"If you accept evolution, then you accept that it is the species that is important -- not an individual organism. We are fighting for the very existence of intelligence in the universe. We are fighting to preserve the most unique thing we know that exists -- life itself."
That sounds terribly naive to me. According to the gene-centric view of evolution, that is completely wrong.
I like to watch documentaries about simians because they're the animals closest to humans. They live in society, share tasks, and generally do a lot of things humans do. Some male simians even pay for sex! It happens that the alpha male gets to impregnate most females of the group, and most males are left with nothing. These males obviously don't like being reproductive losers and rebel against the status quo. They will try to kill the alpha male and fight among themselves to see who the new alpha male will be. They will kill the former alpha male's babies so that they can impregnate the females and let these take care of their offspring, not someone else's offspring. They don't care a fig about the species, they care about fulfilling their biological role, which is to procreate with the best females of the pack.
Humans are not monkeys, but most of us aren't that different in terms of behavior. Given that there are limited resources such as food and fertile females, caring about the species makes little sense to most animals. Maybe it makes some sense to humans, but I personally think that's baloney. We have evolved beyong the basic primate level, but not as much as some people think.
We are more than our genes. Let's not be reductionists here.
So yes, we have brains which can make some of us do things like die for others or even die for ideas. That's quite something for your uncaring individuals.
And I think your view of gene-centric evolution sounds terribly naïve: It has been explained a lot of times that the "selfish gene" has nothing to do with making us selfish ^^ Quite the contrary: it can make individuals do very altruistic things for their siblings (potentially carriers of the same gene).
And finally, in my opinion even if genes are fixed like hardware, their seems still to be some freedom left to software, memes...
Of course we are more than our genes. We can rise above our primitiveness, hopefully. I didn't mean to defend the gene-centric theory of evolution because I am not an expert on it. And yes, I have read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" too, so I am acquainted with the theory that altruism and collaboration can stem from the so-called selfish gene.
Enough of theories. Let us look at facts. There are limited resources, and we will fight for them. Like I said, I don't believe that we fight for what's good for the species. We fight for ourselves, our families and communities. We are still rather tribal.
Of course, this presumes one accepts a gene-centered view of evolution. The fact that we know of multiple species whose behaviors change faster than their genotype (not just humans -- see, e.g., apes which use tools and develop new learned behaviors) seems to suggest that there's more we should be considering (and no, that doesn't mean "take a copy of The Selfish Gene and replace 'gene' with 'meme' everywhere").
Comments
"If you accept evolution, then you accept that it is the species that is important -- not an individual organism. We are fighting for the very existence of intelligence in the universe. We are fighting to preserve the most unique thing we know that exists -- life itself."
That sounds terribly naive to me. According to the gene-centric view of evolution, that is completely wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
I like to watch documentaries about simians because they're the animals closest to humans. They live in society, share tasks, and generally do a lot of things humans do. Some male simians even pay for sex! It happens that the alpha male gets to impregnate most females of the group, and most males are left with nothing. These males obviously don't like being reproductive losers and rebel against the status quo. They will try to kill the alpha male and fight among themselves to see who the new alpha male will be. They will kill the former alpha male's babies so that they can impregnate the females and let these take care of their offspring, not someone else's offspring. They don't care a fig about the species, they care about fulfilling their biological role, which is to procreate with the best females of the pack.
Humans are not monkeys, but most of us aren't that different in terms of behavior. Given that there are limited resources such as food and fertile females, caring about the species makes little sense to most animals. Maybe it makes some sense to humans, but I personally think that's baloney. We have evolved beyong the basic primate level, but not as much as some people think.
We are more than our genes. Let's not be reductionists here. So yes, we have brains which can make some of us do things like die for others or even die for ideas. That's quite something for your uncaring individuals.
And I think your view of gene-centric evolution sounds terribly naïve: It has been explained a lot of times that the "selfish gene" has nothing to do with making us selfish ^^ Quite the contrary: it can make individuals do very altruistic things for their siblings (potentially carriers of the same gene).
And finally, in my opinion even if genes are fixed like hardware, their seems still to be some freedom left to software, memes...
Of course we are more than our genes. We can rise above our primitiveness, hopefully. I didn't mean to defend the gene-centric theory of evolution because I am not an expert on it. And yes, I have read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" too, so I am acquainted with the theory that altruism and collaboration can stem from the so-called selfish gene.
Enough of theories. Let us look at facts. There are limited resources, and we will fight for them. Like I said, I don't believe that we fight for what's good for the species. We fight for ourselves, our families and communities. We are still rather tribal.
Of course, this presumes one accepts a gene-centered view of evolution. The fact that we know of multiple species whose behaviors change faster than their genotype (not just humans -- see, e.g., apes which use tools and develop new learned behaviors) seems to suggest that there's more we should be considering (and no, that doesn't mean "take a copy of The Selfish Gene and replace 'gene' with 'meme' everywhere").