sapiens

It becomes very difficult to respond to posts once they start getting long and complicated. (So many contributors to the discussion= to much for me to keep in my head). 4thTimeLucky Thanks for the thoughtful response. Your post was definitely interesting and I think it appealed to more than just the poster (you). My post on the other hand...

I like E.O. Wilson. He began the field of human sociobiology (applying evolutionary theory to human behavior). He paid for it too. People called him a nazi. He had punks like Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin in his department who smiled to his face and tore him apart in the press. Unfortunately, he hasn't written that much on the topic for a while. Regarding his comment about humans still evolving at all: In terms of changes in genetic frequencies, which in the biological sense, is evolution. We are evolving, even if it is to be similar. Regardless of that, it is impossible to say at any given time whether or not we are evolving in any direction. You would need to look further back than just a few generations. Also, evolution is not forward looking. It operates on the differential reproduction today. (If the differences between people have heritable components, and those differences influence reproduction, those genetic lines that reproduce more will survive and those that don't will fall into genetic oblivion). That being said, for Wilson to suggest that we are not evolving in any directional sense is academically irresponsible. He can't possibly know.

Regarding your comments about "Super Animals". I would argue that other animals have consciousness. Perhaps not the same consciousness as humans, but still consciousness. Also, E.O. Wilson was/is a big proponent of human behavior and psychology being influenced by our evolutionary past.

Regarding your comment about the evolutionary process being under our control: The evolutionary process is still for the most part out of our control. Some attempts have been made to consciously influence the evolutionary process. Most of them involve seriously infringing on personal liberty. The most notable attempt was the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Eugenicists wanted to sterilize the handicapped, immigrants, some races, some ethnic groups, etc. . We have certainly consciously influenced the evolution of other species through selective breeding. However, unless everyone is making conscious decisions about the genetic fitness of every trait in those with whom they reproduce, evolution is out of our conscious control.

Regardless of whether we are still evolving, our brains/minds have evolved in the same way that our bodies have evolved. So, we are not independent of our biology. (NOTE: This does NOT mean that we are genetically determined. Our minds are a product of the interaction of our evolved psychology and the environment in which we inhabit. Without our genes, we would not be. By the same token, without the environment, we would not be). Looking back at your post, 4thTimeLucky , you seem to agree. There are certainly many aspects of human psychology that are unique. (Our own consciousness might be one of them). However, I would argue that this does not mean that we are independent from evolution and psychology.

4thTimeLucky Regarding your wrap-up:

There is certainly a coherent structure to our actions. Psychologists study reliable patterns of behavior, so do biologists. If there was not a coherent structure to our actions we would not be able to have this discussion. (and that would be a bummer because I'm enjoying it).

You suggest that there is no objective morality with which to condemn or praise others. I agree.

Individual morality is a personal choice. (Others have said the same in this thread -BlueBongo, etc.) An important idea to keep in mind when thinking about biology and morality is "Just because it's natural does not mean that it is (morally) right." There are many natural things that are not good (AIDS, viruses, cancers, etc.) There are many artificial things that are good (modern medicine, this forum, etc). Biology has little to say about the way people "should" behave. Though, I think that biology has a lot to say when it comes to explaining what people actually do.

You suggest that if we are to build a better world it must be through power and not reason. I think that's up for debate. Maybe through reason imposed by power. Who knows?

Finally, how can Richard Dawkins be "one of the most annoying men you know"? Granted he is a very aggressive atheist and a bulldog for evolution, but he is a great writer.

Anyway, I have talked/written too much and I think I'm annoying my wife. I'm probably annoying others too. Somewhere along the line I stopped talking about morality. I should go. Thank you for the lively discussion.