Since evolution is taught badly in schools (and few go on to learn it at uni), we have misconceptions. One is that evolution is “for the good of the species”, with each species becoming refined as a whole. Not true: evolution doesn’t necessarily cause a whole species to become better adapted. Sometimes it does, like the classic example of giraffes’ necks getting longer. Other times it backs species into a corner.
Evolving to Extinction
A species might become better and better adapted by edging towards a cliff, then falling off. Say a herd of wild horses can eat all the grass except the bottom 2cm. Some will have longer necks that let them graze more and only leave 1.5cm. Their genes will spread and this will be the new norm. Next stage is to have the horses evolve to eat a bit more grass. And so on, until we reach the “optimum” solution for an individual horse: eat all the grass. The grass can’t grow back, horses become extinct, oops. Each step is a perceived improvement on a small scale but it’s not for the good of the species. (HT)
Sexual Selection
The best examples of a species backed into the corner are the fancy birds. Birds of paradise, peacocks etc. are forced by sexual selection to keep these ridiculous extravagances. The “good of the species” would dictate that all males stop this nonsense and start producing tails that might actually help them run away. Impossible: the females have a wild and insatiable fetish for bright plumage. A male in more practical dress simply wouldn’t get any sex.
Why No Good of the Species? No Group Selection
How did altruism/morality evolve? If you’re under the “good of the species” misconception, you might say: “Cooperation improves a population’s chance of survival. Therefore, altruistic populations will have more offspring than selfish populations. Eureka.” Alas this doesn’t work. Yes IF a population were made of altruists everyone would benefit. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was nice? But how would such a population get started in the first place? In a nice population a few individuals who take advantage will get an edge over everyone else. Eventually their genes will take over. 10,000 years of human history show the same — pacifism is immoral as it only works if everyone else is a pacifist; one non-pacifist fox in the henhouse and we’re screwed.
Altruism and morality do exist but they need to be explained only in terms of individual reward. How the hell is this possible? One day I’ll try summarise it in a 300 words post. Till then consult the classics.
It’s hard for our brains, which evolved to see purpose and foreplanning everywhere, to think in these terms. But we must, so as not to live in a fantasy world. Nature only optimises for an individual’s reproductive success; completely overlooking the same individual’s suffering and certainly any benefit to the species as a whole.
6 comments ↓
Reminds me of the Shaolin Warrior Monk dilemma. Why would a pacifist Buddhist order develop such skilled warriors? Because a pacifist order, if it wants to remain pacifist and not fight when non-pacifists come knocking on the temple doors, requires a kick-arse contingent to protect their pacifist lifestyle.
Your comment, “Pacifism is immoral as it only works if everyone else is a pacifist,” seems to reflect a lack of consideration of the issues involved as well as human history. One can say that “war doesn’t work” either. What is more foolish than the soldier who thinks he can end all wars by preparing to fight just one more, something that has been tried millions of times throughout human history and has always failed. The response to your quote might vary depending on why someone is a pacifist. As a Christian, I am a pacifist because Jesus, the founder of Christianity was one and he requires his followers to be one also. It doesn’t have anything to do with what “works,” as you put it. It has to do with recognizing that each person is created in the image of God and to destroy a person’s life, for whatever reason, is to destroy part of the image of God. Peaceful resistance to domination, totalitarianism, or violence is probably historically as successful as a violent military response. The US fought a bloody war to gain independance from Britain, but since the other large British colonies including India and Canada gained their freedom without going to war, the Revolutionary War was not so much what was necessary to become an independant country, but Americans leaders choosing violence instead of peaceful methods to gain liberty.
The Politics of Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp documents scores of historically proven peaceful methods to resist tyrants and gain freedom. I suspect that your definition of what “works” is limited to what you as an individual wants, not necessarily what is best for the largest number of people. As for Christians like myself, simply surviving as a free person is not the only issue. Following the teachings of Jesus and doing what’s right is more important.
From 75 -90% of all the victims of warfare since the 2nd World War have been civilians. Most of those civilians have been women and children. In light of that information a decision to solve a problem with another country by going to war is primarily a decision to kill innocent people. If we’re responsible citizens we will reject the war option for that reason alone.
Sincerely;
Leonard Nolt
http://www.leonardnolt.blogspot.com
Alan — true but I reckon Buddhist monasticism is no paragon of nonviolence (and despite what Shaolin achieved it must have had a huge economic and human cost on Henan)
Leonard — my pacifism comment was an off-topic dig, I’ll do a proper post on pacifism soon. I agree that very few military actions are justified historically, but this doesn’t mean a philosophy that no military action is ever justified is going to work. Going to war against the Nazis was justified, as was going to war against the Sudanese regime, only difference is the last one has yet to happen because of a misplaced desire not to engage Bashir. Would you agree we should send peacekeepers there? This would mean arming them and giving them orders to shoot any Janjaweed on sight.
Birds of paradise, peacocks etc. are forced by sexual selection to keep these ridiculous extravagances. The “good of the species” would dictate that all males stop this nonsense and start producing tails that might actually help them run away.
Such characteristics are known as secondary sex characteristics, and we humans have them as well: Breasts.
I can’t possibly agree with this. Nothing would convince me that breasts are not there for the good of the species. It wouldn’t be worth being human if there were no breasts.
Shul — not sure if breasts are a product of sexual selection — surely there is a basic benefit to the offspring that suggests they could have evolved by regular adaptation? Plus I wouldn’t say breasts are a disadvantage to a modern human’s survival, except in very rare circumstances.
Alan — no individual pair of breasts is there for the good of the entire species! If that were true then dirty old men would be knocking on the doors of others, demanding their share and getting away with it.
Leave a Comment