Human Transcendence of Biological Evolution
It's absolutely clear that civilisation has already largely (but not completely) transcended evolution in the biological Darwinist sense. With advances in providing a safe habitat, reliable sources of food and medicine, it is now possible for those who are evolutionarily VERY weak, to survive.
Nowadays, with complex dating websites and enourmous cities of people, it is even possible for those who would not ever usually find 'mates' to do so. Consequently, civilisation now provides a 'creche' in which maladaptive characteristics can flourish (ie. Death worship in fornicating goths!).
The point is that now that we are now unconstrained by biology, a new form of evolution has 'evolved' which is the passing on socially advantageous politics and ideas. This is, however, about large groups acting as 'giant organisms', rather than individuals having a certain evolutionary fitness - that concept is now dead in humans.
It has been suggested somehow that ideas are contained within genetics, this is clearly nonsense.
Biological evolution has taken millions of years, advanced and complex ideas have only really evolved in the last few thousand years. These ideas have advanced at an absolutely explosive rate which is accelerating. They are clearly 'evolving' under a different mechanism to that which evolved our biological self.
It's not so much that humans are no longer 'changing' in a biological sense, because clearly generations are getting taller, and the smart are getting smarter. The difference is, that it is no longer a process of natural selection - the stupid are getting stupider as well, whereas they should be dieing without passing on their weakness.
Those with 'weaknesses' do not necessarily have other desirable traits. I can think of many people with absolutely no redeeming qualities, certainly not sufficient amounts of them to overcome their 'weaknesses' and make them 'worthwhile'.
As for how I define 'weak', I do so on the basis of past experience, and I do so with reference to the traditional (non-transcended) society in mind. Before we created the 'creche', stupidity, ugliness, physical weakness, etc. were evolutionarily 'weak', that is where my defintion comes from. I would argue that my definition is not invalidated should these weak survive, precisely because, as I say, civilisation has 'transcended' Darwinian evolution - the 'weak' CAN now survive.
'Transcendence' is not supernatural or divine in any way. It is a purely scientific development. It is simply the case that natural selection favoured the smart and men capable of advanced thinking evolved. Once this process had occurred, advanced thought began to do two key things:
1) Siginificantly change its environment.
2) Pass on ideas from generation to generation in ways other than genetic, ie through books, word of mouth etc.
Between these two things, ordinary Darwinian evolution became gradually more and more obselete and is still becoming so today.
I do not see that this creates a 'divided persona' per se; the physical and metaphysical are not in opposition. 'Ideas' do not have to have a metaphysical quality to them, they can simply be tools.
Finally, naturalistic evidence for transcendence = # of horribly unfit human beings currently walking the earth (in ase anyone wanted evidence!)
For a hilarious evolution diagram that appears far more interested in worms than humans, go here
posted by Matt McGrath at 4:55 am
6 Comments:
Margaret Thatcher once said that there was no such thing as society. She was a 'Social Darwinist', in the sense that she believed in free market capitalism - the survival of the fittest, and no state / 'creche' support for those unable to adequately fend for themselves.
In contrast to Mrs T, I would contend that the most 'socially advantageous' idea of all is that of charity - or a selfless and loving support for those who may be unable to fully take of themselves in what might be termed a 'state of nature', the free market jungle or whatever.
Without such charity, as Maggie kindly pointed out, we have no such thing as society, no 'giant organism'. Just a bunch of individuals, tearing out each others throats.
I would contend that 'transcending Darwinism' - and a charitable, social disposition towards others - is essential in making us human rather than animals.
Interesting points raised here. Having taken a brief look at S's site I would say you two are well matched Alex!
While I agree that it is socially advantageous in some ways to be supportive of those who cannot take care of the themselves, that is sadly not what happens today is it?
Instead we are charitable to those who can perfectly well fend for themselves but refuse to do so on the basis of laziness and in the comfort of knowing that someone else will look after them. Is this advantageous in any way?
The ideal 'giant organism' is surely where all parts offer something to the whole, a symbiotic relationship? If one part simply feeds from the whole and gives nothing then it is nothing more that a parasite.
If by transcending Darwinism we allow parts of the 'organism' to thrive and provide new advantages, then we are moving in a good direction. If, on the other hand, by side stepping competition we are now gaining weight in excess baggage, then ultimately we will be so weighed down that we shall do nothing more than lay down and die.
The whole discussion is really a metaphor for many many different questions of philosophy, politics and economics. However, save for your illustrious halls of education (and JD's), there aren't many places that teach those in combination!
This comment has been removed by the author.
do you know any similar chart/poster for the evolution of domestic cats (felinus catus)?
thanks!
This is a misunderstanding of evolution. Modern society is the environment in which we live. If you're born with a genetic defect in a metabolic pathway, maybe medicine can treat you so that you live. In that case, it is not an evolutionarily maladaptive trait because the environment does not result in selection against it. Just because it would have been maladaptive 10, 100, or 1000 years ago does not mean that it is now. If the environment ever changes, it would likely be maladaptive in that environment. Evolution is all about the current environment. There is no universal, objective, "correct" environment.
This is all nonsense. You're confusing your narrow personal opinions, judgments and cultural assumptions with science. No organism can "transcend" biological evolution because it's simply a natural process of genetic change over generations. Your opinions on what does, should or used to make a human being biological "weak", including being "ugly" or "stupid", are... let's say "highly presumptuous", to put it very, very nicely.
Post a Comment
<< Home