Notes

  1. . Donald T. Campbell, “On the Conflicts between Biological and Social Evolution and between Psychology and Moral Tradition,” in this issue.
  2. . Ibid.
  3. . Ibid.
  4. . F. T.Cloak, Jr., “Is a Cultural Ethology PossibleHuman Ecology  3 (1975): 161–82.
  5. . Most of the urban social order mechanisms of which Campbell writes involve kindness to strangers or refraining, at least, from damaging them; so at first glance it might seem truer to his formulation to phrase these presumed cultural instructions as “I+ because U+ because O+ although C–.” If we keep in mind, however, that “O +” means benefiting O in the narrow sense of promoting O's survival and/or reproduction, we see that being kind to another individual organism benefits the urban social order directly, not (primarily, at least) through benefiting the other individual.
  6. . W. D. Hamilton, “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 (1964): 1–51 (reprinted in Group Selection, ed. G. C. Williams [Chicago: Aldine‐Atherton, Inc., 19711, pp. 23–87).
  7. . Donald T.Campbell, “Blind Variation and Selective Retention in Creative Thought as in Other Knowledge Processes,” Psychological Review  67 (1960): 380–400.
  8. . My use of alphabetical symbols and of + and – here becomes somewhat inconsistent–L +, for example, does not mean that the instruction benefits a learning mechanism but rather that it is retained by that mechanism.
  9. . The idea of EEPA is derived, via Campbell (n. 1 above) and E. O. Wilson (Socio‐biology: The New Synthesis [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1975]), from R. L. Trivers, “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism,” Quarterly Review of Biology 46 (1971): 35–57. In his theory of reciprocal altruism ‘Trivers includes “moralistic aggression” (p. 49) as a reinforcing process for preexisting mutualistic behavior. What I have done here is reverse the temporal order of retention of the two features and generalize the process.
  10. . Campbell (n. 1 above).
  11. . Ibid. This case serves well to illustrate the difference between motivation and function. The X behavior is here motivated by a proconformist mechanism; it is cued by innovative, nonconformist behavior on the part of the X carrier or other organism. However, the function of X and its behavior–the outcome by which it gains its I + evolutionary status–is the isolation, destruction, etc., of Z‐like U– instructions. The distinction between these two becomes manifest when X punishes some nonconformist behavior that happens to be U +. (If that happens too often, of course, as in a time of rapid social change, X's valence changes from “I+ because U+” to “I– because U –.”)
  12. . In such a context, I think, the EEPA process is thus a mechanism of what Campbell calls “downward causation”–an emergent entity (society or ecosystem, in this case) causing change at the microlevel (Donald T. Campbell, “‘Downward Causation’ in Hierarchically Organized Biological Systems,” in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, ed. Francisco J. Ayala and Theodosius Dobzhansky [London: Macmillan Go., 1974], pp. 179–86).
  13. . Campbell (n. 1 above); emphasis added.
  14. . Cities have always needed and had mechanisms for recruiting organisms from their hinterlands.
  15. . See, e.g., R. B. Lee and I. De Vore, Man the Huntur: The First Intensive Survey of a Single, Crucial Stage of Human Development–Man's Once Universal Hunting Way of Life (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1968).
  16. . This may well be a mere elaboration of Campbell's statement, “Adaptive evolution… works best when the evolving social organization is a small part of the total environment, so that variations in the social organization do not substantially change the selective system, that is, the overall environment” (n. 1 above).
  17. . Ibid.
  18. . Ibid.
  19. . Note that this absolutist attitude is nonreciprocal. To the lion, some antelope genes are good and some are bad: The genes that make the antelope meaty are good and the genes that make it shy are bad. If he could, the lion would domesticate the antelope, encouraging the good genes and trying to eliminate the bad genes; and that is exactly what urban social orders do to us humans, genetically and (especially) culturally.