The Failure of Evolution, Or why humans don't follow the rules

[matril]

I would like to put forward the random assertion that evolution, defined for this purpose as the process that furthers the survival of the fittest, has failed.


One can put forward any number of arguments for which species is the most highly evolved. But humans are definitely up there, right? We're pretty darn advanced in comparison to, say, the average bacterium or lobster. We kill them better than they kill us, for example. Of course that's not the only, nor the best, measure of superiority, but I think you'll agree it definitely ties into survival of the fittest. Theoretically, our species should be continuing to undergo the process of natural selection so that only the fittest might survive and yield a superior version of humanity after a few (thousand? billion?) generational turns. I'm rather dubious that such a thing is going to happen, though. You might say that evolution, by making humans the way they are, has driven itself into a ditch.

Here we are, sitting pretty somewhere near the pinnacle of evolutionary development, and where are we looking? Not up, for the most part. No, we're looking down at our fellow, lesser-developed life forms, worrying about their well-being. I mean, look at PETA. On second thought, don't - they're pretty crazy. Seriously, what other group of animals, let alone life forms in general, worries about the ethics of how they treat other life forms? No tiger agonizes over devouring his prey. The black widow happily eats her mate without a single twinge of conscious. Thus the great evolutionary wheel turns, until it gets to humans. Then it grinds to a halt. When we realize we've hunted a species nearly to extinction, we don't chalk it up to natural processes. We consider ourselves, natural creatures though we may be, something apart from the rest of nature. We run around determined to save the whales/condors/manatees (How I do love those manatees! Sweet giant lumbering sea-cows), because if not for us, they would still be flourishing, and humans can't possibly be a part of the process of natural selection. (Isn't that how we got here? Shut up!) Those species weren't supposed to die out; it was our foolish human meddling. So we meddle some more, the other way around, to try to fix it. Hmm.

It's not just how we treat other species. It's what we do with the weaker, sickly humans. Do we shrug our shoulders and acknowledge that it's only evolution, after all, doing its work to weed out the less fit? Heavens, no. We make sure everyone has the very best chance at living and reproducing. In fact, we can expect a lot more offspring from those uncultured buffoons who aren't educated about overpopulation, while the intelligent ones are producing one, maybe two children. This may very well result in the survival, or at least the greater prevalence, of the stupidest. (Has anyone seen "Idiocracy?" I haven't, but I understand that's the basic premise of the film. It makes me simultaneously amused and frightened).

But lest you mistake my tongue-in-cheek tone for callousness, and fear for my humanity, I would like to state that I'm glad to see humans spitting in the face of evolution. Glad, I tell you! Our concern for other life forms (beyond our own offspring) serves as proof that we differ from those same other life forms, in terms of our moral and ethical awareness, and the moment we forsake that difference and succumb to the usual process of survival of the fittest, we will lose our true place on this weird, wild planet of ours - the caretakers. The ones who worry about overpopulation and mistreatment of animals and pollution and ecosystems and the depletion of natural resources. Life forms have ruled the earth for millenia without ever worrying about their proper place upon it. We, alone, have had the brain wiring or the evolutionary advantage/disadvantage or the divine mandate or whatever the heck it is to care about every philosophical ramification of our co-existence with others. And I say, keep on promoting this backwards, illogical idea of "Survival of everyone, darn it!"

Thank you. That is all.

Comments

[krpalmer.livejournal.com]

So far as "the stupid people are outbreeding the smart people!" goes, I haven't seen "Idiocracy" but I've read a story by C.M. Kornbluth called "The Marching Morons," declaring much the same point and written over fifty years ago... It's that old "nature versus nurture" thing again, though, and I can at least wonder if "smart" people have more influence on their children than what they've given by birth. Of course, even that might be missing the real point of your closing statements.

[matril.livejournal.com]

Oo, nature versus nurture...that's a whole other can of worms...

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

The future belongs to the Duggars.

[matril.livejournal.com]

Hmm. That might keep me up at night. ;)

[sonetka.livejournal.com]

Well, the Duggars and Wilt Chamberlain, maybe, though I somehow doubt how reassuring that is :). What really perplexes me are the Peter Singers of the world who seem determined to bring us back down and start us getting more utilitarian and animal-esque, at least when it comes to our own species. It's very, very odd. It's a grotesque extension of the freebirthers and lotus birthers who try to model their births after animal ones because "it's the natural way!" To them I say, in the words of Katharine Hepburn in The African Queen, "Nature, Mr. Allnutt, is what we were put in this world to rise above."

[matril.livejournal.com]

I chanced a Google search of this Peter Singer fellow, and I could only say this to him: Go on, sir, with your nuanced arguments about the ethics and utilitarianism of humans being just like all the other animals - you're only proving my point. But yech, what a sicko. :P

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

Heh heh. Just my way of saying fertility is destiny. That's how it always works.

[melitusj.livejournal.com]

While I can't argue your fundamental premise, that humans are very aware of the consequences of their behavior relative to other animals. I can say a few things about evolution.

For some reason everyone seems to take a very hierarchical view of the animal kingdom- that a species is more or less "evolved" relative to another. However, this statement makes no sense in terms of the precepts of evolutionary biology. Evolution is not about becoming better, it is that those that don't die end up becoming the dominant population and what makes you die changes, so populations drift over time (new aspects are introduced at random through mutation which mix things up over time as well). It's a passive process that one can't take any credit for. Besides that- bacteria are splendid at not dying. Can you survive in a -80 C freezer indefinitely? E. Coli can. Can you double your population in 30 minutes? E. Coli can. And, really, bacteria have been doing a terrific job of killing us off all these years. Until recently we hardly paid attention to killing them at all- it was usually an accident.

Hence, I always wince when people claim something is more or less evolved. Species are suited to their environments because if they weren't they'd die off. Evolution is not progress. A whale and a bacteria are equally evolved because both genetic populations have been drifting for the same amount of time, morphological differences are not indicative of a lack or presence of evolution, whales are the descendants of populations that got pushed to different environments or niches in the environment than bacteria- but bacteria have changed over time as well (just ask any microbiologist about antibiotic resistant bacteria or bacteria that eat plastics that didn't exist until recently, etc.)

Okay- this isn't really what you were getting at, but evolution is so often misunderstood that I had to rant.

Thanks for listening. (or not)

[matril.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was rather hoping you would bring in an educated view. I like the description of evolution as a passive process, not one with a grand end goal. The crucial difference between humans and other life forms has very little to do with our ability to survive. It's our ability to look at the world and recognize a process like evolution and worry what it implies about the meaning of our existence, while other life forms are content to just exist.