
I wasn't suggesting that homosexuals don't get dumped on by society. All I was saying was that heterosexuals as a class don't compete with homosexuals as a class for territory, food, social status, or mating privileges. Unfortunately the spread of homophobic memes more than counteracts any loss of genetic fitness from wasting energy demonizing homosexuals. That last sentence is worded poorly, but hopefully you get what I mean.
Author
Logged
