The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 67, No. 20, Ed. 1 Thursday, January 17, 1980 Page: 2 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Mature, Intelligent,
dominG6rirfifemal6
rperm
rent relationship,
fluent on current,
affairs, sanation
thaL^nOci/s Bondage
3nd Disciplined:
BOX 102
10—LOS
FOUND cat d
female, vicinity
ton Call 434-64
FOUND
iORIAM
Spnnaboro area
FOUND l«r
young 4 btau
herd, vicinity
7361413
«y LOTS—
INTS
FOUND, You
merdale Dr l
B434. 796 242 /
of Hope,
wial Gardens
LOST BE/
old 28 ibs^
Dec 26 (
438 - 071A b
naie. 9
oe last seen
ng, reward,
SPANNING THE HEDGES/by David Dow
A new world order would reduce
the frequency and the severity of
war only if it is true that
environmental pressures play an
important role in the outbreak of
hostilities. If the causes of war lie
deep within man's nature, all
attempts at a lasting peace are
eventually doomed. The
possibility that agression may
actually be an inherent
characteristic of man has been
catapulted into prominence by a
relatively new science called
sociobiology.
Various sociobiologists make
various claims as to what their
findings and research really tend to
prove. Edmund O. Wilson, one of
the field's leaders, defines
sociobiology as "the systematic
study of the biological basis of all
behavior." Basically, what causes
man to act the way he does, his
genes or his surroundings?
Respected scientists like Wilson,
Desmond Morris, and the father of
sociobiology, Konrad Lorenz,
think they know the answer. From
observing animal behavior, the
men have gleaned great quantities
of data which they extrapolate to
conclude that human behavior as
well results from genetic causes.
Aggression, as much as sexuality,
is biologically rooted, while
altruism has no place in our gene
pool.
The conclusions evoke vitriolic
retorts. Harvard biologist Richard
Lewontin, a colleague of Wilson's
remarked sardonically, "Wilson,
like most scientists, expects to be
able to put out a lot of bullshit
about and not grt taken up on it."
Lewontin was only half-right.
Wilson is getting taken up on it,
and well he should be.
Sociobiologists stubbornly defend
their purist position as fervently as
the proponents of environmental
factors do, but the claims of the
former carry a much sharper
sword. The ramifications of
sociobiology extend beyond future
scientific inquiry, to beliefs and
policies pertaining to human
intelligence, to the role of women,
to ethical principles, in fact, to
mankind's very destiny.
The more reactionary socio-
biologists pose an immediate
danger. Lorenz, whose classic On
Aggression resembles in several
passages a paper written in the
midst of the Final Solution (1942)
while he was a professor in East
Prussia, exhorts man to act with
intolerance. Certain traits are
simply more desirable than others;
we should let the weaker ones
perish. To illustrate that we
instinctively value certain
qualities over others, Lorenz
juxtaposes a virile, handsomely
featured portrait of Pericles with a
marble head of Socrates marked
by unappealing features
presumably from genetic decay.
How utterly non-persuasive. Yet
how very, very frightening.
While the sociobiologists' other
errors may be less ludicrous than
Lorenz' baseless assertions, they
ignore reality all the same. Most
fundamentally, to say a drive is
instinctive proves nothing. Many
have strong sex drives, but social
pressure successfully discourages
men from satisfying their urges
wantonly, fcven aggression, as the
demise of lynching mobs and the
blood feud indicate, can be
controlled. We have mechanisms
for control, and we have other
outlets. Freud wryly noted that
civilization began when man first
reached for a swear word instead
of a spear. The point is that our
very civilization depends upon
some amount of repression of
destructive desires.
That assumes, of course, that the
sociobioloists are correct about
inherent aggression. All their
evidence, though, comes from
studies of animals instead of man;
they gloss over the very uniqueness
of human beings. Moreover, not
all the sociobiologists are so
positive about their conclusions.
Wilson acknowledges that an
environmental spark must ignite
the potentially volatile chemical
mixture for it to explode into
violent aggression. Those who try
to control or modify the catalysts
do not necessarily suggest that
genes do not shape human
behavior; none would deny that
certin needs and drives, like hunger
and sex, exist independently of
society. Where the fulfillment of
these impulses would raze the
social order, however, man deals
with them. Though the
sociobiologists present a weak case
regarding man's natural
aggressiveness, that ultimately
does not matter. Social institutions
can harness those instincts which
threaten them — be they
genetically or environmentally
c&useed. Global aggression is that
type of impulse. We can control it.
Lef s think twice before
boycotting Olympics
In the days since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the
American public has been subjected to a resurrection of the
rhetoric of the Cold War, as presidential candidates bemoan
our supposed lack of military clout and propose any number
of solutions to the present situation (as long as these
solutions don't hurt the Iowa farmers). Besides increased
military spending—which even President Carter has
embraced despite his 1976 campaign pledges—the idea
which seems to be gaining the most support is a boycott of
the 1980 Summer Olympics scheduled for Moscow.
Well and good, we suppose, but what difference would it
make? An embargo on high-technology equipment and
grain is one thing; if effective, it might subject the Soviets to
some economic discomfort. But Olympics are not, at least in
theory, a competition between nations. They are a
competition between those men and women who happen to
be the best in the world in their chosen sports, regardless of
nationality.
It should be kept in mind that this isn't the first year that
Russian intervention has coincided with an Olympiad. In
1956, the Nagy government in Hungary was ousted and the
country overrun by Russian tanks—yet the Olympics were
held in Melbourne. In 1968, Alexander Dubcek's reforms
were snuffed out as Czechoslovakia was brought into line
with its Warsaw Pact neighbors—yet the Olympics
continued in Mexico City. Even when PLO terrorists struck
in the midst of the 1972 Munich Olympics, tHe games
continued.
Which is the way it should be. If the idea of the Olympics
is to continue—the idea of promoting unity of all
humankind through sport—then the stresses of
international affairs must not be allowed to intervene.
Olympic competition exists despite—not because of—the
rivalries between countries, and when allowed to proceed as
planned, can provide more eloquent testimony to the spirit
of man than any national monument. In 1936, the Olympics
went on as scheduled in Berlin— and Jesse Owens' four gold
medals refuted Hitler's notions of Aryan superiority far
more convincingly than a gaggle of politicians rattling their
sabers at full speed.
Much has been made in the past of the fact that the
American Olympic team doesn't get any financial support
from the federal government; the U.S. Olympic
Committee's ad pitch runs along the lines of "America
doesn't go to the Olympics; Americans do." Why, then,
should the government start sticking its nose in at this late
date? If we are as civilized as we claim to be, we ought to let
our athletes compete with the rest of the world, without
diplomatic restrictions, and leave the international
bickering to the politicians. —David Butler
THRESHING-IT-OUT
Rice shouldn't
be showing people
how to kill others
To the Editor:
I am appalled to learn that Rice
is offering to citizens, through the
Rifle Team, a course in the use of
firearms. Even more incredible is
that this is being done in the name
of something constructive about
Houston's homicide rate. By what
convoluted logic does one arrive at
the conclusion that an increase in
the distribution and knowledge of
firearms will lead to a decrease in
their use for harmful purposes?
What's to prevent, for example,
one of the "graduates" of this
course from grabbing a gun in a
moment of passion or drunkenness
and killing a spouse or friend? I've
heard the argument that people
who want to kill are going to kill
anyway, guns or not. But let's face
it: two-thirds of the homicides in
the U.S. are shootings.
Statistics for the year 1972 show
that in the entire country of
England there were 149
homicides—or three homicides
per million people in the country's
population. In the U.S. that same
year there were 18,520
homicides—or 91 per million
people. That's thirty times the
murder rate in England. (Not to
mention the 400 per million rate in
Houston right now.) People often
say that the reason for rising crime
rates is increasing population
density. According to this
argument, as people become more
and more crowded, frustration and
anxiety increase, and so violence
increases. This argument just
doesn't hold up when you look at
England. With a population
density of 916 people per square
mile in England vs. 57 people per
square mile in the U.S., Britain has
a population density sixteen times
that of the U.S., and yet a homicide
rate thirty times lessl
The explanation? The British
don't have guns. In fact, even
police officers are unarmed much
of the time. England has had the
wisdom to impose one of the
strictest sets of gun control laws in
the world. The reward? One of the
world's lowest homicide rates. On
the other hand, in the Unitu'
States, every four minu'.es
someone is killed or wounded by
gunfire.
There's a very simple rule of
human behavior: Where there's
guns, there's killing.
Rice should not be sponsoring a
course in the use of instruments of
murder. If you're angry, please
voice your protests or send your
complaints to the Rice Athletic
Department.
Kathy Collmer
■s Brown '79
v MATTHEW MULLER
fcsg Editor
wiiHPAi in JAY 0LIPHANT
lupcmjcp Business Manager
Richard Dees Managing Editor
Carole Valentine Advertising Manager
Rolf Asphaug News Editor
Wayne Derrick Photography Editor
Franz Brotzen Fine Arts Editor
Steve Bailey Sports Editor
Bob Schwartz Back Page Editor
David Butler Senior Associate Editor
Auistant Editors Geri Snider, Amy Grossman
Newt Staff Anita Gonzalez, Allison Foil,
Kathy Mitchell, Michael Trachtenberg, Bill Bonner, Sarah Herbert, R.B. Johnson,
Lela Smith, Adrienne Clark, Laura Rohwer, J.C. Puckett, Pat Campbell, Eugene
Domack, Ron Stutet, Rawslyn R tiffin, Augusta Barone, Russ Coleman,
Tom McAliiter, Robin Barinfer
Fine Arts Staff Steve Sailer, Gary Cole,
Thomas Peck, Nicole Van Den Heuvel, Scott Solii, Carol Owen, Thom Glidden,
Gaye Gilbert, Amanda Lewis, Mehran Gouran, M. Bradford Moody, Jim Fowler
Sports Staff Donald Buckholt, Norma Gonzalez
Jean Hobart, Ken Klein, Cindy McCabc, Laura Rohwer, Byron Welch
Rich Whitney, Alison F. Whittemore
Photography Staff Jay Bauerle, Robert Bohier
Buster Brown, T.W. Cook, Bruce Davies, Dingbat, Janie Harrison,
Bruce Kessler, Jeff McGee, Laura Rohwer, Wunderwood
Advertising Staff John Szalkowiki, James Hadley, David Hou
Production Staff John VanderPut, Gaye Gilbert,
Ann Betley, Kelvin Thompson, Laura Rohwer, Cole Erskin, Dianne Frome,
Vikki Kaplan, Allison Foil, Ruth Hillhouse, Laurie Koch
Circulation Rob Rogers, Vikki Kaplan, Chatjean Heard
The Ricc Thresher, the official student newspaper at Rice University since 1916, is published
weekly on Thursdays during the school year, except during examination periods and holidays,
by the students of Rice University. Editorial and business offices are located on the second floor
of the Rice Memorial Center, P.O. Box 1892, Houston. TX 77001. Phone 527-4801 or 527-4802.
Advertising information available upon request. Mail subscription rate: $15.00 per year. The
opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of anyone except the writer.
u',."'iously.
e Copyright 1980, The Rice Thresher. All rights reserved.
The Rice Thresher, January 17, 1980, page 2
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Muller, Matthew. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 67, No. 20, Ed. 1 Thursday, January 17, 1980, newspaper, January 17, 1980; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245426/m1/2/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.