Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:16:26 -0600
From: Lisa Rogers <EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS-AT-EMAIL.STATE.UT.US>
Subject:  Re: Lamarck and Darwin -Reply


In thinking again about the Lamarckian hypothesis/example which I
learned in school and gave to the list (below), I started to wonder
if it was connected in its time to a type of "class analysis" that
supported the status quo.  

Obviously, if laboring breeds better laborers, then managering must
breed better managers and owners will birth better owners. 
Therefore, class mobility would be both against nature and against
efficiency of the economy.

I mean, I don't have any historical research to back this up, but
doesn't it make sense?  If one were trying to defend capitalism in
England around 1800, wouldn't that argument fit right in?

Then came Darwin, and right behind him Spencer and "social darwinism"
trying to twist science and misappropriate analogy, to support the
social/class/status quo.  (This part I do know historically.) 


Jim, I'm curious about what you think the effects of agriculture and
fire have been on genes and physiology, and by what mechanism.  Or
were you asking me?

Or, perhaps we could consider the effects these things may have had
on human social behavior.  I'm still curious about what Marx and
Engels thought about ag and pre-ag societies, how supportable their
views are in light of 100+ years of anthropology since, and how
essential is that view of prehistory to any plans for socialism.
(This is one of the overlaps between my field of
evolution/ecology/anthropology, in which I specialize on
hunter-gatherers, and marxism.)

Lisa


>>> Jim Jaszewski <ab975-AT-main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>  6/27/95,
05:24am >>>

On Fri, 23 Jun 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote:

> I think the Lamarckian answer might have been "well, we're not
> talking about cosmetic changes.  It has to be something useful,
> adaptive, in order for it to affect one's descendants."  The
typical> example I've heard is that of a blacksmith, who is very
large and> muscular.  He gets that way from practice.  Since he uses
his muscles> all his life, this muscularity somehow (no mechanism
suggested)> somehow becomes inheritable.  Therefore, he will have
muscular sons,> who of course are well-suited to the blacksmiths'
profession. 

(snip)
I myself have always been curious, though, of the effects of
agriculture on human physiology. Even MORE so, I've been curious of
the effects on our genetic make-up of the discovery of Fire..!! 




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------