PDA

View Full Version : Has natural selection been aborted?



coberst
04-16-2009, 12:38 PM
Has natural selection been aborted?

I would say that natural selection, i.e. evolution, has taken a dramatic turn since the birth of human consciousness. Natural selection produced the human species and the human species has derailed natural selection. World wide the species that survive, including the human species, depends upon human created meaning and no longer upon natural selection.

We have become meaning creating creatures and have developed a high tech society that overwhelms the process of natural selection. The selection of what species will survive in the future no longer depends upon the process of natural selection but depends upon the process of human meaning creation.

Who am I? Of what value is my life? The child, when asking these questions, is saying that s/he wants to be recognized as an object of value. S/he wants to know how well s/he measures up as a hero.

Freud saw that the underlying foundation for these feelings and ambitions was the “utter self-centeredness and self-preoccupation, each person’s feeling that he is the one in creation, that his life represents all life” he tallied all this up and labeled it narcissism. Nietzsche saw this healthy expression as one of the “Will to Power” and glory.

This represents the “inevitable drive to cosmic heroism by the animal who had become man.”

Culture provides the vehicle for heroic action directed toward strengthening self-esteem. The task of the ego is to navigate through the culture in such a way as to diminish anxiety, and the ego does this by learning “to chose actions that are satisfying and bring praise rather than blame…Therefore, if the function of self-esteem is to give the ego a steady buffer against anxiety, wherever and whenever it might be imagined, one crucial function of culture is to make continued self-esteem possible.

Culture’s task is “to provide the individual with the conviction that he is an object of primary value in a world of meaningful action.”

The cultural hero system whether religious, primitive, or scientific is “still a mythical hero-system in which people serve in order to earn a feeling of primary value, of cosmic specialness, of ultimate usefulness to creation, of unshakable meaning. They earn this feeling by carving out a place in nature, by building an edifice that reflects human value: a temple, a cathedral, a totem pole, a skyscraper, a family that spans three generations.”

How does the American culture perform its task?

I claim that the maximization of production and consumption is the principal means for the satisfaction of self-esteem for its citizens. It is through the active participation as a member of a community that strives constantly to maximize the production and consumption of goods that the American citizen best satisfies his or her drive for “cosmic action”.

We are all captives of our cultural systems. Whether the cultural system dictates the stoning of one’s sister for destroying family honor or a system that finds cosmic heroism through a process that maximizes the rate at which we consume our planet.

Our culture is constructed from the meaning that we create. The future of our species and of all life is dependent upon our comprehension of our self and how we use that comprehension in developing a better meaning structure than we have done so far.

Quotes from The Birth and Death of Meaning Ernest Becker

JCamilo
04-16-2009, 01:23 PM
Ok, anyone would notice that in his Book, Darwin have chapters dedicated to "artificial selection", as anyone would notice, mankind only tries to use the natural laws, do not end with them.
And human conciousness is just mambo-jampo terminology that means nothing.

JohnMelmoth
04-16-2009, 02:46 PM
It's an interesting argument but I think there are a few problems with it.

Firstly, you seem to be claiming Freud and Nietzsche for your argument, that human consciousness has finally got the better of evolution; but Freud and Nietzsche both produced theories based on or sympathetic to Darwinian principles. Freud wrote about the pre-eminence of unconscious biological drives in determining human behaviour and Nietszche wrote about nations warring against nations in an international survival of the fittest. An idea that Hitler put to the test.

Secondly, you suggest that humans have recently become "meaning creating creatures". Well, I think we have always been makers of meaning. Religion is a product of our meaning-creating and philosophy is the history of our attempts to create meaning. What's so special about our meaning-creating now that it can over-ride evolution? I don't think we have advanced much morally since the Second World War - a particular low point in our myth creating.

Thirdly, your argument seems too centred on North America and the West, where the power of the state has largely ended a Malthusian solution to the problem of the poor. In developing countries we see nature, and human nature, red in tooth and claw - famine, AIDS and ethnic cleansing are horrors only the fittest survive.

Maybe in cultures too we see natural selection at work. Note the spread of American culture, despite the French! Daniel Dennett writes about natural selection amongst religions: those that offer most benefits (a place in heaven, protection from death anxiety and the punishment of your enemies) prosper whilst those with fewer benefits and more costs (turn the other cheek, poor man and the eye of a needle) are replaced. Hence the Anglican Chrutch is sure to go down the pan pretty soon (ie over the next thousand years).

Now, I haven't read Earnest Becker. He's on my Amazon wish list.

coberst
04-16-2009, 05:51 PM
John

What is different now is technology. Technology has given extraordinary power to ordinary people. With this power we determine what species live or die and with this power humans live longer and without death that would normally happen with less technology. It is quite possible that we will destroy our species and perhaps all life on this planet because we are not sophisticated enough to manage this great power that we have created.

JohnMelmoth
04-17-2009, 07:19 PM
If we destroy the planet then it may indeed be the end of evolution in this part of the universe.

I see your point about technology making a difference - species busily evolving are driven into extinction by man and his machines. But maybe that's further evidence for evolution and the survival of the fittest - those that have adapted to Man's pre-eminence (rats, pigeons, dogs and cats) survive whilst slow moving, friendly and tasy creatures like the dodo come to a sticky end.

IJustMadeThatUp
04-17-2009, 09:58 PM
I think man has changed the environmental pressures of it's evolution, with all of the technology. "Weak" individuals now survive due to technology.
Also think about the effect alcohol has on the process of selecting a mate :) How many children are born from choices made while judgement is impaired.
I have a question for you guys sort of in relevence to this. There is a lot of talk lately about "superbugs" and how our discovery of antibiotics cannot keep up with their evolution. Do you think the original discovery of penicillin and the continued progression from there has lead to humans having a weakened immune system? If we had not relied so much on antibiotics, do you think we would not have caused these "superbugs" to evolve and we would have "super" immune systems to cope with the diseases of today?

This is just a thought I had yesterday, I hope it makes sense.

The Atheist
04-18-2009, 10:29 PM
Has natural selection been aborted?

Ha. I started this exact topic at Dawkins' forum a while back. I'd give you a link, but it dissolved into acrimony so quickly the thread got closed and buried!

:lol::lol:

There are two schools of thought - one being yours (and mine, because I agree with your position), with the other being that what we are doing is all part of natural selection.

A lot depends on your meaning of "natural".

JBI
04-18-2009, 10:38 PM
In a sense, just ignore natural selection, as, being natural, it doesn't concern the present, only our understanding of the past.Time present and time past may lead to time future, but future is no provable with the past. The way forward is inevitable, but as of yet undefined. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk - Hegel. We cannot know what will happen down the road yet, in this instance. In truth though, humanity, and even Earth, or our solar system, is but one spec, which really is insignificant. So, in terms of natural selection, I think the process arrived at is as natural as any. You cannot exactly stop natural selection, one can merely modify the game a little bit, and change the courses of how that selection will unfold. Assuming we destroy the ecosystem, something like cockroaches will be the naturally selected best, as they can survive better, or whatever. There is no stopping or starting it, only letting things play out.

The Atheist
04-19-2009, 01:08 AM
In a sense, just ignore natural selection, as, being natural, it doesn't concern the present, only our understanding of the past.

I don't get this at all. Our future is based on the selections we make, consciously or unconciously, and now that we have the ability to make unnatural selections, it's probably the single most-important athropological and biological fact.


Time present and time past may lead to time future, but future is no provable with the past. The way forward is inevitable, but as of yet undefined.

I disagree with this entirely - I'd say the future is ours to shape and the only inevitability is that the future will happen. What goes on there will be vastly sculpted by the direction of humankind.

Our past has given us the brains to get to a stage where that's possible.


The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk - Hegel.

False analogy, humans can turn the lights on.


We cannot know what will happen down the road yet, in this instance. In truth though, humanity, and even Earth, or our solar system, is but one spec, which really is insignificant.

Given the seeming scarcity of intelligent life, or in fact, any other life at all, perhaps we're one of the more significant things in the universe. I dunno about you, but I'm convinced my life is more important than an asteroid, or even a planet, if the it's the kind of planet which won't support life.


So, in terms of natural selection, I think the process arrived at is as natural as any. You cannot exactly stop natural selection, one can merely modify the game a little bit, and change the courses of how that selection will unfold.

Have you read any of Nick Bostrom (http://www.nickbostrom.com/)?


Assuming we destroy the ecosystem, something like cockroaches will be the naturally selected best, as they can survive better, or whatever. There is no stopping or starting it, only letting things play out.

I can't actually think of any circumstances short of total nuclear war (an incredibly unlikely prospect) that would result in extinction of mankind. I can certainly see a future with a vastly reduced population as one of the possibilities, which would be interesting.