Is evolution a mistake?

What’s wrong with death? What’s so terrible about being one with the universe?

We usually think of evolution as a climb towards greatness, and that is a good thing that we survive and carry on through our progeny. But what if evolution is the single biggest mistake the universe has ever made?

What if to lose the game of survival is a blessing? What if to return to dust and particles strewn throughout nature is a return to a state of peace and reconciliation with the universe. What if those things which do not evolve–for example, rocks, air, dirt, etc.–have it right, and it is that more complex phenomena we call life that, at one time or another, strayed from this place of quiet contentment, aiming instead to individuate itself from the rest of nature, to be a sort of microcosm operating independently (but still within) the greater macrocosm.

So desperate is life to stand apart from the rest of nature, to be an island self-sufficient in and of itself, that even when death inevitably overtakes it, it cheats by way of reproducing itself so that another generation, a copy of itself, may go on even after it dies.

Is this struggle, to become individuated and separate from the universe, however futile, not worth the pain? Let’s not kid ourselves. Life is painful. There is so much more in life to avoid and be afraid of than there is to be happy with. I’m not talking so much about our conscious experience with life (for that, though hardly always the case, can actually be quite enjoyable), but about the process of life and how it sustains itself. Life fights so much against the constant and immanent threat of death. There is always very simple and innumerable ways of dying, at every moment and everywhere we go, should one simple thing go wrong in the delicate balance which is the ongoing homeostasis of our bodies.

We have become, through our evolution, enormously complex–why?–because that is the lengths which our evolution has gone in order desperately to avoid disintegrating back into nature and its simplicity. We need to do so much–or our bodies do–in order just to keep going as individuate organisms. It’s almost like closing oneself into ever tighter quarters such that 90% of the avenues we could otherwise move around in lead to death. It almost seems as though 90% of what we do–or what our bodies do–about 90% of our biological hardware and functionality, is there with the purpose of preventing or avoiding death. The fact that we have become so complex in this is a sign of how much is required to survive.

Is life fighting a losing battle? It’s gone on for an incredibly long time, but will the universe eventually catch up with us? What will happen at that point? Will that constitute a trajedy, or the end of an eons-long struggle between a small part of the universe fighting to be separated from the rest of itself?

DISCLAIMER: usually, I’m quite fond of life and look at it through rosy-colored spectacles, and usually not a champion of death, but I also have a sort of “fetish” for views or arguments that challenge, not only the status quo, but my own attitudes and values.

The future first belongs first to those who resist evolving yet evolve anyway.
And finally to those who neither die nor evolve.

Whether you want to call that a mistake or not is a bit irrelevant to the universe, although it might affect your own future.

There is no reason to think that being dead is a state. You can’t feel peace or reconciliation.

Furthermore to suggest that evolution is a mistake made by the universe seems to imply that the universe has a consciousness. Another completely unsopported assertion.

Good point.

Micro evolution is allot like math. Bacteria can get immune to things, due to certain veriables.
It’s not a mistake, it’s just information at work.

This is sheer nihilism, to want nothing instead of not wanting.
And so be it… This kind of argument is not really defeatable.

Just a few remarks.

Some people do, but actually it is simply modification through adaptation to the environment (not a quite orthodox explanation, it’s just to cut a long story short). The dodo evolved too… Some adaptations are more efficient then others.
Thinking about it: haven’t men been un-evolutional, somehow? Our bodies have actually lost or never acquired traits that could really empower the species to proficiently control and master its environment. Yet we got there in some other way. Social organisation and skills made it. Are that evolution too? Possibly, even probably.
How come are there position like yours? In that respect maybe evolution was a failure.
Or maybe, in a greater economy, it’s a good thing. A deathwish of some of us will enable others to live better, or simply to live… It is known that in condition of great hardship animals lose or weaken their basic instincts. They let themselves or their progeny die.

I can’t see how you can support this. Evolution makes nature, it does not seek to get separated from it. Actually, evolution does not seek…
This old-fashioned idea of aims and goals is not wholly consistent with the rest of your view.

This is debatable too. What is “complexity”, to start with? Then, assuming that I have a fair understanding of it (and in fact I don’t), it does not seem to me that this “complexity” enhances the chances of survival… at least not of the individual.
Actually, I think that the importance of the self-preservation drive in evolution is overstated. If we assume that evolution affects conscience too (which I do), then I would even tend to say that self-preservation is detrimental, thou clearly that cannot possibly be, as the total lack of this instinct on a large scale would lead the species to extinction.

Every individual will lose it, eventually. But the species as a whole has done remarkably well so far (maybe too well).

When I think about evolution, I mostly think about natural selection. Evolution only works because gene frequencies differ, and this can only happen when some individuals reproduce more while other reproduce less or not at all. Death is one factor that may deny an individual the chance to reproduce at all. Changes in gene frequency are made possible by differential reproduction, in which death is a chief element. So you can seriously say that death is an important part of evolution.

I have to agree with volchok in that positing a peace about dust and particles or a blessing about death is to posit some kind of life beyond life. Which is wishful thinking or wild speculation.

No, I don’t think that’s an adequate explanation at all. You’re ascribing intention to evolution, as if evolution is a self-aware process that recoils from simplicity. For what reason do you separate evolution from nature?

Asking if evolution is a mistake is like asking if the universe is a mistake.

And to ask if somehing is a mistake is to imply the existence of a conscious being behind it all.

Mistake : 1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment.

But, as we know, evolution has no purpose, no goal, no intent.

There is the intent of cellular intelligence. It has a goal. It’s not the smartest thing in the world but it tries.

I repeat, evolution has no intent, no purpose and no goal. And to claim that it does is a gross misunderstanding of the subject.

From Wiki:

Wait, given what I assume you think consciousness is (matter in motion, metaphorically), and how it arises, I don’t see why you’d assume that consciousness couldn’t exist all over the universe, I mean at different levels, including at levels around the sub-atomic. If that’s the case, then any particular movement in the process of evolution could be a “mistake”. If that even makes sense, then what follows is not that evolution is a mistake, but that evolution could have been riddled with mistakes, throughout.

You’re not saying much at all. Everything is “matter in motion”. Consciousness seems to be the product of extremely complex physical processes. Key word being complex. You don’t have complexity at the sub-atomic level. Or “enough” of it in other levels for that matter.

For the sake of argument, even if there were “pockets” of consciousness scattered around the universe, which seems to be what you’re proposing, they would be part of the cosmic evolution as opposed to biological evolution.

Our consciousness is the result extremely complex physical processes, but only because our consciousness is extremely complex. A less complex consciousness requires less complex physical processes, right? I mean, are you saying there is just “dead matter” (rough term) in the universe, and then if you amass enough “dead matter” then it just happens to become alive (read: conscious). It seems more likely that the distinction between dead matter and consciousness is a false one. Which would make it the case that ruling out consciousness at less complex levels is somewhat odd. No, an atom will never politely decline something in the Queen’s English after weighing the costs and benefits, but that doesn’t mean it won’t move, or react, or something like that. And this is really just what happens in our brains, at unfathomable levels of increased complexity.

Sure.

No, I’m not saying that and don’t know why you think I am.

Well, I think the distinction is indeed a false one if it presupposes that consciousness and non-consciousness are fundamentally different. I’m a materialist, after all. Matter and energy are all that exists. That, however, does not mean that you can have consciousness without complexity. The same way that amassing enough plastic and metal together doesn’t make a car.

In essence, there is absolutely no reason to think that consciousness can exist without complexity.

Given what you said in the first sentence, I’m not sure why it is open to you to assume what you do in the very last sentence…

Sure, it’s open to you to assume that complex consciousness requires complex physical processes… but not to deny that simple consciousness requires only simple physical processes. That may be an assumption worth making, and plausible, I’m just not sure yet why we should think that. Perhaps what’s leading you to that assumption is thinking of ‘consciousness’ as an awareness of yourself, or something peculiar to humans and higher primates. But that’s not what I take consciousness to be, and an awareness of yourself just seems to be part of a more complex awareness of your environment. If we judge awareness just by your reaction to stimuli, then I’m not sure why consciousness is ruled out at much much “smaller” levels. If you don’t agree with me, then there’s the paradox of how any number of simple physical processes, combined, would give rise to consciousness… and it’s only a problem for you, because you’ve ruled out what consciousness basically is at simple levels.

Maybe so, but evolution is a process that spans generations, species, and in short the total range of biological taxonomy. Is there some kind of continuous thread of intent that’s been running through the evolutionary process itself?

There is no reason to assume that complexity is necessary for consciousness. As it is the set of ‘things’ granted consciousness has been expanding for a couple of centuries. There is a clear bias towards assigning consciousness to things that are like, well, actually from the beginning white men. These days plants are slowly being accepted as having consciousness, having now granted consciousness to homo sapiens in general and then on through much of the animal kingdom.

We have no way of measuring consciousness, we infer it from action, when we do infer it. To assume that it must be associated with complexity is just that, an assumption.

fuse why do you have such a girly avatar?

I think that cellular intelligence can vary but ultimately it’s about choosing chemicals. It’s a math process like a computer calculating things, but it is in a way like a very simple mind. volchok seems to think that the universe is a big dummy. No will to it at all. To him pleomorphism is a myth. Reality itself is a germ theory. All forces have sources. Everything is within the reason ability of the modern secular ‘science’.

it looks euphoric to me. i like it.

It looks like she got hit in the lower back by a baseball.