RE: virus: Strange attractors and meta-religions (was God and

Mark Hornberger (markhornberger@nietzsche.net)
Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:04:15 -0500

At 09:00 PM 4/9/97 EDT, you wrote:
>
>Martz wrote:
>>I mostly agree with you but I'd like to broaden things a little. I used
>>an example of a comparatively simple creature, to wit a bird. People are
>>a bit more complex than that and are, as you rightly point out, subject
>>to a wider range of learned behaviour. Where we seem to differ is your
>>contention that 'care for your young' is a learned bahaviour. I would
>>contend that it is hard-coded in (allowing my previous disclaimer re:
>>circumstance) but that we learn *how* to care for them, I guess by
>>example. Those examples may not always be good ones, leading to the
>>behaviour I think you're talking about but whether or not that
>>constitutes negligence is a matter of semantics.<
>
>You and Mark seem convinced that "care for your young" is hard-coded; I
>guess we'll have to wait for the conclusion of the Genome Project to seek
>certainty. Learning "how" to care for the young is definitely a learned
>behavior, and I guess I'll have to give up the discussion at that point.
>Thanks!
>james
>
I wasn't making a hard-and-fast assertion, only musing, speculating. It
seems plausible to me that the urge to take care of our young is hard-wired
(the concern we feel, the protectiveness, whatever) yet the more practical
aspects - *how* to go about raising a child, are learned, acquired.

I know the whole nature/nurture debate has been around for a very long
time, and we can't be expected to resolve it in a few ten-line posts, but
it is interesting to talk about, no?

take care-

Mark