tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-969156055853914313.post3260603086167206876..comments2023-05-20T13:45:03.656+02:00Comments on Ego sum Daniel: Evolution and the citizen. What about diversity in the human population?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-969156055853914313.post-38993778291624225562010-11-18T21:56:46.883+01:002010-11-18T21:56:46.883+01:00Hi Florian! Thanks for commenting.
I think we'...Hi Florian! Thanks for commenting.<br /><br />I think we're speaking "around each other", as we say in Swedish, but that's OK, I'll just clarify my point.<br /><br />I very deliberately wanted to avoid speculating about, as you write, <i>"evolutionary mechanisms... applied to the human population"</i> because like you I dislike those kinds of speculation. I wrote: <i>"but I have to be very skeptical when it comes to the idea of assigning a "value" to that diversity in itself or to over-interpreting the evolutionary role that any specific part of that diversity might play in the future of humankind and our changing society"</i>. So I did not at all want to make a point about the actual effect that things like ADHD and autism have on the changing allelic frequencies over time in the human population, because it's not important for the point I want to make. It's almost impossible to argue too because things like these are very polygenic, have dosage effects, trade-offs, and are in general very tricky to unfold genetically. <br /><br />So regardless of whether it might be selected for or selected against or not at all or only very very little (which is my own personal opinion), these traits are there and I don't think our evolution so far has done a "bad job" at not removing them. It's simply too complex of a situation to be able to say one way or the other. <br /><br /> I put "defects" in citation marks for a reason: the word shouldn't be used literally. Like you wrote, what's advantageous or disadvantageous changes, obviously, and in the case of human evolution it's mostly a question of speculative interpretation. The point is that evolution, taken as a whole, gives us diversity. It does NOT, as a whole, strive towards a homogeneous population. Understanding that changes our perpective on traits that are disadvantageous in our societal architecture, or are only <i>interpreted</i> as disadvantageous, but that in actuality are just as "normal" (within citation marks) as any other trait we would usually consider "normal". So people with ADHD or autism are not "defective" in an evolutionary sense, although they might experience difficulties. I think you fail to see the distinction because I only make it in a pedagogical sense and you, being smart, look one step ahead. So we're actually saying the same thing.Daniel Ocampo Dazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02921446445402838678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-969156055853914313.post-11727714418259688552010-11-17T16:41:15.497+01:002010-11-17T16:41:15.497+01:00Dear Daniel,
thanks about your post. I'd like...Dear Daniel,<br /><br />thanks about your post. I'd like to add some thoughts on evolution "striving" to rid humanity of conditions such as ADHS and autism (or rather not doing that): <br /><br />My opinion is that while evolutionary mechanisms of course can be applied to the human population, we have to be careful when doing it. Strong forms of autism can be a problem for an individuum living under savannah conditions, and would consequently be a selectable trait that evolution would perhaps "strive to remove" (i.e. it would not take hold in a majority of the population). I find it hard to argue, however, that in our (western,modern) human society, it still is a strongly selectable trait.<br /><br />You are saying that it is not a "defect" that evolution strives to purify us from, but a natural element of human diversity. I fail to see the distinction, since each "defect" is part of the natural diversity, as long as it is not introduced in an unnatural way, e.g. by mutagenic substances. And evolutionary principles (as an acting agent :-)) make no distinction between "defects" and "natural parts of variation". Every variation can be a defect under certain circumstances, it's the circumstances that define whether something is deleterious (a defect) or advantagous, or unimportant. <br /><br />Insofar it might be helpful to teach citizens about evolution, to make sure they don't see it as "purifying fire" that "weeds out the weak" and is all about "survival of the fittest". Saddeningly, some people use this wrong understanding of evolution to justify what they see as helping evolution, e.g. when cutting back social programmes etc.floribhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03955972476952649229noreply@blogger.com