I think that those forces modify human behavior in exactly the same manner that language does. I view variation on both levels as identical; and it is not so much that our behavior is “altered” so much as that human beings largely depends upon traditions and language to provide us with the context we need before we can make any decision or take any action.

I understand that it's different from being “natural” in the sense of a person's skin cells, but I think that that difference is analytically more trivial than I think Will and Huxley here make it out to be.

Ultimately, everything is natural (I believe).

I think the sense Will, and Huxley, are using it is a useful one, though. The arrival of these forces is relatively very recent, and radically modifies how people have previously behaved, and would behave in their absence.

I guess my point in the preceding comment was only that helping the poor and disadvantaged is sometimes a function of self-preservation (the Bourgeoisie placating the Proletariat out of fear of rebellion) rather than altruism or some notion that humans are entitled to a certain standard of living. It could be that some form of social safety net benefits even the strongest wolf. The question, I guess, is one of starting points. I don't think I owe some form of safety net. I think I benefit by providing one. I maintain that I'm the Titan (just smarter than other Titans).

This could all be for me (nobody seems to read comments to old posts — though I get a lot out of them), but I thought I might add a little to my prior comment in the hope that I might be allowed to participate going forward.

Or is the same outcome somehow “unethical” if it's done in the spirit of self-preservation rather than self-immolation?

The book you link to looks interesting, but the evolutionary implications of altruistic behavior are far from the only point of intersection between science and what used to be solely the realm of moral philosophy. I'm far from being an expert, but my understanding of current growing scientific knowledge about the highly contingent nature of human brain development in early childhood, particularly regarding linguistic and social/emotional development, leaves me highly skeptical of what has been widely believed in the past to constitute man's “true nature”. The understanding and fostering of the integration of a fully formed amygdala at birth with the 75% of human neuronal development that occurs between birth and the third birthday seems to have much greater implications for “moral progress” than does celebration of outdated quackery that either consists of or relies heavily upon thinly veiled justifications of religious authoritarianism. I'd think that the libertarians in the audience would agree with me on this, but I'm never very certain that I actually understand where libertarians are coming from so I wouldn't be too surprised to be wrong on this count.

Whoa…you had me until this point. Especially when you said this:

Our impulses have to be shaped by culture in a very specific ways in order to make it possible to live together in the way that produces long, happy, healthy, wealthy, lives.

But the idea that this wouldn't happen without a lot of concerted intervention is not an obvious conclusion to reach–at least, it is not obvious to me.

Let me put it this way: human language is part of our extended phenotype. However, there is a lot of variation among languages across regions and across history.

English has the most words of any language today–I know this for a fact. And while I don't know whether it also has the most words of any language in history, it wouldn't surprise me.

The manner in which English developed into its present state required some very specific steps along the way, but I would not say that it required “a lot of concerted intervention”. If anything, I think it happened incrementally without any concerted intervention of any sort, with a result that was no part of anyone's intentions.

In fact, hesitate to elaborate my position any further before I am certain I understand what you meant: what exactly did you mean when you stated that Civilization would not have been possible without concerted intervention? What form did this intervention take?

Yes, just as I wouldn't say that a beaver dam is unnatural because it is put together in a way that would not have occurred had the beaver not intervened.

Historically, most human societies have not has conventions that support an amazingly liberal order of astonishingly extended, complex, and peaceful cooperation.

This is a blanket statement that I challenge you to support. There has always been extended, complex order and peaceful cooperation–as well as extended, complex order with coercive underpinnings. The Roman empire created a amazingly open hub of trade in goods and ideas; but it was also an empire that ruled by force.

The level of wealth and the sheer number of people involved are unprecedented–I'm not arguing with that. But the idea that human convention is ever better than nature is naive as those who, as you say, have a stupid view of nature.

So Yo Yo Ma is a cello virtuoso. So what!? Everybody can hum. Come on people.

Either I'm a poor communicator or you just felt like snarking without even pretending to base it on what I was saying. Yo Yo Ma is a virtuoso, and part of the way we are able to tell that is because he operates within a set of musical conventions with standards that his peers can judge him by. Frankly I have no idea why you brought this up, as I cannot see its relevance to the present discussion.

All human societies have conventions, yes. Historically, most human societies have not has conventions that support an amazingly liberal order of astonishingly extended, complex, and peaceful cooperation.

So Yo Yo Ma is a cello virtuoso. So what!? Everybody can hum. Come on people.

The “artificiality of civilization” means that the highly developed, refined, peaceful human institutions we so rightly prize are the consequence of amplifying some weak natural tendencies and suppressing some strong ones. You know, artifice. Sure, all flavorings are made of molecules, but you understand what an “artificial flavoring” is, right?