|
vincentML -> RE: bipolar man executed in China (12/31/2009 6:05:41 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
Whereas I see the phenomenon from the point of view of evolution biology: if crime exists, there must be some benefit for the gene pool and the population in which it manifests, otherwise it would be selected against by natural (and sexual) selection. (I also will applaud anyone who kills such destructive individuals, though.)
So, whatever the difference in their brain, I suspect that it is proper for them.
Couldn't it be something as simple as an instinctive urge to do whatever it takes to survive (and thus preserve the DNA) no matter what the cost? Think of it this way.... what is crime? Most of it comes down to doing whatever it takes to get as much money as possible, with no regard for the customs of your social group. Right? If you have a group of 20 individuals, a group in which it is generally accepted that nobody steals anyone else's banana, and 19 of those individuals are genetically predispositioned to follow the rules, the 20th individual - the one who feels no reluctance to eat whatever banana he can get his hands on - may have a better chance of survival than the other 19 when food is hard to find. Which would explain why women, especially young women, are so often and so inexplicably attracted to "bad boys" - "Hmmm... if i share DNA with that guy, no matter what happens he's going to do whatever it takes to make sure our kids always have plenty of bananas. My kids will have a better chance of survival if he's our provider."
Hello, Panda. Here is the problem I see with the genetic argument. The 20th guy in your scenario would likely be run off by the other 19 and be unlikely to pass along his thieving gene, especially in hunter/gather societies and in agricultural societies. Consider the American West at the end of the 19th Century. It is unlikely that horse thieves lived long enough to have progeny. There may be others but Jesse James is the only outlaw I can think of off hand who had children. Most were loners, traveled with a small band at best, and trafficked with whores.
Look at the history of the prohibition kings and bank robbers in the 20s and 30s. Al Capone, Dillinger, Nelson, etc. I can't recall any being family men or finding the time as they evaded the Law to have children. In the 20th Century some of the Mafioso had children. John Gotti comes to mind. Of course the movie The Godfather and the TV series The Sopranos portray the main hoods as family men. However, look at the characters around them. With a few exceptions they were single men. I understand that could be for the purposes of script economy. I suspect if we listed all of the American criminals these past 230 years or so we would find them mostly childless. The lifestyle they chose would not lend itself to passing on the genes.
In a very real sense this is a case where Nurture limits Nature imo.
|
|
|
|
