Will O'ism serve as a selected trait in evolution?

[softwareNerd]

There appears to be enough interest in discussing this sub-topic, so I have spilt it into a thread of its own.

2) Evolution. Evolution "weeds out" those species too weak to survive. Since Objectivism equips man with the necessary philosophy for survival, who is to say (at some time in the future) people who adhere to Objectivism will not be the only ones to survive?

Evolution "weeds out" those species too weak to survive. 

How does evolution do this? What is the process? If a trait does not significantly impact the ability to survive as a living entity (regardless of the "quality" of such life), and if it does not impact the ability to reproduce, then how does that trait get "weeded out"? Edited April 20, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Proud_to_be_SELFISH!]

How does evolution do this? What is the process? If a trait does not significantly impact the ability to survive as a living entity (regardless of the "quality" of such life), and if it does not impact the ability to reproduce, then how does that trait get "weeded out"?

If a species does not evolve to meet the demands of its environment, it will perish. Are you presuming that Objectivism "does not significantly impact the ability to survive as a living entity"?

[kenstauffer]

How does evolution do this? What is the process? If a trait does not significantly impact the ability to survive as a living entity (regardless of the "quality" of such life), and if it does not impact the ability to reproduce, then how does that trait get "weeded out"?

An example of traits that get weeded out by evolution would be a community of fish that that have ventured into a dark cave environment. In time they lose their eyes and become blind. The trait of having eyes is weeded out.

Why is this? Because mutations in the genes for the eye organ will not impact the life of such fish. There exist fish/salamanders with various degrees of eyelessness in nature. Ultimately the organ will be completely weeded out.

[softwareNerd]

If a species does not evolve to meet the demands of its environment, it will perish.

If one breaks the process of evolution into steps, and traces it across generations, one should be able to figure whether Objectivism has survival value in the same sense as (say) an elephant's trunk or a deer's speed.

For instance: What if Objectivists have an average of 1 child per couple while non-Objectivists have an average of 2?

[Proud_to_be_SELFISH!]

For instance: What if Objectivists have an average of 1 child per couple while non-Objectivists have an average of 2?

I was looking at it more as a species adopting the philosophy bit by bit than it being passed on generation to generation.

[scottkursk]

If one breaks the process of evolution into steps, and traces it across generations, one should be able to figure whether Objectivism has survival value in the same sense as (say) an elephant's trunk or a deer's speed.

For instance: What if Objectivists have an average of 1 child per couple while non-Objectivists have an average of 2?

The Objectivist will be called manager, and the two others will be there direct reports. In all seriousness, I would not be surprised if Objectivists tended to have less children than average since people that have higher education levels do tend to have lower birth rates. Seems obvious that their knowledge of and willingness to place an importance on the reproduction process. So I doubt that the genome is being dumbed down per se. That does kind of lead down the path of Malthus and social Darwinism.

The offspring of Objectivists though being smaller in number should be more successful and fullfilled in their lives and should have a greater knowledge of things like the value of health, insurance, etc. that would lead to a much longer life span and opportunity to spread ideas.

This reminds me of why I hated HG Wells time machine. He got it so backwards and I'm glad Rand set it straight. Reality is that a few great minds that will outproduce and will create while the "masses" (I hate using that word but it seems to work here) will be the ones that do the physical construction of their greatness. That greatness can constitute running a lawn service with 50 guys mowing lawns for you, building a skyscraper, or a teacher that is teaching her students how to go about the process of thinking and not what to think. They'll all need assistant to get their jobs done and as my dad the rocket scientist (really) always reminded me of my political science major art history minor degree, "there has always got to be someone who digs the ditches boy."

Sidenote, I was a ditchdigger in college as a part of a plumbing job and it paid suprisingly well. Much better than retail. Who knew. Actually until the last couple years being a master plumber would have paid better than being a stockbroker. But then when you factor in the whole sweat versus stress debate the point becomes moot.

[JMeganSnow]

Evolution is based on genetics and inherited traits. Objectivism doesn't dictate whether you, personally have any particular survival-oriented traits. One could be a perfect Objectivist, an Ivory-tower philosophy type, and be floored by a hideous plague just as easily as an irrational looter. The survival factor you need; genetic resistance to the plague, is not under your control.

However, evolution is subject to being overturned; man has the unique ability to direct his consciousness and grasp the nature of reality, so he need no longer rely on the brute functions of his genetics to determine his fate.

Social Darwininsm, IIRC, works off this theory; that intelligence (and various other things, like "ability to make money") are genetic survival traits. In reality, though, one's approach towards life and efficacy are not determined by raw genetic "ability", they are determined volitionally, by the way one chooses to USE one's mind. The more an individual progresses, the more he uses his mind to its greatest efficacy, the more immune to natural disasters he becomes.

For humans, the mechanism of evolution is being gradually replaced by the will of men. This is by no means an automatic process, though. Civilization is not inherited, it is LEARNED and thus EARNED. That knowledge is both a warning of the danger that lurks always for those who abandon the responsibility for defending it, and a proud declaration of those who are willing and able to do so.

The highest type of human does not submit to the blind forces of the universe.

[softwareNerd]

I'm concerned that the original question (will evolution ensure that only Objectivists survive) reveals a misunderstanding about the theory of evolution.

The chain of reasoning appears to go thus:

1) A species evolves so that traits with survival value are encouraged while traits that do not have survival value are weeded out.

2) Objectivism has survival value

3) Therefore, human beings will evolve more and more toward being Objectivist.

The problem is that #2 is an equivocation. While Objectivism is good for human life, that does not imply that it has survival value in the Darwinian sense. One needs to "chew" on #1, by considering the process involved in evolution, to understand the meaning of "survival value".

What types of traits have Darwinian "survival value"? Suppose one individual squirrel has a trait that causes it to live longer, but also causes it to have fewer total offspring during the course of its life. Does such a trait have "survival value"?

Every now and then I've come across an article that speaks of evolution as though a particular individual organism evolves some new mechanism in order to deal with its environment more effectively. In fact, creationists accept a variant of this when they say things like: "There are so many possible ways that an organism can evolve. The probability of making the right choices in in the absence of 'intelligent design' is so low that it is virtually an impossibility. How do you explain how an organism chooses just the right evolutionary steps?"

Actually, it does not. Darwin's key insight was that a species evolves without any single individual member of that species ever evolving.

If Objectivism is to spread, it will not be primarily through transmission from one generation to the next. It will be by bringing new people on board. It will be by convincing individual human organisms to "evolve" (but the theory of evolution says nothing about this ).

[DavidV]

On a social level, a rational society is more successful than an irrational one, so Objectivism does have “survival value” on two levels: it helps us survive as individuals, and it helps our society to the extent that we can influence it, which is presumably more than irrational people can.

[the tortured one]

I always felt that what evolution did for us was tear down on of the final bastions of traditional religious thinking, and paved the way for Nietzsche's famous "God is dead" aphorism. I've heard religion refered to as "the god of the gaps" in that there are gaps in our knowledge where there is simply information we do not know. It is still there, I mean, scientists just discovered dark energy, which is an even bigger enigma than dark matter, which is still largly an unknown. What religion did (and still does) was fill in those gaps. When the first thinkers asked "from whence did we come from?" he had no way of observing any rational scientific explaination, so the theologians jumped on it and said "we came from God!" When science catches up to theology, there is friction, as it saps the legitimacy of God. Just like when Galileo, Kepler, and Newton proved heliocentricism, evolution is yet another keystone of Christian religion that science has torn down.

Traditional Platonist Christianity seems to be in a bit of a flux right now, as the only serious theologians are downright approaching deism. Platonist christianity seems to be taken seriously only on a lower level, as modern philosophers would hardly consider the likes of Jerry Falwell or John Haggie legitimate thinkers. Don Cupitt, for example, professes to be a "christian humanist" and he directs his arguements specifically against Aristotilean and Nietzschean thinking.

Getting back on target, I feel that evolution will do more for secularism than heliocentricism ever did. The only thing that heliocentricism did was destroy the legitimacy of the traditional church and a few scant verses in the Bible. What evolution is doing is tearing down the very foundation of the first and very critical book in the Bible. Without creation, there was no fall, and without a fall, there is no reason for Jesus.

The Catholics have already cut their losses and come out and supported evolution (I guess they learned their lesson with that whole Galileo thing.) Creationism is going to be more damaging against protestantism, upon which they rest all of their authority on the bible.

Evolution will ultimately be remembered as the first legitimate secular explaination for our origin, and yet another step towards turning Christianity into Greek and Roman paganism.

[TomL]

I was looking at it more as a species adopting the philosophy

Species do not adopt philosophies. Only individual people do that.

[Hal]

You might want to google for 'memetics', that seems more appropriate to the point you are getting at here. It's essentially the concept of evolution applied to ideas, customs, philosophies etc.