by Spider » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:28 pm
@Dharma
No, not really. In a great many cases, sure. Far from being "impossible to argue", its easy to point out the two most obvious rocks in that shoe: Homosexuality and suicide. Two behaviors that have absolutely zero adaptive utility. We can speculate about what use removing oneself from the gene pool might have to others, I suppose, but people are going to be coming up with explanations for those for years to come.
IMO, the trouble with blaming behavior on genetics that may well be ancient is that its easy to fall into determinism: Rich people are rich because they inherited more advantageous behavioral traits. Thus, its useless to try to improve the lot of the poor, as they are genetically predisposed to lower achievement anyways. Or that because evolution has shaped our behavior into what it is...what it is is what it ought to be.
Its a philosophy that is I think correct in cases such as behaviors that are easily demonstrated to be crucial, like a colt being able to get up and walk so quickly after its born, or the human knack for language....but it gets fuzzier when you get into questions like rape, and the arguments for or against the reproductive advantage.