Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rick Zammuto's avatar

Controversies and Criticisms

"The concept of the EEA is not without criticism. Some argue that it oversimplifies human evolution and that it’s difficult to determine what exactly the “typical” EEA would have been like, as environments could have varied significantly. Others caution against the potential for misuse of the EEA concept to justify or normalize certain behaviors based on “natural” arguments."

Both of these statements are scientifically ridiculous to me. Anybody who knows the human ecological conditions during the times mentioned would have no question that human evolution would NOT be changed by minor environmental changes. That is the whole point of evolution by natural selection that small environmental variations are way too small to change ALL the millions of years of genome changes that have led to ANY organism in question. Oversimplifying human evolution sounds like a weird religious argument to me. I cannot see how any good evol/ecologist would make such a weird argument. "Misuse of the EEA concept to justify or normalize certain behaviors based on “natural” arguments" really pisses me off since ALL behaviors to an Ethologist are normalized behaviors/natural arguments. Sounds like this is a lost shrink who made these fake "Controversies and Criticisms". The only partly true event is we do get fat today from eating nourishing, sweet-tasting fruits but that trait was really caused back during our monkey stage NOT the period discussed when we ate more meat and mushrooms gathered by females when males were off hunting.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?