Tresy Kilbourne wrote:

>But I don't get a sense here of WHY language would develop in even the right
>lobe. What evolutionary purpose did it serve?

The why of it seems obvious. Language is clearly a great advantage for
passing knowledge not only between contemporaries, but from generation to
generation. Passing knowledge to the next generation is what we think of as
"culture". The better humans are able to do this, the better the survival
chances of their next generation.

Some other animals do this as well, but humans do it much better. Much
*much* better.

To the extent that, at some point, the focus of human evolution switches
from the biological to the cultural.

Which brings us back to your earlier point, about the "freeloader" problem,
you wrote:

>The immediate objection to any kind of evolutionary theory of complex
>cooperative social arrangement is the Freeloader Problem. Simply put, if
>the individual can get something out of the system without putting
>something in, it's in the individual's survival interest to do so.

I wonder if this is not a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, which
is not about the survival interest of the individual, but the continuation
particular genetic characteristics.

The cultural traits of human society revolve around methods of
co-operation, society *is* co-operation and nothing more. Early human
society had such a limited gene pool that complex cultural practices had to
evolve to protect against the dangers of in-breeding, so the survival of
any member of the clan was the survival of the genetic line.

Even in many animals this is so, Kookaburras for example live in family
clans where only one dominant female breeds, the rest of the females work
to feed and raise that female's young, thus providing the young (carrying
the same genes as them) with an excellent chance of survival. There are
many other examples in the animal world.

Remember that in ancient society (prior to patriarchy) lineage was figured
in the female line. One could be certain who one's mother was, but one's
precise genetic father was often a mystery. An entire tribe was a complex
inter-related gene-pool, the competition for survival was not between
members of the tribe, but between tribes. Which means between cultures.

If the tribe survived, then the genetic heritage of every individual member
of the tribe would survive. So it was *not* in the interests of an
individual to "freeload", in fact this rather peculiar north American
obsession ignores the fact that very many of the great social, cultural and
scientific advancements of human history have been a result of what the
yanks would call "freeloaders". People like Aristotle, would be
"freeloaders" in the American jargon. But the simple fact is that it is
necessary to have some degree of security and freedom in order to pursue
what we think of today as scientific advancement. People who spend their
entire waking life scratching a subsistence income will have neither the
time or energy to make the advances which lift the entire society's
standard of living and survival chances.

>Lacking any restraint on freeloading, therefore,
>a form of social organization that relies on altruism alone from its members
>is doomed to fail. (Pinker discusses the rather cynical strategies of
>potlatch cultures and the like that have evolved for precisely this reason.
>Adherents of "libertarian socialism," as as I can see, avoid the issue
>entirely.)

I guess we just see it as so absolutely self-evidend that it is in the
interests of every member of society that individuals be entitled to the
protection of society that there *is* no issue. That is the whole point of
a human society, after all. Time will tell I suppose, evolution, especially
cultural evolution, is a continuing process and perhaps in the long run a
society where kids run around school-yard shooting each other because their
single parent mothers are being forced to sweep streets, instead of being
able to spend some time caring for their development will prosper. More
likely, that society will continue to get sicker and sicker. Then die, as
sick societies, societies which are unable pass on their cultural heritage
because of inherent deficiencies in the culture have often done. Time will
tell.

But I'm happy to discuss it, if you dare?

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas