MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
The extravagant splendor of the animal kingdom can’t be explained by natural selection alone — so how did it come to be?
Feature by Ferris Jabr for New York Times Magazine, published Jan. 9
[....] These biologists are not only rewriting the standard explanation for how beauty evolves; they are also changing the way we think about evolution itself. For decades, natural selection — the fact that creatures with the most advantageous traits have the best chance of surviving and multiplying — has been considered the unequivocal centerpiece of evolutionary theory. But these biologists believe that there are other forces at work, modes of evolution that are much more mischievous and discursive than natural selection. It’s not enough to consider how an animal’s habitat and lifestyle determine the size and keenness of its eyes or the number and complexity of its neural circuits; we must also question how an animal’s eyes and brain shape its perceptions of reality and how its unique way of experiencing the world can, over time, profoundly alter both its physical form and its behavior. There are really two environments governing the evolution of sentient creatures: an external one, which they inhabit, and an internal one, which they construct. To solve the enigma of beauty, to fully understand evolution, we must uncover the hidden links between those two worlds [....]
Comments
"There's no accounting for taste" => "We're accounting for taste now, & it's coming back like a motherf*cker..."
I see how it explains metrosexuals, but not mullets - waiting for the grand unified scheme.
Is there a gene for attraction? Are there undetected electromagnetic signals? (something that's been discovered between plants & insects). Rather than just an inclination for survival & one for beauty, is there a whole range of selectors - more complex than binary "I like Gucci" or "I'm more Mark Jacobs" in each category? Are we pre-programmed with measurable inclinations towards violence/aggression, laziness, cultural inquisitiveness, humor, depression, et al? Is there a hidden double helix of human evolution we're just starting to glimpse?
It also amazes me that Science will indoctrinate on a particular viewpoint for decades or even a century, and then occasionally find itself flat-footed wrong or deeply flawed. Are all the Doubting Thomases then rehabilitated, brought back from their re-education camps? Not likely. The brittleness of Evolution/Natural Selection has been a natural target for Evolutionists who felt beauty couldn't be explained by a bunch of chimps at a chromosomal keyboard trying to type out Da Vinci or monarch butterflies, so they naturally substituted their God for the appalling lack of explanation/hand-waving (which extends the philosopher Feuerbach's idea that we fill in our image of God with the best of our qualities - in this case we added Science's as well, unsurprisingly).
[wait for the coming Linguistics reformation that Tom Wolfe went out flagging in "The Kingdom of Speech" in his usual flamboyant style]
PS - epigenetics is also changing much, essentially "neoLamarckism" much more subtle than the giraffe-stretching-for-leaves, it pays attention to how genetic traits aren't simply turned on at birth, but reveal themselves through a complex set of environmental triggers or circumstance. So come Saturday night, my fashion chromosomes light up either Dolce & Gabbana or Comme des Garçons, and that decides how my evening will go. Or in a desperate anti-evolutionary stance, I decide to say "Fuck it" and just stay home - are we men or are we machines?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/13/2019 - 4:06am
budgies like their men to be computin' machines, they don't care what you look like so much:
(thought some of the comments on that one to be good computin')
by artappraiser on Sun, 01/13/2019 - 12:29pm
Thus Todd Rundgren's "I Want to Be Your #1 (Lowest Common Denominator)".
Beat Me, Whip Me, Make Me Solve Complex Quadratic Equations. Geeks are fer shure date bait, *everyone* knows that.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/13/2019 - 12:40pm
Re: we must also question how an animal’s eyes and brain shape its perceptions of reality and how its unique way of experiencing the world can, over time, profoundly alter both its physical form and its behavior.
by artappraiser on Mon, 01/14/2019 - 3:32am
#MeToo?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/14/2019 - 4:37am