My question is: Does human nature ever actively contradict with evolutionary principles?
This is difficult to answer, and involves making clear one's definition of 'evolutionary principle.' If one means the principles which strictly promote passing on one's genes to the next generation, then human nature absolutely can contradict with them; some humans choose not to reproduce, some humans have sexual orientations which (assuming they act upon only those orientations) do not lead to reproduction, and some humans choose to engage in activities which clearly threaten their lives, therefore jeopardising their chances of passing on their genes. If one means the principles which promote the survival of the species as a whole, I think that human nature can also contradict with them - oddly enough, by the aspects of human nature which promote the survival of the individual, at the expense of the species. Overall, human nature is simply too variable to align itself with one particular goal.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Q&A 11, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: What is the relation between evolution and emotions?
Emotions, like every other aspect of human nature, are determined by the process of natural selection. However, like many other aspects, they are not always purely practical. Emotions can have other effects than those which caused them to be selected into human nature, and I think it is often these effects which can help in the development of a moral code. For example, the evolutionary use of empathy might be to promote group ties which contribute to the overall well-being of a species. However, empathy can also extend to those not in one's immediate group, and perhaps even those not of one's own species. This could lead to a general 'golden rule' type morality, which later on might develop into a more complex code of ethics, promoting tolerance and kindness to others, support of equality, or even vegetarianism.
Emotions, like every other aspect of human nature, are determined by the process of natural selection. However, like many other aspects, they are not always purely practical. Emotions can have other effects than those which caused them to be selected into human nature, and I think it is often these effects which can help in the development of a moral code. For example, the evolutionary use of empathy might be to promote group ties which contribute to the overall well-being of a species. However, empathy can also extend to those not in one's immediate group, and perhaps even those not of one's own species. This could lead to a general 'golden rule' type morality, which later on might develop into a more complex code of ethics, promoting tolerance and kindness to others, support of equality, or even vegetarianism.
Technology as a Scapegoat
I have heard many people claim that technology is responsible for some significant aspect or aspects of the world's current problems. However, I think that in most cases the problem is not due to the technology itself, but instead to people's use of it. The television, for example, is not an inherently evil object; one can use it to convey important information (as on some science shows) or provide quality entertainment (as in the cases of some films which are undeniably works of art). However, people both misuse and overuse it, by spending an inordinate amount of time fixated on mind-numbing reality shows and other such content-lacking media. Yet many people blame the television itself for this problem. Similarly, many technologies which humans have used to cause death, suffering, or other negative effects have perfectly legitimate other uses which could greatly benefit many people. Again, focusing on the technology is ineffective; if we eliminate the technology which enables us to do some immoral or problematic thing, we will simply find another way to do that very same thing. The problem is with people, not with technology - but owning up to being the cause of serious problems is a difficult action for many people, so rather than doing so they find a convenient scapegoat.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Response: Replacing vs. Enhancing
In response to Andrew Nelson's post "Human-Directed Evolution" (5/5/2012):
I do not think that continuing to pursue 'artificial evolution' is at all a bad idea; in fact, I think it is a very good one. While science-fiction novels and films frequently depict dystopian futures wherein 'normal' humans have to show that they have some kind of special quality that makes them better than 'enhanced' humans, in reality I think that taking advantage of technological enhancements would have relatively few negative effects. Of course, such advancements could very lead to a class divide, but that is a problem of capitalism rather than of the technology itself. In a socialist or communism society, the advancements would only be positive, and anyone who chose to could take advantage of them.
This last point is why I prefer the idea of technological enhancements to eugenics - because enhancements are available to pre-existing people, rather than to a new generation. This would make them, I think, much more appealing to many people, because they do not make already-living people 'defunct.' This makes the idea much more practical, as it is more likely to garner mass support.
I do not think that continuing to pursue 'artificial evolution' is at all a bad idea; in fact, I think it is a very good one. While science-fiction novels and films frequently depict dystopian futures wherein 'normal' humans have to show that they have some kind of special quality that makes them better than 'enhanced' humans, in reality I think that taking advantage of technological enhancements would have relatively few negative effects. Of course, such advancements could very lead to a class divide, but that is a problem of capitalism rather than of the technology itself. In a socialist or communism society, the advancements would only be positive, and anyone who chose to could take advantage of them.
This last point is why I prefer the idea of technological enhancements to eugenics - because enhancements are available to pre-existing people, rather than to a new generation. This would make them, I think, much more appealing to many people, because they do not make already-living people 'defunct.' This makes the idea much more practical, as it is more likely to garner mass support.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Ancient Debates - Inherited Guilt
Many old texts, whether religious, fictional, or historical, exhibit a particularly interesting variation on LaMarke's invalid theory of evolution - namely, the idea of inherited guilt. These texts suggest that if one's forbears committed immoral acts, one is guilty of those acts by proxy. The Bible provides numerous examples of this; the concept of original sin (that is, all of humanity is guilty due to Adam and Eve's initial sin of eating the apple from the Tree of Knowledge) illustrates it well, as does the statement that illegitimate children (and their descendants for nine subsequent generations) cannot enter heaven. Contemporary examples of this type of thinking also, unfortunately, exist; the idea that descendants of Nazis (regardless of their own opinions of their ancestors' actions) owe the descendants of those who suffered due to the holocaust occurs with alarming frequency. Subtler examples are even more widespread and perhaps more insidious; people may assume that, because one's parents were alcoholic, one will inevitably become an alcoholic oneself. These cases do have some basis in fact - growing up around alcoholics may predispose one towards alcoholism oneself - but they are far from certain. Many circumstances, both internal and external, can cause one to reject the lifestyles of one's guardians or mentor figures.
Response: Intelligence vs. Knowledge
In response to Katie Emerson's post "Are We Getting Dumber?" (April 28, 2012):
Before answering this question, I think one must distinguish between the related, but separate, concepts of knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge refers simply to the amount of information one possesses about the world. Intelligence refers to one's ability to understand, process, and learn new information, and come up with original ideas. I do think that, in some cases, technology can result in decreased knowledge. However, I do not think that it results in decreased intelligence. Furthermore, much of the seeming decrease in knowledge which many modern Americans exhibit is likely due less to technology than to sub-par educational systems. Regardless of the existence of spell-check, if schools require students to write a decent number of papers by hand or on programs without spell-check, the students will learn how to spell. Similarly, reading a lot as a child significantly enhances one's spelling and grammatical skills later in life. Incorporating higher-level reading instruction into lower-grade curricula would help young students develop both better spelling skills and a better grasp of correct grammar.
Before answering this question, I think one must distinguish between the related, but separate, concepts of knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge refers simply to the amount of information one possesses about the world. Intelligence refers to one's ability to understand, process, and learn new information, and come up with original ideas. I do think that, in some cases, technology can result in decreased knowledge. However, I do not think that it results in decreased intelligence. Furthermore, much of the seeming decrease in knowledge which many modern Americans exhibit is likely due less to technology than to sub-par educational systems. Regardless of the existence of spell-check, if schools require students to write a decent number of papers by hand or on programs without spell-check, the students will learn how to spell. Similarly, reading a lot as a child significantly enhances one's spelling and grammatical skills later in life. Incorporating higher-level reading instruction into lower-grade curricula would help young students develop both better spelling skills and a better grasp of correct grammar.
Q&A 10, Second Answer
My question is: What implications would radical freedom have for current ethical thought?
I think that accepting radical freedom would effectively demolish ethics. Ethical theory often relies heavily on the idea that there is, or must be, an objective standard of morality, and radical freedom claims that such a thing is totally nonexistent. This would cause ethics to deteriorate into an ultimately pointless study of individual codes of morality.
Of course, if the theory of radical freedom is actually true, then humanity should probably accept it as such. Personally I do not think that it is true. Unfortunately, there appears to be no way to prove that an objective morality exists. Proof, however, may not be necessary; probability does seem to indicate the existence of an objective morality, and due to the problems which accepting radical freedom would cause, it is probably best for humanity to act upon the assumption that morality is in fact objective.
I think that accepting radical freedom would effectively demolish ethics. Ethical theory often relies heavily on the idea that there is, or must be, an objective standard of morality, and radical freedom claims that such a thing is totally nonexistent. This would cause ethics to deteriorate into an ultimately pointless study of individual codes of morality.
Of course, if the theory of radical freedom is actually true, then humanity should probably accept it as such. Personally I do not think that it is true. Unfortunately, there appears to be no way to prove that an objective morality exists. Proof, however, may not be necessary; probability does seem to indicate the existence of an objective morality, and due to the problems which accepting radical freedom would cause, it is probably best for humanity to act upon the assumption that morality is in fact objective.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Q&A 10, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Are humans born with radical freedom, or do they develop this ability with age?
Early Sartre would probably suggest the former. Later Sartre, however, might agree more with the latter. I think he would likely say that humans should work towards achieving radical freedom, and that this effort will likely be a lifelong project. Initially, humans are entirely dependent upon others to make their choices for them; later on, they become gradually more autonomous, until they are relatively free of others' influences.
My own viewpoint on this issue is virtually inapplicable, as I do not think that humans ever have radical freedom, both because I think that the universe is in fact predetermined and because I do not think that (even given the existence of free will) humans could ever be sufficiently free of outside influence as to be radically free.
Early Sartre would probably suggest the former. Later Sartre, however, might agree more with the latter. I think he would likely say that humans should work towards achieving radical freedom, and that this effort will likely be a lifelong project. Initially, humans are entirely dependent upon others to make their choices for them; later on, they become gradually more autonomous, until they are relatively free of others' influences.
My own viewpoint on this issue is virtually inapplicable, as I do not think that humans ever have radical freedom, both because I think that the universe is in fact predetermined and because I do not think that (even given the existence of free will) humans could ever be sufficiently free of outside influence as to be radically free.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
A Quite Problematic Idea
The idea that we choose our emotions, in addition to being almost obviously inaccurate, is problematic in that can easily lead to a 'blame the victim' mentality. Frankly, the idea of radical freedom in general can lead to this mentality, although it seems most apparent to me in relation to emotions. If one believes that individuals can choose their emotions, then two morally debatable conclusions result: firstly, that one is free to emotionally attack someone as much as one wants, because one's target can simply choose to completely ignore one's actions, and secondly, that people who are emotionally distressed (for example, people who are depressed due to poverty, abuse, or other external circumstances) are simply choosing to feel that way, and as such one is not obligated (or even encouraged) to assist them. Some people do actually seem to believe something along these lines; such people typically tell others who are depressed to 'cheer up' or 'get over it,' tell justifiably angry people to 'just let it go,' and assume that those who do not share their appreciation for certain things (for example, works of art) are simply being stubborn. In most cases, this sort of behaviour actually makes others feel worse rather than better, and dislike things (i.e. works of art) even more than they already do, out of resentment of the other person's annoying attitude.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Response: Basic Needs
In response to Justine Cozza's post on 4/20/12:
It is certainly true that some aspects of human behaviour are not products of choice, but are instead due to biological needs. However, I think that these aspects are far fewer in number than many may believe. For example, even the seemingly innate tendency to take care of one's own children does not exert such a strong influence that one cannot choose to ignore it. People do neglect, abandon, or otherwise mistreat children every day. Many other seemingly biological urges are similarly malleable or variable. The urge to engage in physical conflict with those one dislikes may be somewhat innate for most people, but the majority of people learn fairly early on to ignore or otherwise divert that urge. The urge to engage in sexual activities is also innate, and quite strong, for most people, and in many cases ignoring it can cause psychological problems and sometimes physical problems. However, some people lack this urge, or find it relatively insignificant, so that choosing not to act upon it does them no harm. Similarly, as far as I know, all human beings require sleep, but the amount of sleep they require varies widely. As a straightforward example, the ideal amount of sleep I must get in order to function at full capacity is between seven and eight hours, whereas one of my friends requires only between four and five hours. This makes 'human needs' very difficult to identify. In the end, we may end up only with a very vague and extremely basic list including such things as air, food, water, sleep, and company (all variable in quantity, and the last only virtually universal).
It is certainly true that some aspects of human behaviour are not products of choice, but are instead due to biological needs. However, I think that these aspects are far fewer in number than many may believe. For example, even the seemingly innate tendency to take care of one's own children does not exert such a strong influence that one cannot choose to ignore it. People do neglect, abandon, or otherwise mistreat children every day. Many other seemingly biological urges are similarly malleable or variable. The urge to engage in physical conflict with those one dislikes may be somewhat innate for most people, but the majority of people learn fairly early on to ignore or otherwise divert that urge. The urge to engage in sexual activities is also innate, and quite strong, for most people, and in many cases ignoring it can cause psychological problems and sometimes physical problems. However, some people lack this urge, or find it relatively insignificant, so that choosing not to act upon it does them no harm. Similarly, as far as I know, all human beings require sleep, but the amount of sleep they require varies widely. As a straightforward example, the ideal amount of sleep I must get in order to function at full capacity is between seven and eight hours, whereas one of my friends requires only between four and five hours. This makes 'human needs' very difficult to identify. In the end, we may end up only with a very vague and extremely basic list including such things as air, food, water, sleep, and company (all variable in quantity, and the last only virtually universal).
Response: Abnormal Humanity
In response to Andrew Nelson's post "Q&A: What are the Limits of Human Freedom?" (April 20, 2012):
We've discussed the social nature of humanity before in class, and the idea that solitude can be a kind of hell does follow quite nicely from that. However, it also caused me to think about another point, that of humans with abnormal natures - for example, psychopaths (not sociopath, who have normal natures but act abnormally due to outside influences). Are such humans inherently social as well? Certainly they initially require the presence of other humans in order to survive, but once reaching maturity they often seem to have no emotional need for the presence of other humans. I am not a psychologist myself, but I am interested in this issue, so I'd appreciate any opinions.
We've discussed the social nature of humanity before in class, and the idea that solitude can be a kind of hell does follow quite nicely from that. However, it also caused me to think about another point, that of humans with abnormal natures - for example, psychopaths (not sociopath, who have normal natures but act abnormally due to outside influences). Are such humans inherently social as well? Certainly they initially require the presence of other humans in order to survive, but once reaching maturity they often seem to have no emotional need for the presence of other humans. I am not a psychologist myself, but I am interested in this issue, so I'd appreciate any opinions.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Downsides of Collectivism
Both Marx and Plato supported the idea of collective child-raising. While I agree that this approach does solve many of the problems of family-based child-raising (possible brainwashing/indoctrination with harmful beliefs, many forms of abuse, and a sense of obligation to continue unhealthy relationships), it also deprives children of emotional connections which are important for unproblematic development. Of course, these connections are not absolutely essential; some people who, even in contemporary society, did not have the chance to develop such connections (for example, those who as children moved from one foster family to another) have become relatively well-adjusted, overall healthy individuals. However, the statistics are not at all in their favour, and even the best off usually had to overcome at least some psychological trauma prior to obtaining a satisfactory mindset and lifestyle. As such, it would certainly be best to try and allow emotional connections to develop.
I am not certain yet, but at the moment I think that the ideal situation for raising children would be a modified family system, with improved education (to prevent brainwashing), heightened regulatory measures (to prevent abuse), and changed social norms (to prevent people from feeling they must remain in unhealthy relationships purely for familial reasons).
I am not certain yet, but at the moment I think that the ideal situation for raising children would be a modified family system, with improved education (to prevent brainwashing), heightened regulatory measures (to prevent abuse), and changed social norms (to prevent people from feeling they must remain in unhealthy relationships purely for familial reasons).
Q&A 9, Second Answer
My question is: Is it possible to hypothesise
an economic structure wherein nobody is required to work?
Yes, but such a structure would only be ideal in the relatively distant future. As the world is now, many methods of producing goods are automated; more could be so if people did not protest against mechanical production due to fear of losing their jobs. If we could make such methods self-sustaining (and we have the ability to do this now; we simply do not because it would upset the current economic structure) we could offer the goods produced by them free of charge, and devote our labour and money to other areas. This change in economic focus would help accelerate progress, and more systems could become automated. Working would become less necessary, not only to survive, but to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle. As a result, less people would choose to work, but that would be okay, because there would be less jobs necessary. Eventually, all or virtually all careers would no longer exist, because they would all be performed by machinery. At this point, society could actually become communist, and everyone could enjoy equal fruits of the labour of machines. However, such a society is currently very far away from implementation, so in modern times, socialism (wherein nobody is required to work in order to survive, but where most people would probably choose to work so that they could enjoy better lifestyles) is a more practical option than communism.
Yes, but such a structure would only be ideal in the relatively distant future. As the world is now, many methods of producing goods are automated; more could be so if people did not protest against mechanical production due to fear of losing their jobs. If we could make such methods self-sustaining (and we have the ability to do this now; we simply do not because it would upset the current economic structure) we could offer the goods produced by them free of charge, and devote our labour and money to other areas. This change in economic focus would help accelerate progress, and more systems could become automated. Working would become less necessary, not only to survive, but to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle. As a result, less people would choose to work, but that would be okay, because there would be less jobs necessary. Eventually, all or virtually all careers would no longer exist, because they would all be performed by machinery. At this point, society could actually become communist, and everyone could enjoy equal fruits of the labour of machines. However, such a society is currently very far away from implementation, so in modern times, socialism (wherein nobody is required to work in order to survive, but where most people would probably choose to work so that they could enjoy better lifestyles) is a more practical option than communism.
Q&A 9, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: In a communist society, what would happen to those who chose not to work?
Marx seems to have supposed that humans are innately predisposed to, under the right conditions, enjoy working. I do not agree with this; while I do think that, with ideal conditions, many humans would choose to engage in some sort of lucrative work, there would still be some whose 'perfect life' would consist of engaging in relatively unproductive pursuits, such as playing chess all the time. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does make the idea of a society wherein everyone works productively infeasible.
As such, I think that in order to make such a society work, there would have to be some sort of consequence for not working. However, that is barely any better than capitalism, as it still forces everyone to work, and in careers they might not have chosen for themselves (playing chess can be a career, but in such a society it would likely not be available). The only difference would be that wealth would be more evenly distributed, but that is not significant enough of an improvement to justify implementing the system. I imagine that if Marx had held different views of human nature, he might have come up with a slightly different idea, or have stopped at the idea of socialism (wherein people can choose not to work, and as a consequence simply live a very Spartan lifestyle).
Marx seems to have supposed that humans are innately predisposed to, under the right conditions, enjoy working. I do not agree with this; while I do think that, with ideal conditions, many humans would choose to engage in some sort of lucrative work, there would still be some whose 'perfect life' would consist of engaging in relatively unproductive pursuits, such as playing chess all the time. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does make the idea of a society wherein everyone works productively infeasible.
As such, I think that in order to make such a society work, there would have to be some sort of consequence for not working. However, that is barely any better than capitalism, as it still forces everyone to work, and in careers they might not have chosen for themselves (playing chess can be a career, but in such a society it would likely not be available). The only difference would be that wealth would be more evenly distributed, but that is not significant enough of an improvement to justify implementing the system. I imagine that if Marx had held different views of human nature, he might have come up with a slightly different idea, or have stopped at the idea of socialism (wherein people can choose not to work, and as a consequence simply live a very Spartan lifestyle).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)