We don’t eat wood chips and don’t like the way they taste, not because they are bad for us, but rather because we would rather eat potato chips.
I’m sorry but I find this premise completely ridiculous - obviously we don’t like how they taste because they are bad for us. Evolution isn’t only about preference, it’s also about avoiding stuff, like poison or rotten food or woodchips or whatever. I don’t think we can come to an agreement on such a premise.
Again, that is exactly the point I am making. Wood chips are not “bad for us” in an isolated scenario. You can eat wood chips all day and be perfectly fine. Aside from starving to death, lol. We eat potato chips because we can digest them and gain nutrients.
Evolution did not code us to avoid wood chips. There’s no “wood chip aversion” gene. It coded us to seek out potato chips.
This distinction, while built on a silly premise, is important so that we can be accurate about what evolution drives us to and away from.
We risk mischaracterizing the nature of evolutionary forces by assigning to it a level of forethought it does not have. And explaining social concepts by simply assigning the wide sweeping “evolution must have made us like/dislike thing” and then coming up with reasons after the fact, without evidence, leads us down an incorrect path.
So the whole point I am making is that aversion towards incest is not rooted in primary drives but rather in the socio-primate drives.
It’s there for a good reason but to find out why we need to shed simple explanations which, while plausible on the surface, do not lend evidence to the facts.
Evolution did not code us to avoid wood chips. There’s no “wood chip aversion” gene. It coded us to seek out potato chips.
Again, I just think this is completely wrong. Evolution definitely does not only code us to go towards things we want, it also codes us to avoid harmful things. Evolution optimizes on all fronts at once.
We risk mischaracterizing the nature of evolutionary forces by assigning to it a level of forethought it does not have.
Evolution is a concept so obviously it doesn’t have forethought, but it doesn’t need that forethought to still evolve in a given direction. Natural selection drives evolution to whatever is preferable - if that includes an aversion to incest, then natural selection will select for that trait, given enough time.
So the whole point I am making is that aversion towards incest is not rooted in primary drives but rather in the socio-primate drives.
What evidence or arguments do you have for this? Aside from what you’ve presented already, as that has not been convincing. My explanation seems consistent and simpler and occams razor would prefer it.
It would be very simple for a person to look at any evidence and say “that does not convince me” and continue to demand more while simultaneously providing no evidence of their own.
That doesn’t seem very fair, does it?
Anyway, as usual, the answer that rests between our two viewpoints is “it’s complicated”.
There’s plenty of literature on kin avoidence as well as the advantages and disadvantageous of inbreeding. Help yourself.
I’m sorry but I find this premise completely ridiculous - obviously we don’t like how they taste because they are bad for us. Evolution isn’t only about preference, it’s also about avoiding stuff, like poison or rotten food or woodchips or whatever. I don’t think we can come to an agreement on such a premise.
Again, that is exactly the point I am making. Wood chips are not “bad for us” in an isolated scenario. You can eat wood chips all day and be perfectly fine. Aside from starving to death, lol. We eat potato chips because we can digest them and gain nutrients.
Evolution did not code us to avoid wood chips. There’s no “wood chip aversion” gene. It coded us to seek out potato chips.
This distinction, while built on a silly premise, is important so that we can be accurate about what evolution drives us to and away from.
We risk mischaracterizing the nature of evolutionary forces by assigning to it a level of forethought it does not have. And explaining social concepts by simply assigning the wide sweeping “evolution must have made us like/dislike thing” and then coming up with reasons after the fact, without evidence, leads us down an incorrect path.
So the whole point I am making is that aversion towards incest is not rooted in primary drives but rather in the socio-primate drives.
It’s there for a good reason but to find out why we need to shed simple explanations which, while plausible on the surface, do not lend evidence to the facts.
Again, I just think this is completely wrong. Evolution definitely does not only code us to go towards things we want, it also codes us to avoid harmful things. Evolution optimizes on all fronts at once.
Evolution is a concept so obviously it doesn’t have forethought, but it doesn’t need that forethought to still evolve in a given direction. Natural selection drives evolution to whatever is preferable - if that includes an aversion to incest, then natural selection will select for that trait, given enough time.
What evidence or arguments do you have for this? Aside from what you’ve presented already, as that has not been convincing. My explanation seems consistent and simpler and occams razor would prefer it.
It would be very simple for a person to look at any evidence and say “that does not convince me” and continue to demand more while simultaneously providing no evidence of their own. That doesn’t seem very fair, does it?
Anyway, as usual, the answer that rests between our two viewpoints is “it’s complicated”.
There’s plenty of literature on kin avoidence as well as the advantages and disadvantageous of inbreeding. Help yourself.