There is a huge conflict going on in humanization and our
society is in the prime position—leading the charge. Those who follow this blog understand that what I am saying has to do
with the intensifying conflict between biology and social norms. There are
many examples including xenophobia (racism), homophobia (gay marriage), hierarchy
dominance (politics) and a long string of etceteras. Those who follow this
firetreepub.blogspot.com know that as a person interested in evolutionary psychology,
I feel our evolutionary history is at the root of much of our behavior. Cultural
universals are things common to all cultures in the world; they reflect our
genetic make up. Obviously, much about behavior is not universal. Thus, a purgatory
exists between the universals and the unique individual behavior, a very
unsettling place for people who think about these sorts of things.
We feel good when we are in a group but feel uncomfortable
if someone the group is somehow different. We also feel comfortable if someone
in the group is a leader but some of us feel uncomfortable if we do not agree
with the decisions the leader makes, or if we are not the leader. We even
understand the chemistry of many of these things: hormonal mechanisms. There is
tremendous variability in feelings about all of these things.
Understanding and refining bestial xenophobia, homophobia,
and hierarchy dominance by humankind are what I refer to as humanization. Biologists
concentrate on survival of the fittest through adaptation by natural selection;
in other words, they concentrate on raw Darwinism. In contrast, many social biologists concentrate
on the fundamentals as being attitudes toward food, sex, and defense extended,
and blurred, to such things as parental investment to family structure, tribal
or group formation as a form of protection, gender division of labor in hunter-gatherer
for food procurement. We tend to cloak all of these things in something we call
morality; rather we tend to throw a shroud we call religion over everything as
if we cannot have morality without religions or religion without morality. The truth
is that basic morality centers on one thing and one thing only, survival of the
fittest. This definition of morality is the biological definition.
The cultural definition is often in conflict with the biological
definition. This is where evolutionary psychology comes into direct conflict
with culture. This is the second purgatory; the second no-man-land where a
large, really a majority of people, feel uncomfortable with the biological mandates
and try to change them, which brings us back full circle to the first purgatory;
how do we change what is in our genes. Thou shall not kill. It is amoral except
if it is in self-defense but is abortion to save the life of the mother self
defense. Is it moral or amoral to use the death penalty to kill a serial killer
to protect society? Obviously, a serial killer is insane so if you agree with use
of the death penalty in that circumstance, do you agree that society should put
insane people to death. Is it amoral to let a person die if that person cannot
support him or her self i.e. survive? Is
racism xenophobia? If xenophobia is in our genes is racism in our genes and if
it is how do, we change it. Is criminality in our genes? Should society put three
time losers in jail for life?
I refuse to accept that there is no hope just because something
is in our genes. There is great hope and cultural universals prove that. Natural
selection, the hallmark of biological evolution, functions at a level of survival
of the fittest after a trial period that lasts several thousands of years. I believe
that society can define what “survival of the fittest” means in social terms,
however, the biological rules of natural selection cannot apply to such a
rapidly moving process; therefore we need social rules. Pressure for adaption
to social environment is the result of something we call “being socially
correct”.
Cultural evolution happens in much shorter time intervals,
perhaps 30 generations or about 600 years for humankind keeping in mind that at
first selection pressure is very effective but decays logarithmically. Modeled
on the idea of eliminating a genetic disease by mandatory selection pressure appears
to eliminate a disease in a generation or so but not in a population, it may
linger for a very long time. I think the
same is true of such things a racism. Nonetheless, cultural evolution is still evolution
and the rules of survival of the fittest still apply; a racist cannot survive. Rather
than call it artificial or confuse it with biological or natural selection I
refer to this type of pressure as learned selection. Some social body, group or
segment of society “learned” that racism is bad. It was based on the concept that
all men are created equal, another misinterpretation
of a biological concept that flies in the face of survival of the fittest; some
survive but others do not. We base social equality on the idea that society
should provide all men with equal
opportunity. Extend the idea of equal opportunity to the right to life, the
right to an education, and healthcare. In the Untied States we have equal protection
under the law, which is what the SCOTUS violated this week, the right to voter.
What is scary about learned selection is that it is social
Darwinism. People select what they thinks is good for man as individuals but is
that what is good for the species?
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
No comments:
Post a Comment