Society And The Rest Of Us

I started this essay between six and seven years ago, but I never finished it. The time has come, even though the slant now may be different from what I originally intended. I've edited it to conform to my current philosophy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Someone repeats the same sentence several times. He is getting older and his children are tired of hearing him. What's to be done? Perhaps the affliction is pathological and requires a remedy.

A man goes around the room straightening every picture – some only a millimeter or two off his mark. He has obsessive-compulsive disorder. It clearly abnormal. Everyone agrees he needs to be treated.

A child looks out the window every time a teacher starts speaking. It must be attention-deficit disorder. Such a problem is clearly detrimental, and the proper medicines and counseling must be instituted to alter this behavior.

A woman talks incessantly, not leaving an opening for anyone else to talk, and apparently unaware of what anyone else has to say. Though irritating, it's normal and requires no professional intervention, although someone may say something.

No, this isn't a misogynistic or any other type of rant. My target, rather, is the way we set standards of what is normal and what isn't. I'm a little put out by the way we decide what falls outside the range of the acceptable, in speech and in behavior, and what we should – or is it what we can – tolerate. I'm concerned because I view our standards as being based on politics or some kind of imagined correctness and not on any objective criteria.

Let me give an example: A “pin-up” calendar in a men's locker room would be viewed as provocative and unacceptable, while lush wallpaper in a ladies' lounge, wallpaper that includes images of virile Greek gods, would not merit mention. How this attitude entered our society isn't clear, but there are many men, in addition to women, who agree with the view. Somewhere along the line society has conditioned us as to what's acceptable and what's not.

So our comfort is what counts, and the man with OCD needs treatment because it's bothersome to others – not necessarily to himself. And it's easier to diagnose a child as having ADD, and possibly put him on drugs, than to look for any other reason for his behavior. Perhaps the elderly individual who cannot remember what he said would benefit from therapy, but the problem is most striking to the listener, not to the one repeating himself – though he may be judged by the courts to be incapable of making decisions and forced to undergo therapy that others choose.

Most of the problems for which we have devised solutions derive from what society has taught us. And society's dictates vary from time to time. To the point that we no longer accept the Constitution of our country as it was written. Extensive interpretation is necessary. Free speech is nice unless it offends someone. And if it bothers someone we've designated as a member of an “oppressed” group it may constitute hate speech. “This is your punishment for deviating from the Bible. I pray that you are forgiven.” Though the speaker may sincerely wish for the benefit of the person he is addressing, said to a homosexual it constitutes deplorable hate speech. The concepts of free speech and freedom of religion, and religious views, are less important than the feelings of the listener. (Often it is a non-involved party whom it offends more than the one to whom it was directed. No one will find it offensive if somebody accuses you of being a gun supporter, though it may be accompanied) by more hate than the biblical remark.)

And words that were perfectly acceptable in the past are no longer to be used. Euphemisms must be substituted. A child who was once said to be retarded is now “special.” But if everyone knows what the euphemisms mean, they're no different from the words they replace. Except to the “sensitive” among us. Meanwhile other words, anatomical designations or expletives once forbidden in public discourse, are used freely and without disapproval.

There's no solution to the problem. Some people will insist that only the way they speak is acceptable, and those who disagree should be silenced. But, as Benjamin Franklin said, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Or, in the words of George Orwell, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” The freedom to express ourselves any way we want is paramount (although those who see their nation's flag burned, or who see Nazis protected by the government while marching through the streets may want their representatives to revisit the issue). And our behavior as well. Forcing us to obey the rules of the intolerant is contrary to any ideas of freedom. Making us fit into societal norms is tyranny.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I said then, and I still believe that what we say and what we do (as long as we're not physically harming others) is our own business and should be protected by society, not controlled by it. Limitations on free speech are only rarely justified, and such action should be taken only after careful consideration of the consequences. As for forced, or pressured, therapy, we went through the tragedy of eugenics early in the last century, and we should know by now that no one should be treated for any real or imagined disease unless he chooses to be.

The United States was founded with the intent of offering freedom. Destroying that freedom in order to soothe the majority must not be tolerated.






February 9, 2017

Darwin, Holmes, And Archer Daniels Midland

Are you in favor of GMOs or opposed to them? Straightforward enough question? Maybe. Maybe not.

They bring up the whole give-and-take about evolution, and that raises religious and scientific debates. But I have no interest in those disputations, only the question of evolution. And, from a practical standpoint, evolution itself may be over. At least as a natural phenomenon affecting (primarily) people and some plants. It continues to apply unchanged to most organisms.

For the purpose of this discussion, I accept the idea that life has been adapting over the period of its existence. And I also assume that most religions have come to terms with this idea, ascribing it to their deity as a tool used, rather than necessarily as the primary form of creation.

A museum of local archaeology was opened recently in New York and featured in it is a large oyster (one foot shell) of a variety not seen here now. Species have changed over time. This is a natural occurrence, fitting life to the conditions it faces. And I just learned that varieties of potato exist in the Netherlands that can grow utilizing salt water rather than fresh water. Much of the country is covered with water from the North Sea. Since potatoes weren't introduced to Europe from South America until the sixteenth century, and didn't become an important food until the nineteenth century, they're not native to the region. Most potatoes require fresh water because that was what they had in Peru – the source of most of what we have now, but it is assumed that millions of years ago some grew in salt water and they have retained the genes to do so again. In any event, some developed with that ability. They were adapted to salt water and were fit to grow in it. It's also worth noting that there are many sea plants that utilize salt water.

This ability – to adapt to existing conditions and take advantage of them – is believed to have governed evolution. Survival of the fittest as Herbert Spencer put it. Natural selection. Or as Nietzsche said, That which does not kill us makes us stronger. And that is just what has happened. And it's still happening. But it takes a long time – millions or billions of years. Still, we've taken advantage of that development, using the specific abilities of a particular species to our advantage. As an example, one that will not be popular with many readers, in hunting there are varieties of dogs that can locate animals by scent and others by sight. There are those that can point them out and some that can retrieve them. Some that flush out game and others that kill it. Water and land dogs are available for the different settings. We breed dogs to have the desired characteristics, much as we breed plants to meet the needs of different tastes – varieties, for example, of citrus fruits and roses. But the basic tools, the genes, were put there by nature and have been passed around by natural cross breeding, or such cross breeding and grafting by people.

Genetic material is what counts. It may be changed by natural phenomena like radiation, or by wild or domestic cross-breeding. Or it may be the result of viral transfer of genetic material from one species to another. The DNA is not created. It is simply transferred. And the result is evolution.

Not all variations are looked upon with favor. There was a period in our history when we felt we could manage evolution. That period occurred in the first half of the Twentieth Century, and the United States was not the only nation to practice eugenics, but it is the one on which I'm focusing here. Arguably, the most famous statement to come out of that period was that of Justice Holmes: Three generations of imbeciles is enough. It was part of the decision he wrote in Buck v. Bell, which authorized forced sterilization in an instance in which it was considered that a eugenic solution was in the public interest. It was a time when, having learned about evolution and heredity, people believed they could craft “better” people scientifically. (It's interesting to see how quickly views can be developed. In our many billion-year-old world, there were fewer than sixty-eight years between the publication of Darwin's book and Buck v. Bell.) The intent was to use those principles to rid the human race of “inferior” individuals. It was a kind of guided evolution – selection of the fittest and their propagation. And it was a philosophy popular in Nazi Germany as well.

Thankfully those days are over. We have rid ourselves of the belief that we are wise enough to decide who should live and who should die. But we have learned more of the science, and now we can devise genetic treatments for some of the maladies that afflict us. We can sometimes find ways to cure, or to eliminate particular diseases that are genetically based, by the use of DNA along with, or in place of, genes prejudicial to the long life of our fellows. It is evolution. But it is not evolution designed to free ourselves of the diseased. Its goal, rather, is to strengthen the victims. We have no wish to eliminate the weak – only the weakness.

And the development of genetically-modified plants is also to strengthen, only it is directed at the crops that help our species survive. Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, and other similar organizations, are developing strains of crops that will have increased yields and, consequently, feed more people. Is their goal to make money? Of course it is, but that doesn't lessen the value of the effort to those who are starving. And stigmatizing the method by implying that it is evil and people would reject it if they knew about it is politics, not a search for knowledge.

Are the results of the science good or bad? That is certainly fodder for lots of debate, but the results are simply an example of a generally praised mechanism – evolution. They are science. They are neither good nor bad. They are the way of the world.



December 5, 2016

The Continuity Of Humanity

                                                                            

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.