We are experiencing an era of silent social chaos while we shift
from living with the results of adaptation to our physical environment to
reasoned adaptation to both our physical and social environment. In terms of cosmic
time, the shift is no more than the blink of an eye but in calendar years, it
is taking upwards of 80,000 years. The easiest changes to recognize relate to
our adaptation to the physical environment—for example, changes that have
allowed humankind expand its geographical range. We physiologically adapted by natural selection
to colder climates: we trade off consuming of larger and costly amounts of food
in colder climates to maintain a fixed body temperature in contrast to the Fertile
Crescent: contraction of peripheral capillaries and shivering for example. The
requirement for more food is a burden offset by survival. However, in that context
how do we explain wearing animal skins and setting next to a fire to keep warm
in term of natural selection? They are certainly adaptations well beyond anything
B.F. Skinner or Pavlov ever dreamed. With the realization that identical twins
behave more like one another than fraternal twins do, scientist proved our behavior
is genetic; thus, subject to natural selection. Thus, not only our physical being
but also our mental being forces us to discard Cartesian dualism and entered
the empirical world of science.
We do not yet understand the interface between our physical being and our mental being, in other
words our biology and our mentality. Stephen Pinker, a Harvard Professor, summarized
the extensive literature dealing with this. He struggled mightily in his book Blank Slate to describe the interface but
like many other scientist and philosophers fell short of defining it. In my opinion,
he stumbled badly in his discussion of morality. E.O. Wilson wrote a book
entitled Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Pinker summarized
the problem and Wilson suggested an approach but the solution is elusive. It is
time for a genius, an Einstein of biology, to step forward and put it all
together.
It is clear that recognition of the cruelty of natural selection
contributed to our humanization, at least what we call “our humanization”. This
spawned a sense of morality well beyond the genomic contained synergist driven self-preservation,
the universally dominant sense common to all biota. It is clear that these moral
values are often in direct conflict with our evolutionary derived sense of “survival
of the fittest”. For a simple and primitive
example, should a person live in a geographical location where he needs blankets
and a fire to survival? Is it morally wrong for the strongest person not to share
and survive but morally right to share and both die of exposure? Is life sacrosanct
as religions teach or not? Do the horrors of eugenics deny the truth of its
result? If humans, which really means someone other then ourselves, make the
selection; it is wrong but if done without human intervention (natural selection),
it is right—for example, the decision to feed those who lack the intelligence
to feed themselves or let them starve. In other words, is socially Darwinism something
that should horrify us as it now does? Where
is our newly acquired morality, only 80,000 years old, taking us, which is a
question only answerable, as E. W. Wilson suggests, through sweeping consilience?
Our most important question should focus
on finding answers to how to reconcile moral values that enhance our quality of
life (desirable) with individual survival (also desirable). How does our individual
greed, which insures our own survival, affect our survival as a species? Shouldn’t something about having our cake and
eating it too serve as a caveat?
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
No comments:
Post a Comment