Question 1- Has there ever been a negative evolution of a living thing or such?
I mean, isn’t the definition of evolution and evolving to grow or adapt in a positive way to over come adversity. So evolution would have no negativity to it. right? or wrong?
Question 2- To me, it seems that all animals (minus humans who doesn’t seem to have any of these) have an instinct of what and what not to do in life. A list of things that all animals do that is justified as the right thing to do. This sense inside to only take what they need and to do the right things to a degree. right? or wrong?
Question 3- If there isn’t a negative evolution and animals do have this bind between them of moral rightousness, or whatever you call it, then why would evolution take away this instinct in humans?
I mean, humans are so opposite from one to the next, like two extreems; max and min, that there is no right and wrong we ALL share. So why would this instinct, which to me is a good thing, be taken away?
Before I answer, I feel that I ought to mention that I am not trained in science. My response is based on a general understanding of evolutionary theory along with a touch of speculation. Take it with a grain of salt.
Genetic variations can be negative. The essence of evolution is the idea that while there are any number of possible variations between variations, only those that promote continued survival will proliferate, because the organism who has developed the variation will be more likely to survive and reproduce. So on a large scale, I would say that evolution can have no negativity to it, but can certainly be negative on an individual scale.
Mostly correct.
We developed consciousness. Our instincts remain, but are subservient (mostly) to our will. Our cognitive functions set us apart from other animals, and with this comes a price.
Thinking of it in terms of ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ real tries to put human values on evolutionary processes, which really wouldn’t be adequate language to most. Certainly species of less complexity do extremely well, and in some cases attempts to improve on this simplicity do not succeed as well as the simplicity itself. In some cases even adaptive traits of increased complexity may have become redundant or even harmful over time, and thus evolved back out of a genus (although I am at a complete loss for an example). But this would always be a ‘positive’ (I use this term REALLY loosely) evolution, any deviation that provides an advantage in a certain condition would be positive for that organism… it the advantage was significant over time it may become a trait adapted by the species (or creating a new species) which would be positive for that species. But any attempt at ‘negative’ evolution would fail on it’s basis, it would provide a competative disadvantage and thus work significantly against the organism, on a larger scale this organism and it’s offspring would have much difficulty surviving and probably not pass the trait on on a species level.
I think most would agree that animals do have an instinct that drives most of what they do, particularily the instinct to survive. Animals will do some of the most incredible things imaginable in order to acquire food and to avoid/survive predation. Remember, this is not what and what not to do but what MUST be done; it would take a strong judgement call to say animals avoid tasks out of anything but practical avoison. That said, this is merely the state of animals and I think it would be particularily hard to apply a justification or an ethical mandate as to the nature of these actions. I do not ascribe to the idea that animals have free-thinking capabilities (although, to some degree, they do have unique and complex personalities) and thus do not think beyond what they will do: they do not contemplate the action to be taken, alternatives and usually concequences beyond the immediatly obvious. In essense, they have no thought process guiding their actions… no understanding of what they are doing or the alternatives. I cannot remember what term this would be, but without proper cognition on their part I think applying a justification to their actions (whether or not it is justified) or deciding anything ethical about their action (whether it is right or wrong) is impossible.
For complexity of thought. The instinct to survive I think drives society’s consciousness, but individual people do not need obsess over it in order to aquire it. Whereas an animal must save food for 8 months to survive for a year humans have the unique advantage of not needing to do so. Other than casual gardening (which is for my own pleasure) I do not aquire any of my food directly, the instinct to aquire it would be wasted with me. Anthropologically, I would hazard a guess, this loss of instinct occured as humans began banding together as tribes in a hunter-gatherer sense: when trained members of a community are able to provide an excess of food (which they do not themselves require) then it frees the labour another person would have spent finding that food to persue other goals. Over time, as people where freed from needing to aquire food the instinct to find food became a redundant quality in them and other psychological qualities became more advantageous for them. I think this would apply to not only the abilities to forage for food but many qualities that seperate humans from animals, we lost these instincts because of societal demands on them: when they became redundant within the population they became weeded out until they no longer existed.
[/quote]
What about a gene that makes herd-type behavior more instinctual. Herd behavior furthers survival, but is it not also bad? ‘Oh, but if it furthers survival it must be good!’ you might say. But, isn’t it better to further the survival of that which is great rather than of that which is mediocre?
If it furthers survival than in evolutionary terms it is in no way ‘bad’, but in fact ‘good’. The bad would be a judgement call made by humans, as to our own reflections on herd behaviour.
Evolution is based on the most agreeable traits within a species to survive in an environment. If the net outcome of any evolutionary deviation is an increase in survival then evolutionarily it is ‘good’.
Point being, herd-type behavior works against the survival of that which is rare, that which is great.
But what if one of the subsets of the species survives less despite greater numbers overall? And what if this subset consists of the stongest members of the species? Surely that would be an example of ‘negative evolution’.
‘The strong have always had to protect themselves against the weak’ - Nietzsche
If the divergant branch of the species was composed of the ‘strongest members’ then surely it would survive. Evolution is based on the principle that those members with abilities best suited to the environment will be able to outcompete those with abilities not as well suited to the environment. If these ‘strongest members’ are dying out then they are either not the strongest members in the literal sense, or strength is an undesirable or unnecessary trait for the species in question. In evolutionary terms those that do survive are the ones that are best suited to do so.
As for Nietzshe: the strong will always have to defend themselves against the majority to prove themselves as strong, otherwise they are the majority. Only when they can excel beyond the majority can they truly be considered strong. In the case this thread’s line of inqury the strong (in this sense) would be the ones that can outcompete the majority.
(Just remember, just because Nietzsche said it doesn’t make it true.)
Our brand of consciousness is just too dynamic and self-aware to be guided by specific instincts. Wouldn’t it seem weird if you found yourself foraging for food and building a hut and you weren’t quite sure why? We’re too reflective, rational, etc. to be captured by genetically encoded routines. Except for very simple and basic things that are essentially bodily functions.
For us to become moral and good toward the environment is, therefore, a great challenge of consciousness that hasn’t existed before us.
Evolutionarily I guess it could be conceived as a trade-off. Our new wave of consciousness, our hyper-cognition, was so extremely effective that it could stand to lose specifically genetically guided behavior. Perhaps it even made it superfluous. Except for… the aspect that animals interact harmoniously with their environment. But the standard theory of survival of the fittest i would think doesn’t cover that, only benefit to the individual species. So without a sufficient theory of evolution working on an ecological scale, for one species to stop ‘playing well with others’ wouldn’t be a form of devolution, although it would be an exception… i suppose you could chalk up inter-species harmonization to the fact that a species that wipes out its prey or destroys its environment destroys itself, in which case humanity’s case would be explained: we’re SO fit that we can destroy our environment WITHOUT destroying ourselves, at least temporarily. or our leap in cognition was so fast that we’re able to destroy a whole lot before evolution catches up with us.
I got that quote a little wrong. Look above to see the correct quote.
What you’re saying is true of animals other than man (for the most part), but when it comes to man the herd instinct can lead to the strongest members being killed - not by the environment, but by the weaker members, whose strength lies only in numbers.
With humans, society has taken the place of many necessary characteristics. Human beings greatest asset from an evolutionary perspective is not any individual trait but the abilitiy to work together as a group. In regards to human in purely evolutionary terms the strongest members would be the ones that most effectivly worked within a group, even if this meant some other definition of the ‘strongest members’ of the species were unable to compete. Remember, this conversation is purely an evolutionary debate, the strongest members of the species (really awkward terminology for this debate) are the ones that have a competative advantage over other species but most importantly over other members of their species. If herd mentality causes the ‘weak’ to overthrow the ‘strong’ then the definitions are intrinsically wrong; only the strong (in evolutionary language) will overthrow the weak. In evolutionary terms the strong are merely the ones with a competative advantage who can outcompete the others (the weak). Regardless of other traits, if they survive.
If you plan on continuing this discussion Impious could I please get a definition for strongest and weakest members of species (remembering the context of the discussion). Maybe I am just getting confused with language foreign to me.
It is merely our ability to utilize the environment as we do that makes us the dominant species of the planet. I hate to bring this up, but Agent Smith in The Matrix reflects on this idea: ‘animals naturally form an equilibrium with their environment, but humans do not. They move into an area and multiply, until all the resources in the area are consumed… then they move to another.’ We do not need our instincts to try and survive in nature, because through agriculture we were able to control nature for our own survival; as soon as humans took the reigns of nature the need for the instincts to survive in became less and less necessary. We tamed nature, so we didn’t need the tools to fight it off so they gave way to other, more effective traits.
Also, an interesting idea I hold (well, not ONLY me) is the idea that humans have stopped evolving by natural processes and will only evolve on self-made conditions now. With the advent of technology there are no longer environmental coniditions that require a shift in humans, if a problem of survival arises we develop a technology to aid us; all of the competative advantages we would have developed naturally we now replace with new technologies to allow us to better survive within the world. The only coniditions that require us to evolve in any meaningful form are those we create ourselves, the requirement of more congnitive skills and the abilities associated with technological development and use.
I agree with everything you said here, except that I don’t think we create an environmental selector for people who have more cognitive sklls and abiliities associated with technological development. We may value those abilitiies, and they may be necessary to run society, but it’s not like if you don’t know how to build a pacemaker you’ll die of a heart attack. Most people do simple jobs. Technology is led by a very small number of people on the high side of the intelligence curve. since the people who consume technological resources aren’t the same people who create them, i think the survival of the fittest factor can only act on a species level… as in the species will survive or not based on our intelligence… but even if we get dumber it won’t disappear, it’ll just decrease in numbers. and we probably will get dumber. because t functions that species don’t use atrophy over time, and as far as who’s actually procreating, it’s as if we don’t use it, it’s not necessary for the individual who wants to procreate. and if you look at who’s actually procreating, poor people procreate more because they get bored a lot and have more sex. and poor people are probably less intelligent. i think the number of health problems we’re prone to that need technology to combat will grow and grow until we’re all weak and not sexy and totally dependent on technology to survive, eventually we’ll need to be integrated with machines (and everyone will require drugs) from an early age just to live, and conception and child birth won’t be able to happen naturally either. all because of genetic drift…
Would Darwin have called a sick, feeble-minded specimen of mankind fitter than a completely healthy one simply because he or she felt more inclined to join a mob?
All I do know is that evolutionarily yes, whatever survives is more fit within it’s environment, in general, than those who do not.
As for the negativity of mobs, remember other animals (i.e. the wolf) that employ similar social networks to meet communal goals. They join a mob as well, so if you are on a quest to lynch the idea of social co-operation as a generally negative trait remember what else employs a similar method.
I can think of no way devo can be a good thing, in any way ever. If, in fact, we are devo I quit the world.
The only constant in evolution is variation, which puts survival in an almost impossible place to define. So in the end, random mutation will prevail. Whose to say an ant doesn’t have as much trouble at knowing what to do than a human. The problem is that to the individual, it is the only thing that exist and is important, but in the grand sheme of things, it’s probable not very important, so why not just enjoy yourself. Which is might I add a prolonged evolutionary trait.
Hellwizard- your questions are tidy, important, and interesting. Before getting deep into discussion I’d like to reiterate your questions in my choice of (hopefully) a technical way. Not necessarily a better way. I like to see the questions phrased several different ways. I’ll consider them as goals in a thought experiment in this context. Please let me know if I’ve failed to grasp the concepts you’re aiming at.
Use #2 to justify #3. Use #3 to reflect on #1.
1- Define where evolution deters progress as opposed to promoting progress.
2- Define the separation between sentient and non-sentient.
3- Define the separation between humans and animals as sentient.
The separations are all quite relative and cannot be very empirical. But they’re still important to answer in order for us (humans) to conduct ourselves.