On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:19:23 +0100, John Wallace
>>As I said, "evolution" and therefore also "survival of the fittest" is
>>not somekind of "process" at work. Rather it is a label that we assign
>>to the course of things. Reality is not aware of any general rule that
>>has to be obeyed or something. There is nothing to neglect or to
>>comply to.
>Whether we assign it a label or not, Darwinism is a process that is
>followed, uniwttingly, by every animal on the planet. Mankind has
>changed this far more than any other species.
>>That's why getting rid of the weak and helpless wouldn't guarantee us
>>a faster evolution of mankind or a superior race. It is a
>>simplification. Hitler was wrong on that one, too (the poor dumbass
>>:-) )
>Hitler wasn't afforded the opportunity to succeed or fail, since such
>changes take many tens, hundreds or even thousands of years to show an
>effect and he was fortunately afforded far fewer. But it would
>undeniably make a difference, otherwise how do you think mankind got
>to the situation of today?
>>But a more complex environment/interactions might generate completely
>>different mechanisms in which these simple rules do NOT show the way
>>to go. Just consider the recent shift in importance from "physical
>>strength" to "brainpower". There might be a similar battle going on
>>between "egotism" and "altruism". What about "individualism" vs
>>"collectivity". "Ecology" vs "productivity", "conflict" vs "symbiosis"
>>and so on... Only history will show us which alternatives turn out to
>>be advantageous.
>Indeed, and ALL of those are a part of Darwinism. You choose to
>intepret "weaker" as physically weaker, and in the case of a gazelle
>that is true, but Darwinism states simply that it is less well adapted
>to the prevailing conditions that it's peers, and that is true of
>brainpower, altrusim, individualism and so on. It's survival of the
>gene, not the individual, and humankind follows that less well than at
>any time in their history.
John, I think what I disagree with in your explanation is the use of
the word "follows". Using "to follow" implies that the possibility to
"escape from it" exists too.
In your view, it would somehow be possible to "step out" of Evolution
and choose another way. Sort of "outsmarting" the natural course of
things.
But that's what I meant by "There is nothing to neglect or to comply
to." What we do as a species becomes by definition part of Evolution.
If we decide to try to break with Evolutionary principles, or if our
behaviour unconsciously seems to go that way, then it is merely an
illusion. Evolutionary selection is always going on, and if the trend
of human so called "a-typical" behaviour continous, then that simply
means that Evolution makes us do it. Because there is no "correct"
direction or "wrong" direction. There's just THE direction which
becomes Evolution along the way.
I hope I make sense since it is not easy in a foreign language :-)
JoH
