Since evolution is taught badly in schools (and few go on to learn it at uni), we have misconceptions. One is that evolution is “for the good of the species”, with each species becoming refined as a whole. Not true: evolution doesn’t necessarily cause a whole species to become better adapted. Sometimes it does, like the classic example of giraffes’ necks getting longer. Other times it backs species into a corner.
Evolving to Extinction
A species might become better and better adapted by edging towards a cliff, then falling off. Say a herd of wild horses can eat all the grass except the bottom 2cm. Some will have longer necks that let them graze more and only leave 1.5cm. Their genes will spread and this will be the new norm. Next stage is to have the horses evolve to eat a bit more grass. And so on, until we reach the “optimum” solution for an individual horse: eat all the grass. The grass can’t grow back, horses become extinct, oops. Each step is a perceived improvement on a small scale but it’s not for the good of the species. (HT)
Sexual Selection
The best examples of a species backed into the corner are the fancy birds. Birds of paradise, peacocks etc. are forced by sexual selection to keep these ridiculous extravagances. The “good of the species” would dictate that all males stop this nonsense and start producing tails that might actually help them run away. Impossible: the females have a wild and insatiable fetish for bright plumage. A male in more practical dress simply wouldn’t get any sex.
Why No Good of the Species? No Group Selection
How did altruism/morality evolve? If you’re under the “good of the species” misconception, you might say: “Cooperation improves a population’s chance of survival. Therefore, altruistic populations will have more offspring than selfish populations. Eureka.” Alas this doesn’t work. Yes IF a population were made of altruists everyone would benefit. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was nice? But how would such a population get started in the first place? In a nice population a few individuals who take advantage will get an edge over everyone else. Eventually their genes will take over. 10,000 years of human history show the same — pacifism is immoral as it only works if everyone else is a pacifist; one non-pacifist fox in the henhouse and we’re screwed.
Altruism and morality do exist but they need to be explained only in terms of individual reward. How the hell is this possible? One day I’ll try summarise it in a 300 words post. Till then consult the classics.
It’s hard for our brains, which evolved to see purpose and foreplanning everywhere, to think in these terms. But we must, so as not to live in a fantasy world. Nature only optimises for an individual’s reproductive success; completely overlooking the same individual’s suffering and certainly any benefit to the species as a whole.
0 Comments