Few things are more fascinating to me than an apparent, but not actual, paradox. For example: I acknowledge the scientific fact that life has evolved by a process of ruthless Darwinian selection. I am also a humanist who believes in principles that transcend narrow self-interest. Isn't that a contradiction?
These issues are on my mind because I have finally gotten around to reading The Extended Phenotype, which is a follow-up to The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins' celebrated book on modern evolutionary biology. I highly recommend both. (But read The Selfish Gene first!)
A common misconception is that these books advocate social Darwinism, i.e. ruthless aspiration to "survival of the fittest" in our personal and political lives. In reality, the books merely explain the fact of biological Darwinism, i.e. the mechanism in nature by which all species, including humans, came to be.
Hence the resolution to the apparent paradox: the answer to the question "Where do we come from?" has already been written by nature. The answer to the question "Where do we go from here?" is entirely up to us. (The two answers are related, actually -- it seems evident that "selfish" evolutionary competition has written a sense of morality and even altruism into our genes, and this is another apparent [but not actual] paradox. In any case, the two answers are not interdependent in principle.) Like me, Richard Dawkins is a humanist who marvels at evolution, finds social Darwinism repugnant, and sees no contradiction in this.
A common misconception is that these books advocate social Darwinism, i.e. ruthless aspiration to "survival of the fittest" in our personal and political lives. In reality, the books merely explain the fact of biological Darwinism, i.e. the mechanism in nature by which all species, including humans, came to be.
Hence the resolution to the apparent paradox: the answer to the question "Where do we come from?" has already been written by nature. The answer to the question "Where do we go from here?" is entirely up to us. (The two answers are related, actually -- it seems evident that "selfish" evolutionary competition has written a sense of morality and even altruism into our genes, and this is another apparent [but not actual] paradox. In any case, the two answers are not interdependent in principle.) Like me, Richard Dawkins is a humanist who marvels at evolution, finds social Darwinism repugnant, and sees no contradiction in this.
What do you think, contradiction or nay? How do you cope, personally, philosophically, or politically, with the fact that nature is "red in tooth and claw"? (Vegans need not reply.)
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteIt's getting tough to keep up with you, but this is something to which I have given considerable thought over time and have come to the following conclusions:
1. Evolution favors those who work together toward a common (beneficial) purpose. It also favors those who would take advantage of such advancement for their own personal (selfish) gain. So it is that pacifists do not predominate even though they are more likely to embrace cooperative arrangement, nor do thieves and scoundrels dominate even though in small numbers they often prosper disproportionately.
2. Altruism is a manifestation of our evolutionary (rewarded) desire to work toward the common good.
3. Evil can prevail in the short term (whatever short term means), but feeds on itself and thus is to some degree self- limiting.
4. Even capitalism/free enterprise which is ruthless with competitors (creative destruction) favors cooperation (legal) and also collusion (illegal except when aided and/or abetted by government).
Where do we go from here (barring an ecological disaster from nature or space)? To my mind that is dependent on whether we can continue on our evolutionary path without the bad players blowing everything to hell. Cooperation as fostered by democratic political systems and market economies continue to move us toward greater achievement even as the means to create mass destruction increases. Statistics may point to a probability of catastrophe. I choose to remain optimistic.