If natural selection and ’survival of the fittest’ are the core notions of evolutionary theory, why do you care what happens to the starving Africans in Darfur?
UPDATE: D.T. gives his take on the topic here.
-
#1, March, April, May & June – 2009
18 responses so far ↓
James McGrath // April 16, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Clearly we have evolved capacities beyond the strictly necessary for survival. I care what happens to Africans in Darfur (not merely those who are starving) for the same reason that I enjoy music. Whatever one thinks about the scientific perspective on our existence, the story science tells is not the only angle on human existence worth considering. It absolutely is important, but so are aesthetics, and morality.
I write this as an “evolutionist” (by which I assume you mean someone who accepts what all but a few scientists see clearly, i.e. the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution having occurred) and as a Christian. Hopefully you are not persuaded that one cannot be both.
Clifford Kvidahl // April 16, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Jim, that is a good question. Can you hold to an evolutionary world-view and be a humanitarian?
Jim // April 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm
More pointedly, why would one care what happens to human beings if they are just animals like all the other evolved mammals? One doesn’t stay up at night worrying about the plight of the town mutt.
Sam Meyerson // April 16, 2008 at 2:41 pm
The unspoken assumption here seems to be that morality is inexplicable in terms of natural selection. But why should anyone believe this? Humans are social creatures, so it is hardly surprising that there might be an evolutionary advantage to valuing other human life. The iterated prisoner’s dilemma studies of Axelrod (for which he won a MacArthur Prize) have shown how proto-ethics in the form of “tit for tat” might itself be a good evolutionary strategy.
Increasingly, humans are worried about the town mutt. Or, shall I say, they are worried about the plight of animal test subjects, of endangered species, etc. Anyone who tortures a sentient animal is judged as being sick or evil.
Jay Steele // April 16, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Jim, I think you are confusing the science of evolution as pioneered by Darwin, which can account for why it might be in our best interest to care for the starving in Africa, with Social Darwinism as pioneered by the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age and practiced today by some political conservatives, who don’t think starving people in Africa is anything to worry about.
James McGrath // April 16, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Sure, ignore my comment, Jim. Apparently you ignore me when I quote interesting letters by Sayers too…
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-ordinary-people-think.html
Jim // April 16, 2008 at 2:54 pm
No assumptions or presumptions here, Sam. It’s just a question without an agenda.
Jim // April 16, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Ah James I never ignore ya! I’d say the same to you as I did Sam- it’s just an agenda-less question.
Sam Meyerson // April 16, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Jim, I’m wondering why my comment to your 4/14 post on Hector Avalos was apparently deleted.
Jim // April 16, 2008 at 3:01 pm
It wasn’t deleted. It was never approved.
Sam Meyerson // April 16, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Ah, well in that case, I’m wondering why it was not approved.
Jim // April 16, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It must have been evolutionarily excluded as unfit.
robert r. cargill // April 16, 2008 at 3:38 pm
because humans appear to be the only species of animal that has evolved to such an extent that we actively defy natural selection.
’survival of the fittest’ is encoded in our genes, but humans have somehow discovered that by helping those who would normally be considered by comparative physiologists to be ‘genetically inferior,’ we actually increase diversity within the gene pool, making us less susceptible to catastrophic events. (this is the argument made for the continued presence for sickle cell anemia in areas where malaria is prevalent.) somewhere along the line, we evolved the ability to consciously defy our own programming, and in doing so, began to evolve at a far more rapid pace than the other species. so rather than leaving the slower, smaller, less intelligent, less reproductive humans behind for the scavengers (as is the norm for natural selection), we help them, and in doing so, the species actually becomes stronger, not weaker. go figure, but that’s what has happened.
so we, as a species of animal, are concerned about those suffering elsewhere, even though there is no self- or kin-selective advantage to doing so. call this a soul, ethics, the presence of the spirit, karma, existentialism, or good ol’ kindness, we have somehow found over time that helping those ‘less fortunate’ than ourselves leads (seemingly paradoxically) to a more advanced species than would simply obeying our genetic programming (and therefore natural selection) like all the other animals.
ok, back to archaeology…
robert r. cargill // April 16, 2008 at 3:56 pm
anyone who has done research on the genome of cheetahs knows that the opposite phenomenon is called ‘bottlenecking.’ this is where the genomes of individuals of a particular species become nearly identical (near clones) to one another. in this event, a single, even minor change to the environment, be it a disaster, change in food chain, or a single disease, can wipe out the entire species. genetic diversity actually leads to a greater likelihood of survival in the event of environmental changes.
Nathan Stitt // April 16, 2008 at 4:43 pm
It must have been evolutionarily excluded as unfit.
(no comment on the OP as I only accept micro-evolution)
Drew // April 16, 2008 at 5:46 pm
If our planet is to survive and remain habitable we must, as the top of the food chain and direct cause of environmental toxicity, re-engineer the planet. As human being who are conscious of evolutionary processes, we are responsible to consciously and intentionally direct evolutionary processes around our obligations to each other and the planet. Evolution therefore, has everything to do with love of neighbor and the call to stewardship – it always has.
Should We Believe in Evolution and Still Care? · Notes From Off-Center // April 16, 2008 at 6:02 pm
[...] West puts a finer point on his question here in the comments by asking: Why would one care what happens to human beings if they are just animals [...]
Drew // April 16, 2008 at 6:25 pm
D.T. My nickname can be “delirium tremens”. Cool.
Like gas stations in rural Texas after 10 pm, comments are closed.