It is the “instinct” of living things to survive. The continuity of individual species is a primary part of the inborn “program” of all plants and animals. A species cannot evolve if it is extinct. We recognize this basic principal when we support efforts to label and preserve endangered species.i
For that continuity to take place – for the good of the species – it is important that reproduction take place. That reproduction should be in large numbers and with an emphasis on variation, since evolution, and the advancement both of individual species and life in general, depends on these fundamental building blocks. The greater the number of members of a species, the greater the possibility for superior examples to exist.ii The greater that number, moreover, the greater the possibility of new variations in the genetic pool which will allow advancement to take place.
With that in mind, a lot can be said in favor of rape and incest. Both of these practices increase the likelihood of additional pregnancies and additional progeny. What could be better devised to provide for species continuity? Society may not be sanguine about these methods, but that is an emotional rather than a rational reaction. Whatever yields a greater number of species members is advantageous to the species.iii
A ban on homosexuality and abortions, therefore, makes sense – not for any religious reasons but because actions that decrease the number of species members are counterproductive. Similarly, the death penalty should be outlawed and all prisons emptied so that there will be more individuals – humans in the case under discussion – available to reproduce. These steps may not seem to be rational, but, in fact, they are – at least in terms of evolution. Evolution is a product of time and numbers. We may not be able to affect the passage of time, but we can increase the numbers. Any action that limits population should be abjured since it limits evolution at the same time. If those actions are not examples of the Law of Unanticipated Results, they have the same effect. However virtuous the goal of limiting numbers in the hope of improving the condition of humanity, that action will inevitably hamper our evolution to a better and more productive humanity.
We can also improve the quality of the species by a restoration of a limited form of the practice of eugenics. We have no compunctions about using selective breeding techniques to get better looking flowers or cattle with more meat and less fat, and similar methods designed to produce more intelligent and healthier humans make sense as well. I do not propose that we leave deformed babies on the mountain sides, or that we withhold treatment from the sick (especially those capable of reproducing) in order to rid ourselves of imperfect examples of our kind, but with the limitation of resources that seems to be an unavoidable part of our civilization, it seems counterproductive to use funds for the salvage of the infirm who may pass their own infirmity on to future generations.iv It would be better to use the limited funds for the discovery of those with superior DNA, and the matching of those individuals for reproduction – as well as genetic manipulation, and also the cloning of superior specimens.
The combination of rape, incest, ends to abortion, homosexuality, and the death penalty, the release of convicts, and the encouragement of cloning, multiple births and eugenics, then, should have beneficial effects on the evolution of humanity. That may seem counterintuitive, but the logic is unassailable. At least in terms of what we know about natural selection and evolution.
But for many, such steps don't make much sense. For them, evolution has more to do with ethics than with numbers and anatomy. However many members of humanity there are, we have a responsibility for them. The concepts of right and wrong take precedence over numbers, and the idea that the end – a larger population – justifies the means. The promotion of rape and incest, for example – makes a mockery of the whole idea of humanity. Perhaps many favor an end to the death penalty, but not the release of dangerous prisoners. And if they oppose eugenics and abortion, it is not in order to aid evolution. It is because they believe these practices to be wrong.
Interestingly, the ideas of right and wrong do not seem to be cultural, since they exist in almost all societies including isolated ones.v They seem to be inborn. In a way, they are as much a part of human beings as arms and legs, a liver and a spleen. But the anatomical features may be found as well in what we view as lower forms. A hyena has legs; a rattlesnake has a liver. As humanity has evolved it has found ethical concepts as part of its makeup. From a violent past we have progressed to a present in which it is “human nature” to provide for the less fortunate; we all know without being taught that murder and theft are wrong. We seem to be evolving into a species that sees the Ten Commandments as natural and unassailable. As Voltaire put it in “The Three Impostors," "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." Voltaire used the subjunctive because he believed that God did exist. But that view is not universal. Even so, it seems that if we don't kill each other off first, evolution will one day bring us to the point that we all accept the idea that there are rules as real as our organs, and those rules cannot be questioned any more than our lungs can be questioned.
Or, if we accept religious doctrines as they now exist, it is obvious that the proposals to aid evolution may be rational, but they're foolish and immoral. We don't need evolution to teach us these rules, we have them already.
Next episode: “Time In” – There's a time for everything.
i I don't mean to suggest that all the efforts to protect endangered species are rational, but the reasoning on which such efforts are based has some internal logic. Arguments can be made, however, that the cost of saving some species is too high to justify any conceivable benefits that evolution may confer on them.
ii Inferior ones will also be produced, but that's a risk worth taking. And they are less likely to survive in the long run.
iii IVF (in-vitro fertilization) is developing and being utilized at an increasing rate as time goes by. I would be advantageous to the effort to ensure multiple pregnancies as often as possible to increase the numbers. “Octomom,” and the doctor who performed the procedure that resulted in that result, are to be congratulated for their work to enlarge the genetic pool.
iv There is nothing to be gained by helping the survival of evolution's failures.
v The ideas may not be identical. There may be differences in the details of right and wrong, but there are some ideas that bridge all cultures. And the very idea that there are certain practices that are wrong is common to all groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.