Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I think our check / balance is in the form of bacteria & viruses. These will be our downfall. (other than ourselves). Even after we think we have beaten a virus and thought it was extinct. Amazingly it turns up again... and with our global village it can circulate so fast we will probably not know what is hitting us when it does happen.

Im not sure if this has been metioned as this thread grew so quickly and i didnt get a chance to read the whole thing. But i dont understand how these critics could say this when the calgary zoo alone has had two succusful births of asian elephants in the past. Why dont they start criticising humans for practicing infanticide because it is a horrible reality that still goes on

Certainly the increasing concentration of humans in certain regions, coupled with accessible high-speed transportation, allows for the possibility of significant loss of life due to disease. Remember that bacteria, etc. evolve much more quickly than humans (hence why vaccines/medicines rapidly become ineffective), and when we start running into more significant problems with developing these remedies, we may have in a sense manufactured our own extinction (using the term loosely - there are enough isolated groups of humans that I doubt we will actually become extinct anytime soon, but our numbers could be substantially reduced). If not for relatively timely and appropriate reaction on the part of the authorities during the SARS outbreaks, we may have had larger problems. And then there's the flu...

Unless I'm very mistaken, I would argue that greed almost certainly did not come out of territoriality. Territoriality is a relatively complex behaviour, and arises only under very specific conditions (which I won't start listing, but I do have them if anyone is interested). I would argue greed is part of resource acquisition, which conversely to territoriality, is something every organism must engage in. I expect at some point in history, early hominids began to collect more resources (food, water, firewood, etc.) than what was required for the collector alone, in order to share with kin and other group members, and to store for times of hardship. The ability to acquire excess/supplemental resources would eventually have become associated with ability to provide for mating partners and offspring, so it would have been selected for, evolutionarily. So I would argue that the interest of modern humans in acquiring material possessions is the result of this. Naturally we have the ability to rationalize and control this behaviour at this time, but the genes still exist, and aren't likely to go away. Note as well the reams of research showing that women tend to prefer older, successful men, and men tend to prefer young (fertile) women, and this of course is why. So, agreeing with Albert, greed does have a purpose, but disagreeing that it could possibly be a behaviour resulting from territoriality.

A comment on predation - predators won't kill more prey than they need for themselves and any others they are providing for, because to kill more than necessary would be a waste of precious energy, and animals with a bloodlust like this would rapidly be selected out (ie. would not have energy/time to mate and thus would not transmit the bloodlust gene). Evolution is about doing "just enough."

Remember that definitions, particularly those on the Internet, are lay definitions, and may not be entirely applicable to what we're discussing here.

Again, if you buy into macroevolution/speciation, then you also have to buy the idea (fact) that only the most functional genes will be passed on over the long term. So there is no straight jump in humans from useful traits/behaviours to exorbitant (maladaptive) ones (although there is environmental moderation on previously adaptive traits/behaviours).

I hope I haven't forgotten something important here. :rolleyes: I'm really enjoying this thread though.

I've got to agree with Albert that greed evolved from territoriality. Without the need for territory and the resources within a certain territory by a particular animal or group of animals, there would be no basis for greed to become part of the equation for early hominids. But, then, I have not read the stuff Quinn is reading, so I am only expressing an opinion based on what makes sense to me.

However, if Quinn is talking genetics here to define the distinction between greed and territory, then we must apply the theory of evolution to the territoriality gene to become an offshoot of the greed gene, imo.

Totally agree here that hominids, at some point, began to store certain resources for times of hardship. However, am not sure how early this would have taken place. For a very long time, hominids and humans were hunter/gatherers and led a nomadic lifestyle. Some cultures even today are nomadic, though they are increasingly being pressured into settling into one place by the invasion of the modern world.

With the development of agriculture, only 12,000 to 14,000 years ago, and the storing of grain for use during upcoming non-harvesting seasons, life change dramatically for many humans. These early humans would have demanded a certain fixed territory for crop production. To me, the development of agriculture has caused the most dynamic change in human behaviour since the taming of fire and tool making much earlier in our evolution.

On the first point, I've emailed a professor about this to see what he says so hopefully we'll have a good authoritative answer soon. However I also must note that there are species (and even human cultures) which are not territorial but exhibit some of the characteristics of greed that I listed... as for genetics, well, genetics is what evolution is about. Without Mendel, Darwin would have been hooped. There is no evolution without genetics.

On the second point, I'm not sure either, as I have no background in anthropology.

I understand now. You didn't say that animals have greed. You were just expanding my points and explaining where you think greed came from in humans.

Even nomadic animals and humans have a particular territory they inhabit, though the territory is vast enough to provide them with food throughout the seasons. Take, for example, caribou in the Arctic. They travel vast distances seasonally, and there have been concerns expressed by environmentalists when building pipelines through caribou migration routes (territory) that the pipelines might disrupt caribou migration.

Territoriality isn't just about living somewhere though, it's about excluding conspecifics from a home range through physical attack, visual display, scent, etc. Diet is a major factor in whether an animal will be territorial. Gorillas, being folivores, are not, whereas chimpanzees, being primarily frugivores, are. Competition for mates is also a significant factor in territoriality, and this type of territoriality occurs in everything from songbirds to beetles.

Based on what you're saying, Quinn, I'm confusing territory with range.

Sounds possible. Although I still wouldn't say that "greed" as we've defined is connected to having an animal having a specific range.