Can Darwin Replace Marx? [Book Review]

In a small (hunter-gather society), where resources are scarce, people will share because they expect the others to reciprocate. If one person is holding back, hoarding food or lack of effort, everyone will know and reciprocate in kind. In a larger group cheaters can and will survive.
Capitalism is the natural result of Darwinian evolution. I think that it can be shown that labor unions and a limited central government are also the natural outcome of evolution,

You kind of make my point. One of the tenets of sociobiology is that you must consider the environment in which humans evolved - the small hunter/gatherer band.

People living in groups larger than 200 or so, capitalism and labor unions are only a few thousand years old at most. MUCH too recent for evolution to have enabled us to adapt to them. It takes thousands of generations before a beneficial trait becomes common in a species.

But wouldn't evolutionary theory-science if you accept it as most do-dictate then that individualism and freedom are wrong and contrary to human nature, and thus must be replaced with a more balanced, communal nature? I can only imagine the glee liberals would feel should they stumble over some good idealogy mixing...

If you felt that humans should stick to the behaviors that are "natural" then I guess you will also have to say it is OK for men to impregnate as many women as they can get away with, abandon their wives once past child-bearing age, kill those from outside their tribe, kill children that aren't theirs, etc., etc.,

Realizing we have inherited certain instincts for base behavior (infanticide, voting Democratic)is not the same as giving in to them!

Well heck, Mr. Singer sees nothing against infanticide in certain cases. Has certain evolutionary benefits such as weeding out weak stock to further the species along. And of course killing offspring that aren't yours furthers your genes along-an obvious advantage on your part. Many of these immoral practises, also implemented by animals, are considered to be of purely evolutionary origin and thus must be benificial- indeed from a standpoint of defending one's genes and strengthening the species they are almost certainly excellent traits, as far as survival goes. Wait and see-there are those that would thrill to see our silly "superstitions" on morality disapear. Expect infaticide as the first to arrive.

#22 People living in groups larger than 200 or so, capitalism and labor unions are only a few thousand years old at most. MUCH too recent for evolution to have enabled us to adapt to them. It takes thousands of generations before a beneficial trait becomes common in a species.

Arleigh, I don’t mean to imply that we are genetically pre-disposed to capitalism. Given that man is basically *selfish, lazy and cooperative capitalism is the natural economic system that will evolve. I would assume that capitalism has its roots in the early barter systems that were presumably in place many thousands of years ago. As soon as a group of people could begin to generate a surplus and establish trade with another group (or even trading within their own group) the basic trappings of capitalism would appear. (The basic trappings of capitalism are the ability – right – to generate and retain a net profit.) As a society evolves from hunter-gather to technological, the system refines itself until it reaches the level that we have today.

*These traits have been around for thousands of generations.

#24 No, getting all you can as easily as you can requires nothing more than a little laziness and dishonesty.

Individualism is a basic trait of human nature. So is laziness and dishonesty. If we were more concerned about others (not individualistic), capitalism would not exist. Neither would welfare because the recipients would work rather than freeload. And it takes freedom to be freeloader, aka, the poor houses and debtor prisons of not long ago.

…but evolution could also be argued to support socialism, that is, the survival of the species-which in many species is the only important goal

The only “goal” of evolution is survival of the individual. We sometimes talk about group survival or “good of the species” as a convenient way to describe what has happened, but this is only a convenience. Evoultion does not work on a group level. The survival of the species is never a “concern” of evolution. Individuals are never concerned with the survival of the species (or, at least they weren’t until recently when we actually developed the means to annihilate mankind).

… evolution-…could be selectively modified to support just about any worldview, which indeed it has.

Good point, but in modifying a theory, you sometimes destroy the theory.

Actually, while I suppose it's rather irrevelant for humans, there are thousands if not millions of "social" insects that must cooperate to survive. As I'm sure you're aware, there are whole "classes" of ants that esentially are not concerned with the individual-they exist to keep the colony going. Of course, humans are not ants and can not reasonably exist under a "socialist" plan such as socila insects have (of course I'm applying broad human-political terms to make my point, please forgive!). And I also think you wrong that we have been able to live as pure "individuals" until recently. One should note that most primates, or at least the ones we are supposed to have originated from, tend to live in at least large patriarchial groups concerned with their collective survivial to a certain extent.

As a whole though, one can not apply the behaviors of animals to humans-well, you could, but they fall short, and often disreguard basic moral standards (which I suppose may eventually be discarded by "progressive thinkers"). Whether you imagine man as a special creation or a result of primate evolution, we are obviously distinct in behavior. Even the most "primitive" humans were far ahead of primates, so far as we can tell (if you disagree please point me to the evidence stating otherwise). In the end, both capitalism and communism and anything in between can be supported by evolution or creation, though to be fair there haven't been to many Southern Baptist Stalins. I would note that evolution proponents for some reason have a much higher number of radical environmentalists, which to me makes no sense (why attempt to curb evolution's course?). Not that your worldview (relating to origins in this case) matters, it does, very heavily, but it is not a fixed thing, obviously, in determing political views.

Apparently you are somewhat unfamiliar with the infamous Dr. Singer. He is the shock jock of the left if you will. He openly advocates infanticide, euthansia, eugenics and equvocates animal rights with human rights. He takes Darwinism to its logical conclusions and is thus hated for it by the mainstream left that is rather embarassed by his conclusions. Singer is so out there he could make a Nazi blush. When Singer is telling his friend on the left not to abandon evolution, he is not referring to evolutionary biology, but to the more speculative offshoots of evolution such as sociobiology and Darwinism applied to economics, sociology and politics. You might say he is a fundamentalist evolutionist.

Man, you said a mouthful. I’ll try to respond without getting to far afield.

ANTS: Ants and bees are very selfish critters. Their behavior can be analyzed in terms of genetics and explained quite neatly.

Ultimately we are individuals. We put the good of the group ahead of ourselves in limited fashion. It is to my benefit that I don’t whack my neighbor over the head for playing his stereo too loud– I call the police and they whack him. But the police are also protecting me from my other neighbor who doesn’t like me mowing my lawn at 7:00 AM. We have a social contract that insures that I can pursue my own interests and not infringe on you in the process. We both benefit. Primates are the same. They cooperate to a point, but when push comes to shove, they will (and humans will) kill for their own survival.

In the end, both capitalism and communism and anything in between can be supported by evolution or creation,.

Now we get to the nitty gritty. I don’t think that you need to accept the Darwinian theory of evolution to see my point. I’m just talking about the mechanisms of evolution, ie, survival of the individual. I’ll quote from an earlier post:

Given that man is basically *selfish, lazy and cooperative capitalism is the natural economic system that will evolve. I would assume that capitalism has its roots in the early barter systems that were presumably in place many thousands of years ago. As soon as a group of people could begin to generate a surplus and establish trade with another group (or even trading within their own group) the basic trappings of capitalism would appear. (The basic trappings of capitalism are the ability – right – to generate and retain a net profit.) As a society evolves from hunter-gather to technological, the system refines itself until it reaches the level that we have today.

The fact that man is selfish and lazy may be because we are “higher animals” (hardcore evolutionist) or maybe this is the true nature of the “original sin” that God cursed mankind with. Either way, if you start with that premise, I don’t see how you can possibly get to socialism or communism. If you can show me how, please do so.
(Marx started with the idea that man is totally a product of his upbringing and could be taught to live in a communist society. I say that man has these inherent “bad” qualities that no amount of social pressure will ever change.) I won’t even comment on why evolution proponents for some reason have a much higher number of radical environmentalists.

Capitalism is a rather vague term, come to think of it. Certain animals might be considered "capitalist" in that they possess "tools" (well all right, you must use your imagination!). Perhaps a better term would be "free market". This is a recent invention, or so it would appear to me. Throughout history, people groups have inclined towards central government, whether we are talking about the ancient Mesoptamians or modern America. There is the value in vesting one authority with looking out for your well-being; the challenge for us of course is making sure that the central authority does not over-ride your individual freedom (freedom is also a debatable concept-from whence did man supposedly originate ideas of inaliable freedom? If they evolved do they truely possess validity?). In purely evolutionary terms, it would make sense for a semi-free, semi-communal society to develop: neither extreme. Do we see this? Somewhat, humans tend to reach midway points in their extremes, such as the cycle of monarchy-oligarchy-democracy-tryany. It would be handy to point out an earliest human society, however, I doubt we can find much substantiave proof for that. I would warrant that early, "primitive" society, such as one might find in Northern Europe at the close of the Ice Age, would strike a balance between a heavy-handed central government and individual freedom, of ocurse on very base levels.

However, you are right on one thing: nothing in human nature trends to Communism. However, it does trend to tryany in many cases, as one can see throughout history. At any rate, I would concede that communism and socialism, while not inherent to evolutionary theory, are influenced by it, or were, in their development. Now, whether wvolution can or should explain Communism...I personally think Communism is the upwelling of evil in men's hearts. To a certain degree, those that implicate Communism are usually following very base instincts as you would call them, that is, the goal to wield power over others, a degenerate expression of individualism (at the expense of other individuals!).

Now, what do you think of Singer's ideas on infanticide? One must concede (I think) that this is evolutionary, such practise can be helpful to the individual and indirectly to the species, can it not? And are you aware of some evolutionary reasoing suporting cannibalism? I do not say an evolutionist must support such things, however, to be consistent, I do not see how one can label these "wrong" (they can be quite benificial-ie your scenario with your neighbor). Likewise, evolution can be used to support other immoral practises quite readily. Now, does this in any way cause evolution to be wrong? Of course not. However (I think) it is worth noting its possible implications (perhaps from an evolutionists standpoint to battle against these immoral uses of the theory?).

Heh-heh, better quit my rabbit trail rambling for now...

it would make sense for a semi-free, semi-communal society to develop: neither extreme.

Here it sounds like we are in very close agreement. However, I would say cooperative rather than semi-communal (don’t like the socialistic sound). Tyranny, the evolutionary success of one man (group), is a deviation from the stable semi-free, loosely governed ideal. Time will rectify the situation.
I would go on to claim that the present society in the United States, a free market restrained to a point by a central government is near the optimum from an evolutionary standpoint. In principle, anyone can grab the gold ring.

...what do you think of Singer's ideas on infanticide

Having raised a few young ones, I can understand why one would contemplate infanticide at 2:00AM feeding time. But as a general practice, I would hope that our social morals would not let us do that. I suppose that a hard-core evolutionist could recommend that we be bred like cows for superior athletic ability, intelligence, good looks and charm, but this is taking a judgmental position on what is good for the human race. I don’t like that sort of future. I’ll take a gamble with the one I love and hope that we make good young ones.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Its purpose is to explain a set of observed facts. Whenever someone takes a scientific theory and attempts to draw morals from it, the *&*% will hit the fan.

You can justify, from a survival viewpoint, all sorts of immoral actions. But, justifying an action in terms of survival does not make it right or wrong, moral or immoral. We have agreed on a certain set of behavioral standards to judge right and wrong. These standards are not based on science, but on human experience and emotion.

Oh, I don't believe early man was communal-I think that early humans were considerably more "civilized" than most think. I expect to see the dates for "advanced" humanity to be pushed back further and further.

As far as formulating your morals on science, I would speculate that one must have some kind of moral absolute for their to be...moral absolutes! The problem with evolution is that it brings morality and ethics down to the level of "whatever I will in my heart is right". Thus what I, or perhaps large segments of society, find to be "right" can fluctuate with no boundaries. Ah well, I'm fairly confident that all those years of fundamentalists tinkering with our brains has locked in a pretty decent set of moral codes, and I don't expcet the evolution supporters to start rushing about commiting heinous acts of violence against infants. I do think that we will see more and more basic tenents of morality stripped away, with evolution (indeed rightly so from a strict standpoint) used as a support. For while the people bent on this could use any number of world-view, evolution suits it better than others-but again, this is not a reason to discard it, on its moral merits alone, as a theory of science is neutral (a distinction liberals fail to make with things-another story!).

The problem with evolution is that it brings morality and ethics down to the level of "whatever I will in my heart is right".

Evolution does not bring ethics down to the …. People who try to read morals into scientific theories end up with garabage.

When L.A. had too much smog they turned to science and said “How do we get rid of this. Our world view is that we will be happier if we have less smog. If you tell us what to do, we will make it the right and moral thing to do.” Science responded, “Clean up your cars,……”. Now, the right thing to is drive a clean car, etc.
Society decided what was right (no pollution), then applied science to the problem.

The environmental issues facing us today are a good place to contrast right and wrong as decided from a social point (I want to live here), and those who use science for the source of right and wrong (You can’t live here because there is 1/100,000,000 chance that you will get cancer) .

Science can guide us in what we should do to achieve an end, but what that end is depends on our world view. Our morals stem from thousands of years of experience living in a society. I don’t see how this can generate “absolute morals”, but science certainly cannot provide them either.

whatever I will in my heart is right".

This is correct, because what we have agreed on, our social contract, has no basis in anything other than our emotions and desires.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.