11th June 2009, 3:24 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yIMReUsxTt4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yIMReUsxTt4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
A couple biologists talking about evolution.
LAZY, WATCH ABOUT 55 MINUTES IN! They explain that once genes are done building a brain, they lose all control of it, and that a gene's "motives" (a metaphor) are not to be confused with our brain's subconcious motives. A gene may "selfishly" program us to enjoy sex and take care of children, and build those basic rules in there for the world they were selected for, but once those genes have built that brain, if the world that brain ends up in is different, it's too late, they can't do jack to inferfere or subvert that brain afterwards. So if that brain ends up adopting children or using protection during sex to avoid pregnancy, so be it, the genes can go jump in a lake. They never adapted for an environment where sex didn't lead to children or for people to live in such huge clusters that massive amounts of lost children were available and indeed housed for adoption. When we have sex, nothing in our brains is programmed by the genes to think of the consequence, they just "count on" that consequence happening. Genes go for "good enough" whenever possible because that's all the power natural selection has. In the past, a sex drive was "good enough".
Oh, that guy on the left CREATED the selfish gene idea. I think he'd know what it meant if you decide to say they're both wrong about the interpretation.
A couple biologists talking about evolution.
LAZY, WATCH ABOUT 55 MINUTES IN! They explain that once genes are done building a brain, they lose all control of it, and that a gene's "motives" (a metaphor) are not to be confused with our brain's subconcious motives. A gene may "selfishly" program us to enjoy sex and take care of children, and build those basic rules in there for the world they were selected for, but once those genes have built that brain, if the world that brain ends up in is different, it's too late, they can't do jack to inferfere or subvert that brain afterwards. So if that brain ends up adopting children or using protection during sex to avoid pregnancy, so be it, the genes can go jump in a lake. They never adapted for an environment where sex didn't lead to children or for people to live in such huge clusters that massive amounts of lost children were available and indeed housed for adoption. When we have sex, nothing in our brains is programmed by the genes to think of the consequence, they just "count on" that consequence happening. Genes go for "good enough" whenever possible because that's all the power natural selection has. In the past, a sex drive was "good enough".
Oh, that guy on the left CREATED the selfish gene idea. I think he'd know what it meant if you decide to say they're both wrong about the interpretation.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)