Essays and Theories
Essays and Theories
As we approach the new century, I would like to
offer my views and analysis of three interrelated subjects: eugenics, natural selection,
and altruism. All three have a function in biology, and all three cause a certain amount
of controversy, creating confusion, hope, anger, fear, contention, prejudice and,
unfortunately, subjugation and ethnic cleansing of some of the inhabitants on our planet.
I feel that it is necessary to weave the three together into a coherent overview as we
enter the new millennium, so that we can better understand each one and their new combined
relationships.
I first wish to take on eugenics, as this is the subject that creates the most fearful
response to those who are familiar with the term. Basically, eugenics is the attempt to
"assist" nature by "improving" the natural selection process in
humans. Eugenics had its start in 1883 with an English scientist by the name of Sir
Francis Galton. And guess what? He was Charles Darwin's cousin. Although Galton was a
mathematician, he was fascinated by the biological "genius" that ran in his
family and he began to make meticulous measurements of various human physical
characteristics. He gathered information on human head measurements, heights, and weights,
and with it, Galton pioneered in the method of mathematical biological inheritance that
gave rise to what is known as the eugenics movement.
His cousin's theory, natural selection, although controversial with the science societies,
made perfect sense to Galton and to his fellow English landed aristocrats. This was a time
in English history where the "country home" dominated society, and here, in
these massive country homes, the British nobles ruled the world and all that lay before
them. This gave rise to an attitude of manifest destiny that created an empire that
permeated even down to their farm animals. To them, breeding the finest features into the
animals on their estates made perfect sense -- financially, socially, and biologically.
Since animals have shorter life cycle then humans, it was very easy to see the effects of
their "proper breeding." Hence, the breeding of quality features into house and
farm animals became part of the social fabric of the society. One merely has to read the
Jane Austen's novels and count the word "breeding" to get an idea of the word's
usage in the society of the time. If these same positive results could be obtained through
breeding animals and members of their own social circles, could not the same methods be
used to improve the rest of the poor human livestock that lived in squalor in the major
cities for the benefit of all humankind?
But eugenics does not apply to animals. It only applies to humans. And for the eugenics
movement to take hold, there had to be a concept of the human condition which fell into
the two classifications of "desirable" and "undesirable." As vast
fortunes were made in manufacturing, and major successes were made through exporting, the
wealthy owners of these institutions found that they needed more workers to work the mills
and factories that were springing up in major commerce areas. Labor was still mostly on
the farm, bound by farming regulations that dated back to the middle ages. Like their
wealthy counterparts of today influencing our legislature, the wealthy Englishmen lobbied
their Parliament into passing laws that would be beneficial to their causes. One such law
repealed the Corn Laws in 1846. The repeal of this law had the effect of flooding the
British market with foreign grains and drastically lowering the price of grain in England.
This had the effect of making poor farmers even more destitute, forcing huge numbers off
their lands. In order to survive, the farmers had to abandon their farms and head for the
booming industrial cities in search of jobs. This massive movement from the rural to urban
areas in English history that we are familiar with was recorded by Charles Dickens in his
famous novels, The Pickwick Papers, A Christmas Carol, and Nicholas Nickleby.
The poor, the unlanded, and the unskilled were all pushed into already overcrowded and
unruly cities to fend for themselves.
The landed aristocrats, who had the fortune to be able to acquire vast amounts of
resources due to their wealth, positions, and families, viewed these other humans in the
industrial cities, as "undesirables." To them, such people were abominations due
to their horrid lifestyles and morals that obviously were products of bad breeding. And of
course, since the industrial revolution was just beginning, there was precious little
middle-class to temper the influence of the upper-class through Parliament. The wealthy
ruled the "lower" classes with an autocratic iron fist. You either had
resources, or you didn't. Such a disparity left a chasm between rich and poor that has had
a major influence in the thought processes of the rich and poor up to the present day.
The eugenics movement was at this time small. It gained momentum with the
"rediscovery" in 1900, of Mendel's theories on the peas in his garden. He found
that certain factors contributed to the various traits of the peas. These factors were
later to be identified as genes. Now science had hard physical proof that the good and the
bad of the human machine could be altered and "improved." Since the foundation
of the eugenics movement was formed within the boundaries of the English nobility, the
creation of the perceived superiority of the white Anglo-Saxon race was also born. Since
wealth is the ultimate endless resource of food, shelter, and safety -- and thus, the
perceived best vessel for gene survival -- those that obtained such wealth were then
considered most knowledgeable in the matter of survival. And thusly, they appointed
themselves as judge and jury in matters of cultural standards. (Also see my essay,
Evolutionary Psychology and the Origin of Bigotry and Prejudice). If this were a different
planet, the circumstances could very well have evolved differently. Perhaps a black female
matriarchal society could have just as easily have arisen in our species and become
dominate. Skin color and cultural ethnicity has nothing to do with the rise of eugenics.
It is entirely dependent upon the control of one group restricting resources from another
group to genetically advance their own group. For further confirmation of the skin color
issue, please review your history of Rwanda and Burundi in regards to the two dark-skinned
Hutu and Tutsi clans. When the Belgians took control of the area in 1956, they picked one
group to serve as their proxies. Even though the Tutsi clan was in the minority (14%), the
Belgians picked them based on the "pseudoscientific" studies in vogue at the
time that led them to think that the Tutsi were biologically superior. Once again, one
group dominated and attempted to restrict resources from another group. The result was
dramatically played out with the holocaust in 1994 between the two clans.
Despite its origin in England, eugenics was strongest in France, Germany and the United
States from 1915 to 1940. In America during the late twenties and early thirties, there
even arose eugenic clubs in which the best human traits were showcased. Research into
human heredity gained new support and such organizations claimed that criminality,
prostitution, and feeblemindedness were the product of poor genes. Laws were passed in 24
states encouraging sterilization of those who were mentally retarded, insane or had
criminal records. Supporters of the eugenics movement also felt that the female should not
even be allowed into the work place due to her unique position of child bearer and child
raiser. If women forsook their duties, then the entire species would suffer. Such
organizations also produced information on desirable traits of intelligence and character,
which they trumpeted, were easily recognizable. Such publications helped to pass the
Johnson Act in 1924, reducing to a trickle, the flow of immigrants from eastern Europe and
the Mediterranean region. It was these people, the Act stated, that were
"inferior" to those of the Anglo-Saxon race.
While the Johnson Act was being passed, Adolf Hitler was writing his autobiography while
serving a prison sentence for a failed putsch uprising. America's interest in eugenics was
noticed by Adolf Hitler. He came to power in a period of terrible economic conditions in
Germany. After W.W.I, the Germans were brutally subjugated by economic hardships brought
on by the victorious allies. Hyper-inflation brought on by a hapless German central bank
printing billions and billions of worthless Marks meant that it took a wheelbarrow of
money to buy a loaf of bread. In such circumstances, democracy is sometimes thrown out the
window as the cause and not the cure of economic distress. In time of hardship, people are
desperate for any way to end the agony. To do so, sometimes they look for someone to blame
in order to vent anger. Sometimes this anger turns to hate, and when this occurs, one
group dominates another and verbal harassment and physical injury can occur. And
sometimes, because they have the upper hand, innately, the joy of defeating a foe rises to
the surface as cruelty and torture. It was these conditions that Hitler understood and
exploited.
The problem then, as it is today, is a total lack of understanding and a refusal to
believe in our common linkage as a species. In addition, the total eradication of the
democratic process and the substitution of a process in which only one political message
is permissible occurred. This combined with severe economic conditions created the
opposite of altruistic behavior. In this particular circumstance, it was the Nazi party
and Adolf Hitler that eradicated hunger and unemployment which created support for this
terrible time in our human history. I cannot write about the unspeakable pain and
suffering inflicted upon others by this one dominate cultural group in the attempt to
"improve" the race by eliminating "undesirables." This was our
planet's darkest moment. And because of this dark period, we as a species are constantly
alert to any group -- be it political, scientific, or military -- that suggests any
improvements in the human structure. As modern genetic research rapidly advances, perhaps
we have the answer as to why God allowed these unspeakable crimes to occur.
The second part of my essay concerns Charles Darwin's theory of natural
selection. The definition of natural selection that seems to have survived the voyage
since Darwin's first writings seems to be that if a trait, (like a big nose to help a
species adapt to breathing in a polluted atmosphere), helps to allow the species to
survive at a particular location on the planet, and this trait is passed on to the next
generation through birth, then that is natural selection. If the particular trait
continues to spread amongst the herd of the species, then the result is considered to be
an aggregate pool. Since the development of the particular trait helps survival of the
species, then, the theory contends, widespread disbursement amongst a particular herd will
help to guarantee all safe passage into succeeding generations.
One can only speculate as to how Darwin created the natural selection theory. As I
mentioned above in the eugenics section concerning the wealthy land owners, by 1800, the
use of the verb "to select" was commonly used in various publications of animal
and plant breeders. Since Darwin, was by profession a clergyman, in 1838 Darwin noted in
his E notebook that breeding was a natural process equal to the natural laws handed down
by God. Darwin concluded that the final result of natural selection was the sorting out of
proper structure and adapting to any local changes. Darwin based his final observations on
the observation of sporting dog breeds where their predatory methods were cultivated but
the vicious temperament element was culled out. Here we see the enormous advantage of
wealth and setting of the country home. Do you think Darwin would be able to make the same
observations today in the barrios of East Los Angeles?
But since the publication of Darwin's theory, there has been much confusion on the part of
scientists and scholars concerning exactly what is the definition of natural selection.
The confusion continues up till the present day. Actually, Darwin never really defines the
phrase and only mentions it in his writings metaphorically. Only the title of his book
published in 1859 comes close: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. By the third edition
of Origin in 1961, Darwin wrote in the introduction: "...but I mean by Nature, only
the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events
as ascertained by us." I want you to burn the last eight words into your long-term
memory and tie them to the phrase that seems to echo down the halls of time from what
Darwin wrote on pg. 263 of Origin: "....let the strongest live and the weakest
die." Somehow, various people in positions of influence have taken these words and
have used them to justify unspeakable things against others. They have ascertained that
certain sequence of events in biology justified their actions. In truth, for these people,
natural selection leads to a prejudicial method of judging things and people hidden in
scientific garb. The phrase about the strongest and the weakest justified
"biologically" the death of six million Jews under Hitler.
We know that this confusion could be true because Darwin had difficulty with his own
theory, as there were exceptions in the natural world that seemed to defy his studies. In
fact, the mere existence of the male peacock made Darwin divide his original theory in
into two: natural and sexual. Why? Because the male peacock, with its wild plumage
extended to attract the female, would be highly vulnerable if a predator were to pass by,
and that would not be conductive to survival. (Unless, of course, the predator was
laughing too hard to pounce). Darwin tried to smooth this over by writing that sexual
selection was a distinctive form of selective competition which was needed to attract a
mate. And this was different from natural selection because it did not involve death to
those not selected. I have a real problem believing this. I mean, I thought the whole
basis of natural selection was the passage of traits through heredity -- and that involves
sex. Today, most popular journals debating the natural selection theory seems to have
evolved and have gone into a complete circle by reinventing the definition of natural
selection to mean any trait that will help in passing one's genes into the next
generation. (Nov 96: see my new essay, Evolutionary Psychology and the Recipe for an
Artificial Brain: Add One Cup of Gray Matter and Mix. In which I feel that I have put this
quandary into proper perspective -- sexual selection is just one stage of our entire
life's voyage.)
For the sake of simplicity, I would like to offer my five step definition of natural
selection:
Now, let's take my fifth step and expand upon it so that you can more clearly see the
issue that I am striving toward in my triad essay: A). The concept of natural selection
would never have arisen unless one species had the conceptual ability to label and
categorize the new traits that were necessary for survival in other plants or animals; B).
The concept of "desire for improving" the plants or animals must have arisen;
C). The "why" of how traits are passed from one generation to another in plants
and animals needed to be discovered by the species with the conceptual ability noted
above; and D). There had to be a mechanism of controlling the plants or animals needing
"improvement" or "discouragement" to produce variations in traits --
keeping the "good" and discarding the "bad." That would be the
controlling of resources, either adding to, or taking from, the subject being controlled
-- like providing the best possible conditions for growth or discouraging growth in a
plant by giving the right amounts of water or withholding water. The same mechanisms can
be done with humans. We can give the best possible resources in providing the right
opportunities for everyone which would encourage growth -- like a national effort to
educate all children equally or by discouraging certain groups in various ways like
blocking all attempts at living in a better neighborhood by hindering approval of housing
loans. The burning issue will be if we can become aware of our subtle eugenic tendencies
and how best to avoid this evolved mechanism. This is not the social groupings of our
ancestors; this is now.
The final section of my three part essay takes up the wonderful trait of altruism.
Altruism is very easy to understand. It means that you are willing to help others
when the very act of helping others would reduce your chance of survival. I
doubt that there is an altruism gene, but I speculate that what we will discover
is that various genes, acting in concert with outside environmental and cultural
influences, create cooperation amongst our species to act in a helpful manner
to others. If you give a can of vegetables to a food drive, that means you are
sacrificing your survival changes to help another survive. In the U.S., with
its vast food stores, this small act does not seem that it would have a great
effect. But 35,000 years ago, it would have been a big deal. Perhaps a more
dramatic visualization suited for today would be a white, male firefighter,
risking his life, entering a burning building to save a female child of a minority
race. According to the laws of natural selection, and including everything we
know about historical facts, this scenario should never have taken place. But
it does. It happens every hour of every day. In fact, altruism is more prevalent
today than ever. America, England, and France each sent 20,000 each of their
youth to Bosnia in the winter of 1995 to keep the peace between two warring
factions. Such troop movements to make peace while placing a country's youth
at risk would have been unthinkable in Darwin's time. That is altruism at its
highest level, and the optimist in me knows that we will see more of such activity
as we approach the millennium.
But what about the laws of natural selection that tell us that only the strongest
and fittest survive? Two of the greatest minds in evolution, Edward O.Wilson
and Charles Darwin faced this dilemma of trying to fit altruism into the framework
of natural selection. In his book, The New Synthesis (1975, p.578)
Wilson lamented that altruism was basically the reverse of natural selection.
Darwin writes in On the Origin of Species (1859) "I...will confine
myself to one special difficulty, which at first appears to me insuperable,
and actually fatal to my whole theory. I allude to the neuters or sterile females
in insect communities."
After considerable thought, the only answer that I could arrive at is that altruism
is the biological baseline of all the species; designed to encourage the development
of the group, and that natural selection is a "maximum effort mechanism"
designed to ensure the survival of the individual, which of course, in multiples,
is the foundation of the group. The problem is not in the theory of natural
selection, but in the belief of those who feel that natural selection is the
overriding law of evolution and nothing else can replace it. Biological altruism
is the very reason that we, as a civilization, are here. Inclusive fitness,
which helped to create the clan, is the step between the natural selection maximized
individual and the various groups that began to form our early societies. It
very simply has to do with group cooperation vs. individualism. We could not
have survived as a species unless we learned to hunt as a group. We could not
have developed a language talking to ourselves -- we needed a way to move and
make the group act as one. We could not have survived as a species unless we
passed our knowledge to others for their benefit. We could not have survived
as a species unless the strong protected others less able to defend themselves.
Altruism developed the group; the group developed community; community developed
civilization. We will not be able to do alone as individual nations, that which
will be our destiny as a global group. Biological Altruism is very simple and
states: "we are all one -- nations, men, women, animals, insects and the
Earth -- and we are all connected. To me it is obvious. Biological altruism
is the real baseline in evolution because we want to include all individuals
into our plans, and leave no one behind. I strongly believe that due to the
harshness of our origins, natural selection had its place in that it preserved
the individual, and therefore preserved the genetic line as a last resort. But
as we approach the millennium, we must accept this new combined theory or we
will face grave difficulty ahead.
It is the summer of 1996, and is the year of the Olympics in Atlanta. What a
perfect time to see natural selection at work. Here are individuals, allowed
by our culture to devote all of their attention to improving their skills and
creating maximum performance, which of course would relate to the "fittest"
in biological terms. But something else is happening here. There is a cost.
All this focusing on one trait or skill has produced not just the "fittest,"
but also an individual who is far from the norm. Such a focus produces an asymmetrical
model of the species. Is this person really biologically better? Or has this
person been given extraordinary time and resources by those who oversee this
person to become the "fittest?" Is an Olympic athlete really a true
representative of the group or is it time to reallocate resources so that all
of us can develop like the Olympic athlete? It is time for all of us to be given
special developmental advantages.
Think of natural selection as the luxury edition of a car model. Thus, biological
altruism is the basic car model, and natural selection as the luxury edition
of that model. The luxury edition exists because extra resource attention has
been added to the basic model. The sterile worker insect is your basic genetic
automobile which only comes with biological altruism. The natural selection
process is used to improve the basic model. It is time for all of us to think
of ourselves as one global village in which we are all apart of the same group.
Natural selection does exist, and works, but we must recombine the theory with
biological altruism and also remember the error of eugenics. As we unwind the
genetic geonome mystery, we must advance the theory of biological altruism and
the belief in our connectives to fight those who would be inclined to stand
in judgment of others as "defective" or "undesirable." Biological
altruism is the linkage to our past and future descendants. It is the seed of
thought that God has planted in humankind to create the group and will surpass
natural selection in the future as the governing law of biological nature that
stresses the individual. We are all one.
Origin: June 1996
Updated: October 1996
Copyright, Evolution's Voyage 1995 - 2011