Re: virus: Strange attractors and meta-religions (was God and Level-3)

Martz (
Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:18:56 +0100

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, "Wright, James 7929" <> wrote:

>Sort of a "Sophie's Choice" forced on people in their daily lives?
> Please consider the post I sent to Tony. I would suspect that the best
>examples of parental neglect I can devise are not a result of extreme
>circumstances, but of individual deviant behavior. Were parental neglect
>a normal occurrence, the race itself would be in danger of dying out
>through low birthrate.
> The existence of parental neglect is not proof that "care for your
>young" is not hard-wired; but since human sexuality is a learned
>behavior, as is language and most other human social behavior, I would
>contend that "care for your young" is also a learned behavior. We border
>on a discussion of "instinct versus learned behavior", which I lean
>heavily on the "most behavior is learned in humans" side of.
>What do you think?

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.


For my public key, <> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.

Sunburned ears and tight helmets don't mix.