With all due respect, from a newbie in this forum to someone who has been here a long time, upnorthkyosa, I find that your "everything is biology and that's that" explanations to be not arguments at all about biology or how it affects us, but to be essentially tautological arguments that "explain" nothing.
Your view on biology = capitalism is, truly, exactly what lead to Social Darwinism. And Social Darwinism is a system...a social system implemented by or rejected by people... that I consciously reject, and I think most people reject. Your concept of biology "explaining" things takes only competition into account. Most biological/ evolutionary models now try to account for things like *group* selection as well as selection on the individual level, as well as things like cooperation and altruism. Do I think that competition isn't important? Of course it is. But it is not the only force in biological systems. And as humans who think about what social systems they put into place, we can choose a different system if that is what we want, or think would work best.
And just as an aside, I am thoroughly amused to see that virtually all examples of competition given are of men competing for women. Sexual selection is something related, but one of the kinds of competition. As an example of competition, I would probably pick foraging or fighting for food first. But that's probably my personal bias in my own example.
and you'll see that as soon as tools pop into the picture, brain size explodes.
Again, not a causation - a correlation. What else was going on when tools were around? A simple confounding variable, and we do not know.
From then on not enough time has passed to see any more morphologic changes though. Changes inside the brain have been recorded, though. New connections can be observed in todays children that would not be seen in a scan our mine or your brain.
The first part, I completely agree with you. We have not been around long enough to see significant evolutionary changes.
The second part - so what if our children have different kinds of connections? To me that simply means that they live in a different kind of environment than you or I did when growing up, and that they may, oh, be processing more visually than someone years ago, who may have learned more material aurally. Just an example. I agree that as we compile more data about the world, there is more kids can learn. But this is *can* learn. That does not mean that kids today are super-brilliant sponges that absorb everything there is to learn. To me, changes in brain connectivity may mean individual "adaptions" and flexibility to local environments.
As long as people cling to this position that "we are more then what we are made of" nothing but confusion will follow. No one will ever be able to put their finger on the more and agree on what they see. Where as we can see a strand of DNA and analyze it (and maybe argue for a while) and eventually see what it says about who we are.
(laughing) I am fortunate enough to train with some of the best molecular biologists and geneticists in the country. None of them would agree with this statement. Your DNA, although you can look at it (in a way), and measure it, and materially experience it (which seems to be the basis of your definition of something "real" or "biological", or perhaps I am wrong)...and although it is certainly IMPORTANT in the development of the person... is also certainly NOT the end all and be all of what a person is. If so, explain to me why only 50% of identical twins, whose identical twin develops Schizophrenia, and who therefore have the exact same biological underpinnings for Schizophrenia, actually develop the disease themselves. If biology were all we were, all of those genetically identical doubles should without a doubt develop the disease.
No one will ever be able to put their finger on the more and agree on what they see.
As someone with extensive training in multiple academic fields, I am completely surprised by your thumbing your nose at all social sciences. Whether *you* agree with them or not, scientists are attempting to (and are) come to agreements on many part of the "more" and figure out what is going on.
Anyways, that aside.
Yes, Moore has an opinion in his documentaries - who doesn't? I still suggest that people watch the film before going off on how it's not based in fact at all. I haven't seen it yet, but I hope to, so I can join in the discussion of the points made or scenes shown in the film.
