Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics

• Previous message: Brett Aubrey: "Fat"
• In reply to: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics"
• Next in thread: Elie Gendloff: "Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:07:21 +0000 (UTC)

ragland37@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote in message
news:<cjru36$2soc$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
ragland37@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote in message
news:<cjk7g5$hlj$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...

Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics
How can a trait that was developed under the pressure of natural
selection explain moral actions that go far beyond reciprocal altruism
or enlightened self-interest? How can, for instance, the action of
Maximilian Kolbe be explained from a biological point of view? (Kolbe
was a German priest who starved himself to death in a concentration camp
to rescue a fellow prisoner.)
Could not human beings have moved beyond their biological roots and
transcended their evolutionary origins, in which case they would be able
to formulate goals in the pursuit of goodness, beauty, and truth that
"have nothing to do directly with survival, and which may at times
militate against survival?" (O'Hear, 1997: 203).

FB:
This is the theme of my article Alive and Human. Evolution and Reason
are two decoupled survival systems. Reason provides analogies to
Evolution in a different level, like superseding biological adaptation
with technological adaptation. Other examples can be found in the
aforementioned article (google groups). For all practical considerations
evolution is stopped and that is the main difference between Rational
Living Beings (Man) and Irrational Living Beings.

Response:
Is English your second language? I ask because alot of what you write
while written correctly in english doesn't make much sense. If that is
the case perhaps in your native language you would have better
success..or perhaps not.

FB:
I admit I am writing in a hurry and under inconvenient circumstances;
can`t afford reviewing since I can lose what I just wrote (no clipboard
available).

Response:
I think "reason" or "intelligence" is a part of our Darwinian evolution
and all our scientific, medical and technological advances wouldn't have
been possible without it. This doesn't detract from the reality there is
a huge lag between our biological evolution and cultural evolution e.g.
scientific and technological developments but just to highlight all
these scientific and technological developments are based on our DNA
which in turn was most likely based on RNA and so on. All the great
advances thus far in physics, technology, science, medicine and other
fields have been made possible by the minds of humans (recently in our
evolutionary history as a species) not by nanotechnological machines
which build upon themselves and constitute life forms which possesses
certain forms of "consciousness" which can self repair and self
duplicate themselves. Perhaps in the future such nanotechnological
machine life forms will replace DNA based life being more stable in
space.

FB:
As long as we have a closed dynamic that perpetuates itself and a
support to accumulate information that can be transmitted, we can speak
of Life. If these system develops connectionist subsystems to process
information sooner or later there will be a consciousness field. Nano
may be better than bio when and if the universe starts cooling. Though
the idea of replacing bio sounds to me a little like suicide. There is
an old, old SF novel called The End of Man. The last man gives himself
to the first `magnetic` bacteria.

Response:
Well I think it is a given we are going to be an extinct species. The
question is *how*. Will we wind up somehow destroyed before we can build
nanotechnological machine systems which will be capable of replacing us
and exploring space? Or will we biologically adapt to our modern
environment through the use of genetic engineeing making our DNA more
complex, augmenting aspects of intelligence, modifying aggression, etc.
and making it more likely we will be able to continue to develop
nanotechnological intelligent machine systems
which will assist us and most likely ultimately replace us as the next
evolutionary life form? In the short term future (next one hundred years
and possibly much longer) I'm pretty pessimistic of genetic engineering
making our DNA more complex, augmenting aspects of intelligence and
modifying aggression. Instead, I see more upheavals, terrorism,
destruction of the earth's environment, growing mass extinction of
species, increased global warming, limited nuclear wars, spread of
diseases, increased human population, water scarcity and a growing
belief among many these are the "end times". Numerous violent "mini"
cataclysms which shake the world. As a doctor stated to me, "Things in
the world are going to get much worse. I learned along time ago to try
not to change the world." I was silent, somewhat stunned and depressed
by what he had said. I looked blankly into space and he then said,
"They're desperate. They've lost hope." According to him this was
international. Ironically, he told me there were "droves" of people out
there oblivious to all this. I asked him, "Why are you telling me?" He
replied, "So you can prepare." I grilled him on "exactly" would occur in
the future. He conceded he ultimately didn't know but he did say "they
would probably join groups". Of course, this was just one scientist's
opinion but he is highly respected in his field. According to him this
state of affairs was bound to continue until genetic engineering had
modified aggression. I never asked him why internationally there was
this movement of despair but apparently throughout human history it has
been a cyclical phenomena. Ever since science and technology really
began it has been often at odds with "natural human society". The
Industrial Revolution was forced on the world by a handful of wealthy
European families and many would argue its benefits made up for any
adverse effects resulting from it. Really?

Europeans living on small farms producing their own goods by hand forced
to work in overcrowded diseased cities near factories, working 16 hours
aday, no safety and as young as 8 years old. The Industrial Revolution
was partly fueled by the Agrarian Revolution which utilized new
technologies to produce more food which resulted in more people.
Industrialism also relied on slavery and was an instrument of
imperialism. There were definite benefits to the Industrial Revolution
but the following is suggestive the world wasn't ready for it:

Industrialization and Imperialism: The Great Exhibition of 1851

The Great Exhibition of 1851 occurred shortly after the social and
economic upheavals of 1848. Great Britain, after initial hesitation,
eventually supported the idea of an exhibition to show the world their
achievements and to silence concerns about social and economic
instability. Exhibition organizers promoted a variety of goals for the
exhibition including international peace, free trade, and the
interchange of technology and culture. Overall, though, the exhibition
asserted the essential dominance and superiority of British industry and
society. France and other countries also saw the potential for
forwarding nationalistic ideas and economic goals through participation
in the exhibition. The convergence of industrialization with British
imperialism at the Great Exhibition makes the event an intriguing means
for investigating these powerful forces along with the accompanying
struggles over economic issues, socioeconomic status, racial concerns,
gender norms, and nationalism.

Why am I mentioning all this? First, most agree that the most important
revolution in the 21st century will be the Biological Revolution. There
is still much we don't know but presumably eventually human cloning,
gene therapy and germline genetic engineering will be routine. The
questions are how will they be used, on whom will they be used and
towards what ends. Most importantly, what will be the positive and
adverse effects on society and who ultimately gains to most profit.

Will the technologies of the Biological evolution (such as national DNA
databases) be co-opted by the "free market" and insurance companies,
employers, "prospective mates", real estate agents, "your next door
neighbor", etc. to discriminate against you or violate your privacy?
WIll research scientists perhaps patent your genes without asking
permission or compensating you?

Just as the Industrial Revolution resulted in a dirt poor working class
who worked 16 hours aday in unsafe factories and lived in overcrowded
filthy diseased cities, will the Biological Revolution result in
widespread genetic discrimination (based on either real genetic causes
or perceived e.g. Junior has a 50% chance of getting Huntington's) and a
genetic underclass without insurance who can only do certain "kinds" of
work without being discriminated against by employers. There may be
medical clinics set up for this genetic underclass but the quality of
care will be substandard and they will have a higher mortality rate than
the rest of the population.

Such a society, if it came in being, would widely discriminate against
this genetic underclass. In the schools, neighborhoods, etc. if the
information about their DNA was publicly known. Such individuals could
be beat up, robbed and/or raped and murdered and the legal system would
be light on the offenders.

This is a farfetched scenario but it is not impossible if one assumes
"genes" or DNA largely takes the place of "race" and "sex". Just as
racism discriminates on the basis of a person's "race" and doesn't
regard them as a human being or inferior (depending on what race they
are) and sexism discriminates on the basis of a person sex (usually
female and in a demeaning or derogatory way). Geneism could turn into a
new form of discrimination but instead of being based on race or sex
being based on one's DNA. Just as a person is more than just their race
or sex a person is more than their DNA. Like race and sex geneism is
prone to pseudoscience. What does it mean when a physician tells a
person you have a 20% chance of getting such a disease? What does it
mean when a physician says you have a 60% chance of getting this
disease? It's very possible in both situations the individuals may live
to be old and never get the disease. Yet, if that genetic "information"
becomes public insurance companies, employers, real estate agents, etc.
may discriminate on the basis of such "information". A predisposition
doesn't equate with actually having a disease. What does count is
actually being examined and diagnosed by a physician as having a
disease.
Yet, in our Darwinian society where money is the "Almighty King" and
ignorance is prevalent, any weakness (even a genetic predisposition
which may never materialize) certain people will be denied healthcare
coverage, life insurance coverage, employment, etc.

In its enthusiasm scientists are collecting DNA for their databases but
they cannot insure such information will not escape and be used by
others. All they give is their word. "We would never give out this
information to anybody". Most disturbingly is the lack of state laws and
federal laws protecting DNA privacy and preventing insurance companies
and employers and anybody else from genetically discriminating.

If the Industrial Revolution was any guide we should *** this up too.
 

Response:
But at the present
moment I don't see how there can be technological adaptation without
biological adaptation.

FB:
Easy. We evolved somewhere in Africa; by the time we were fighting the
glacial era we were adapting (like animal population, survival of
fittest, selection of traits), but we were, more importantly, adapting
to the cold environment through he technology of Clothing, a result of
the application of Reason to search possibilities in Reality. I am not
aware of any other species that actually *creates* portable
semienvironments. Not even nests or shells equal clothing.

Response:
Yes but I was speaking of the present time and in the evolutionary sense
(non-Darwinian) that our continuing technological adaptation as a
species will not continue if we don't biologically adapt to our
environment. That's just my personal belief.

Response:
Some have argued if we don't "biologically improve" ourselves and at
least in some ways try to keep pace with advances in computers, science
and technology that we will subsequently fall far behind and that
eventually there would be the possibility computers could advance to the
point of developing superior intelligence and becoming the dominant life
form on earth.
You write, "Reason provides analogies to Evolution in a different level,
like superseding biological adaptation with technological adaptation." I
could be mistaken but currently an earthworm is more intelligent than a
computer. I personally don't think future technological adaptation will
occur (and that includes the possibility of ultimately replacing DNA
based life) without biological adaptation of our species. For whether we
like it or not it will be our ability to biologically adapt to the
current and ongoing scientific and technological developments in our
present day environment which will in all liklihood determine whether we
survive as a species.

FB:
Oh, it will occur. You mentioned nanotechnology. THAT is technological
adaptation to the environment.

Response:
It won't occur it we go KABLOOY! In other words the nanotechnology
hasn't advanced enough to replace us a life form. Neither has computers
or any other technology. That won't happen for a long time. In the mean
time we better keep ourselves alive as a species so we can continue to
develop these technologies or artificial life forms and the only way I
see we can do that is through genetically engineering ourselves. If that
means ultimately changing us into a new form of biological species other
than Homo Dumass than I'm all for it.

Response:
A part of our evolutionary history is we have demonstrated we are a
highly intelligent species (as evidenced by our discoveries in science
and applications of technology as well as other areas) but at the same
time we are products of Darwinian evolution which has also imbued us
with aggressive and very primitive instincts which were adaptive in the
ancestral environment but are no longer adaptive today.

Fabrizio:
A *really* big problem!

Response:
Yes, you are very right and unfortunately it won't be solved anytime
soon.

Response:
Freud is considered outdated by many. At least some of his theories but
he was a great man. He was best recognized for his "Interpretation of
Dreams" but I always like the thesis behind "Civilization and its
Discontents". Man is an animal whose primitive aggressive instincts are
in constant conflict with the requirements of civilization. Now it is
true, as the recent article "Evolution of Despair" noted that it seems
like civilization itself is destroying or suppressing the more "gentle"
side of human beings. But this isn't the fault of civilization but
rather that man's primitive aggressive instincts are "stratified" within
civilization. Not meaning to joke but in a sense there is no
"civilization" on earth, at least not by my definition.

Fabrizio:
By mine, Civilization is the reduction of uncertainty.

Response:
Yes, I agree with you. I think we both can agree the world contains much
uncertainty.

Response:
There are moral
codes which seek to keep in check these animal instincts but they have
failed over and over again throughout human history. Police, courts,
religion, etc. It also depends on your definition of civilization. A
nation can be technologically and scientifically advanced and have a
rich cultural history and a highly educated public and yet such a nation
can turn out like Nazi Germany. It's not the science and technology or
level of education of a nation by itself which constitutes whether it is
"civilized" but how effectively it controls the base and primitive
instincts of its citizens. In that respect, Nazi Germany receives the
lowest grade possible.

Fabrizio:
Nazi Germany was *very* civilized, so much civilized that ended up
inhuman. There must be several points of equilibrium among all possible
organizations that we can call civilization (Nazi Germany was not a
particularly stable form of civilization).

Response:
No, it wasn't. It only lasted 12 years yet its repercussive effects
exist to this day. Scientifically and technologically it was advanced
but that is not the same as civilized. It had a high level of education
(prior to Nazi Germany) but that was corrupted and denigrated and it had
a rich cultural history but that was corrupted and denigrated as well by
Hitler and the Nazis.

Response:
Darwinian evolution hasn't stopped but I agree for all practical
purposes it has. But this does not mean biological adaptation to our
current environment is necessarily impossible. It may be true the
relatively new science of genomics, proteomics, biotechnology and gene
therapy and genetic engineering promise more than they can deliver but
they nevertheless offer the hope of biologically altering our primitive
aggressive instincts. Not anytime soon but maybe within a couple hundred
years. As Hawking stated, "We won't change much in the next hundred
years." I think he is right and that is depressing when you consider
what the last one hundred years was like.

Fabrizio:
But those changes, if at all, are the result of our technological
adaptation. They are not brought about through Jungle Law (not much
anyway 8)
Response:
I agree with you Fabrizio. Most of the world, however, continues to run
on Jungle Law.

Response:
You state, "For all practical considerations evolution is stopped and
that is the main difference between Rational Living Beings (Man) and
Irrational Living Beings." What are Rational Living Beings (Man) and
irrational Living beings in the context of "evolution has stopped"? Only
Darwinian evolution has "stopped" or can't be waited on to effect
biologically adaptive changes to our environment. Modern science and
technology has opened up a whole new frontier which offers the hope of
some kind of directed evolution.

Fabrizio:
Irrational living beings are subject to the classical principle of
spreading to the maximum the genes of the fittest, those who survive
enough to spread genes, where more offspring is sign of success.

Response:
That would be most of the human species.

Fabrizio:
Directed evolution is the next argument in one of my threads abot Future
of Man...

Response:
I don't know your difficult circumstances using this medium but in your
response to me here you seemed much more clear.

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

• Previous message: Brett Aubrey: "Fat"
• In reply to: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics"
• Next in thread: Elie Gendloff: "Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]