Re: Darwin's morality

From: Michael Ragland (ragland37_at_webtv.net)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 04:59:25 +0000 (UTC)

MR:
Comment: I think only a fool would insist good and evil don't exist in
the world. As a "general principle", however, I don't think Darwinian
evolution results in caring and compassionate organisms.

PH:
My take on this is that natural selection is "inadvertently"
manufacturing morality (via cultural evolution, i.e., the evolution or
rationality) at a faster rate than she can eliminate it via her
customary genteel technique of dealing with inefficiency, as explained
in my response to a poster to another egroup:

MR:
I don't know what to say Phil except that Darwinian evolution results in
life (at least on this planet) that is not caring or compassionate and
that includes human beings. The processes of natural selection work on
every organism, not just humans. Yes, we are a different organism and we
have cultural evolution and scientific and technological advances but
the principles of Darwinian evolution apply nevertheless. Whether it be
territoriality, war, genocide, xenophobia, rape, sexual selection,
competiveness, etc. And underlying all of these is the highly complex
trait of aggression. You cannot have a species which is caring and
compassionate under such conditions. Of course, that doesn't mean there
aren't individuals out there who are caring and compassionate but they
are truly a minority. The reality of their existence doesn't weaken
Darwinian evolution but it does show how diverse it is.

You write, "My take on this is that natural selection is "inadvertently"
manufacturing morality (via cultural evolution, i.e., the evolution or
rationality) at a faster rate than she can eliminate it via her
customary genteel technique of dealing with inefficiency." I think you
are confused but I'll ask you this how does the manufacturing of the
"evolution of rationality" produce inefficiency for natural selection?
In many ways we have not culturally evolved and exhibit some of the same
behaviors we did thousands of years ago. Where "we" have evolved is
scientifically and technologically but biologically we lag far behind in
the scientific and technological complexity we have created. This is
particularly dangerous as we lack the complexity to make the appropriate
ethical decisions these technologies and sciences present to us.
Consequently there is great potential for distortion and misuse. But I
don't blame the science and technology itself but rather how human
nature possibly misuses it toward shortsighted and destructive ends. If
you look at human history it is often a pathetic affair with innumerable
wars, genocides, abject ignorance, arrogance, etc. The crucial
difference today is as where in the past we lacked the scientific and
technological means to wipe outselves out or at least kill off a huge
percentage today we have that capability. Furthermore, we are relying
more and more on telecommunications and the internet and if there was
ever a severe prolonged crash it would massively disrupt society.

I don't see any evolution of rationalty. I see rampant consumerism,
cutthroat competition, wars, famine, diseases, overpopulation, degrading
of the biosphere, polluting of the oceans, mass extinction of species,
etc. And "rationality" is employed towards these ends. Intelligence has
nothing to do with whether a person is good or evil. I will suggest,
however, aggression is an absolutely necessary ingrediant for the
aforementioned. That's why Stephen Hawking stated, "It's uncertain
whether intelligence has any longterm survival value. Bacteria do quite
well without it." I think some people can be intelligent and rational
without being aggressive to the degree of harming themselves or others.
But it can be difficult because we were not programmed that way by
Darwinian evolution. I think its also possible there are compassionate
people but they are a rare commodity.

I don't know how much good our morality is. In my opinion it is not
sufficient in preventing Darwinian evolution from breaking loose or
spreading further and causing massive death and mayhem. Historically,
morality was something that religion taught. In ancient times it may
have had its utility despite the numerous wars and bloodshed which
occured. Today, we can no longer afford the continuing wars and
bloodshed, the crime, corruption, overpopulation, polluting of the
oceans, degrading of the biosphere, mass extinction of species (quite
possibly our own) and current morality has proven itself incapable of
stopping these things. There is only one possible longshot hope and that
is genetically engineering our species so we don't kill ourselves off.
In the meantime all one can do is be a good citizen and help globally by
acting locally but there is nothing one can do to stop the downward
spiral of the human species. Mentally prepare for the worst.

PR:
The fact that everything is the product of natural selection in one way
or another does not mean we are required to assume that everything
produced by natural selection is necessarily adaptive (panadaptionism).

MR:
Panadaptationism is a strawman. Natural selection doesn't just produce
adaptive traits. It also produces non-adaptive traits. In the case of
aggression, it was once an adaptive trait but through cultural evolution
and advances in science and technology it is no longer an adaptive
trait. Our environment has drastically changed in the last couple
hundred years but natural selection hasn't had the time to adapt to it.

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well without it."
 Stephen Hawking

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwins morality
    ... evolution results in caring and compassionate organisms. ... If kin selection is operative in human beings that is not what I meant ... a byproduct of Darwinian evolution. ... The processes of natural selection work on every organism, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Two major reasons why America should throw evolution into the trash
    ... > technology that it has given us. ... > Since evolution CANNOT be immediately falsified in a lab, ... it doesn't matter if descent with modification is demonstrably the ... natural selection that is the basis of Darwin's ideas. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Will we evolve?
    ... Your assumption that humans are no longer evolving is based on a false ... less able then we are to counter these influences' with technology. ... driving force behind our evolution, which may or may not be true. ... Natural selection is definitely a weaker force - these days (at least ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
    ... >> that happen spontaneously in darwinian evolution. ... of favoring the survivability of somebody like ... Natural selection is the most important factor in most ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: evolution as "diffusion"
    ... >>> progress that leads up to a galactic ... cultural evolution with biological evolution. ... > selectively - i.e. through natural selection. ... already which make no mention of human technology. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast