Let’s just say for the sake of argument that depression does have an evolutionary basis as you say (it would actually be more surprising if it didn’t have any such basis). From my perspective this wouldn’t automatically make it worth preserving if we were in the hypothetical position to eliminate it. That something is evolved, or has an evolutionary basis, does not automatically decide its goodness or badness—evolution has given us many characteristics that we would rather change were we in a position to do so.
alexflint, I agree with you. Just because something has evolved (or may have evolved) is not a reason to continue it.
I suspect that violence against women may have an evolved component (to reduce maternal death from cephalopelvic disproportion), but now cannot be justified for that because there are much better options (medical c-section). There may be other “features” of violence against pregnant women (epigenetic programming of the fetus to be more violent via the ’cycle of violence”), but I think the downsides of violence against women greatly outweighs any positives that may have existed during evolutionary time.
I think if we could eliminate violence against women we should do it. What ever positives there might be for individuals, for society it is a net negative (in my opinion).
Induced miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight. There is evidence that all of these are associated with violence against women, and also violence against women by her mate increases while she is pregnant. I looked and was unable to find any data suggesting any non-human males commit violence againt a female while she is pregnant with his fetus.
Humans are unique among mammals for the degree of placental difficulties, birth dificulties and cephalopelvic disproportion they have.
Thanks for taking the time to reply daedalus.
Let’s just say for the sake of argument that depression does have an evolutionary basis as you say (it would actually be more surprising if it didn’t have any such basis). From my perspective this wouldn’t automatically make it worth preserving if we were in the hypothetical position to eliminate it. That something is evolved, or has an evolutionary basis, does not automatically decide its goodness or badness—evolution has given us many characteristics that we would rather change were we in a position to do so.
alexflint, I agree with you. Just because something has evolved (or may have evolved) is not a reason to continue it.
I suspect that violence against women may have an evolved component (to reduce maternal death from cephalopelvic disproportion), but now cannot be justified for that because there are much better options (medical c-section). There may be other “features” of violence against pregnant women (epigenetic programming of the fetus to be more violent via the ’cycle of violence”), but I think the downsides of violence against women greatly outweighs any positives that may have existed during evolutionary time.
I think if we could eliminate violence against women we should do it. What ever positives there might be for individuals, for society it is a net negative (in my opinion).
I’m not sure what your line of thought is about violence against women. Induced miscarriage?
Induced miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight. There is evidence that all of these are associated with violence against women, and also violence against women by her mate increases while she is pregnant. I looked and was unable to find any data suggesting any non-human males commit violence againt a female while she is pregnant with his fetus.
Humans are unique among mammals for the degree of placental difficulties, birth dificulties and cephalopelvic disproportion they have.