Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 08:54:06 -0600
Subject:  TREE - reply to Terry's of 4-19, part 1


[p.s. All my quotation marks have been turned into little black boxes
in my present view, so I don't know what they'll look like to you,
may be question marks.  Sorry.]

Subject: 	Re: McDonough - Rogers on TREE

Regarding our previous correspondence about evolutionary
ecology/anthropology, starting with the text of an article for TREE
that I co-authored, Terry McDonough wrote on April 19, 1996:

TM:  When this is thrashed out, the basic model seems to be that 
individuals pursue their interests in the form of reproductive 
success.  They attempt to maximize reproductive success through the 
optimal allocation of scarce resources.  Competition guarantees that 
observed strategies are maximizing strategies.

Lisa: Yes. [One clarification - maximize really means optimize when
it comes to all the smaller problems and tradeoffs between their
solutions, such as the number of eggs vs. the probability of survival
of each egg due to the division of limited food, as supplied by
caretakers.]

TM:  This model is obviously filched from neoclassical economics.  It
is  not initially based on a few well supported assumptions with
their  origins in biological theory.  It is a slightly modified set
of  assumptions taken from a not very compelling paradigm of
economics  and applied metaphorically to animal behaviour and then by
further  analogy to human foraging behaviour.  This observation alone
is  enough to raise legitimate suspicions.

Lisa: What is natural selection if not ?biological theory? ?  If
Darwinian theory does not provide ?well supported assumptions?,
please show me what does.  As I?ve tried to explain before, the
language is metaphorical, but the process is concrete.  I could try
to use other language, but the process would remain the same.  I?m
not interested in ?suspicions? based on the origin of some analytical
tool, I?m interested in how biology really works.  Sorry if the
language is distracting, but it is no ?analogy? to apply evolutionary
ecological thought to humans, since we are products of that on-going
process ourselves.

TM:  Do animals really _maximize_ reproductive success?  Do they
pursue  other goals and even if reproductive success is the only
goal, is it maximized?

Lisa: Yes they do.  So do plants, fungi, bacteria and viruses.  Based
on evolutionary theory, the pursuit of various immediate goals is
expected to be ultimately in the service of Reproductive Success
[RS], i.e. eat to live, live to breed, tradeoff one?s own survival
[risk of predation] against the chance to obtain more mates by
ranging farther above ground [male kangaroo rats] etc.

TM:  Do animals really _ allocate_  resources?  Or is this something
only  humans do and only at certain times and in certain cultural
contexts?

Lisa: Depends on what you mean - a consciously thought out budget is
certainly not required.  They generally act as if they are allocating
according to what is likely to get the best ?returns? in RS.  So do
plants.  There are specific physiological mechanisms that literally
cut off certain fruits, so the plant ?chooses? non-randomly which
fruits will be kept and receive resources to develop, and which and
how many are ?aborted?.  This physiological choice takes into account
factors such as pollen type and quantity and water supply, so that
selective fruit retention responds adaptively, in a way that is
likely to increase RS, under various circumstances.  The evidence is
clear.  Yes, plants have [physiological] ?behavior? and energy
budgets, and operate in a complex, adaptive, strategic, competitive
way, each one apparently ?trying? to maximize lifetime RS.

Sorry, no reference with me for these specific examples.  I recommend
_Evolutionary Ecology_ or it might be ?intro to?, by Krebs and
Davies, a good textbook commonly used in behavioral ecology courses. 
I think there are no human examples in that particular book, so maybe
one can appreciate the biology without worrying about ?sociality? and
politics as much.

TM:  Do animals really_ compete_ with one another?  Or is this
something  only humans do in a game context (human games are real,
game theory  is a metaphor based on human games) and in certain
(mostly  capitalist) economies?

Lisa: Yes, they do.  I don?t know how you can doubt that.  Are we so
very far from seeing the same world around us?

Or am I paying too much attention to your rhetorical flourishes? 
Your basic point is, you think EE is using an inappropriate
?metaphor?.  Is there nothing I can say to convince you otherwise?  

If this is your view, please clarify.  Is it because you think that I
don?t really understand how biology/evolution actually works?  So the
economic-like language badly misrepresents reality, and is therefore
a ?bad model? in some hard science sense?  If so, please explicate
your alternate vision.

Cheers,
Lisa


[TREE4-19.a]




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---