Does evolution explain human nature?

"Does evolution explain human nature?" This is a typical Templeton Foundation question, in that it is laden with ambiguities. Only when one figures out the meaning of "evolution," "explain," and "human nature" can one really get to work. I suspect that the Templeton questions are drafted vaguely in order to invite a wide range of participants, who must often roll up their sleeves to define the component elements of the question as part of their answer. I don't mean to sound like a pedant here. The reason I am posting on this question is that despite the wobbly question, Templeton has once again done a good job of assembling a wide range of opinion on an important set of issues. You can read the many responses here. My favorites are Frans de Waal,

If we look at our species without letting ourselves be blinded by the technological advances of the last few millennia, we see a creature of flesh and blood with a brain that, albeit three times larger than that of a chimpanzee, does not contain any new parts. Our intellect may be superior, but we have no basic wants or needs that cannot also be observed in our close relatives . . .

Lynn Margulis

[R]eligion serves an obvious evolutionary function: it identifies, unifies, and preserves adherents. Admonitions to desist from the seven deadly sins inhibit behaviors that threaten group solidarity and survival. Greed, for example, privileges the individual in seasons of limited resources. Lust - the biblical coveting of the neighbor’s wife (in its male-centered perspective) - interferes with ideals for the nurture of healthy children and effective warriors. Prohibiting sloth enhances productive work intrinsic to survival and reproduction of the social unit. Anger, perhaps useful in battle, destroys family and other social relationships. Envy and pride promote individual interests above those of the larger social unit. The survival value of prohibiting sin seems obvious . . .

I disagree with neo-Darwinist zoologists who assert that the accumulation of random genetic mutations is the major source of evolutionary novelty. More important is symbiogenesis, the evolution of new species from the coming together of members of different species. Symbiogenesis is the behavioral, physiological, and genetic fusion of different kinds of being; it leads to the evolution of chimeric new ones.

Geoffrey Miller

My own research has been inspired mostly by good-genes sexual selection theory (the idea that animals choose their partners based on cues about genetic quality) and costly-signalling theory (the idea that only animals in good condition can afford seemingly pointless displays like extravagant plumage). These theories have proved enormously useful in understanding a range of human behaviors that have seemed to have no clear survival payoffs, like music, dance, art, humor, verbal creativity, conspicuous consumption, and altruism.

Robert Wright

What Darwinism tells us is how natural selection gave human life its distinctively rich texture of meaning. Darwinism can also give us guidance as we try to better ourselves and make that meaning richer still. What Darwinism does not tell us is why there is meaning at all.

David Sloan Wilson

Genes are only one mechanism of inheritance. Some immunological, psychological, and cultural processes also count as evolutionary. They too rely on the open-ended variation and selective retention of traits, but they are based on non-genetic inheritance mechanisms. People and cultures shaped by these fast-paced evolutionary processes no longer have the same "nature," any more than two bacterial strains that have diverged by genetic evolution. In this fashion, my simple and seemingly boring formula can be understood to say that humanity as a whole does not have a single "nature." Instead, each and every person and culture has its own "nature."

There's lots more to read (by these authors and others) at the above link

Continue ReadingDoes evolution explain human nature?

The wheel of life turns in the backyard

My family has a dog named "Holly." She's a friendly mutt. Loyal to a fault. A big raccoon took up residence on or in our garage recently, and Holly didn't like it at all. Our neighbors often saw the raccoon on our garage roof. We often heard Holly's barking, thanks to the raccoon. We live in the middle of the City of St. Louis, and we know that there are lots of raccoons running around. The City Animal Control told me that if we trapped a raccoon, they would come by to pick it up. By the time I got around to setting a trap, the neighbors mentioned that there was now one big raccoon and several small ones. As I was setting the trap near the garage, I could smell the smell of death. Even as we were trying to trap a raccoon, at least one of the raccoons had already died. I really do wonder how they can survive in a congested urban area, but the do, often enough, anyway. The next morning, my children excitedly mentioned that we had caught a large raccoon in our trap. raccoonIt looked like it weighed 15 pounds. I called the City Animal Control, and they indicated that they would come out and take away the raccoon. I didn't ask where they would take it, as I assumed that I was essentially dooming the mother raccoon to death, and possibly dooming the babies too (by taking away their mother). As I mentioned above, even as we waited for Animal Control, we were smelling the smell of death whenever we were in our garage. It was getting stronger by the hour. The next day (today), we still couldn't find any dead raccoon baby, but we did find that there were flies all over the garage, so the raccoon body was apparently nearby. window-fliesNature, red in tooth and claw. But I'm not done yet. This mini-life cycle started with a human family who wanted the companionship of a neotonous wolf (Holly), who got upset at the raccoon, who had been deprived of her natural habitat by the humans. At least one of her dead babies was being eaten by flies. Now what about the flies? You've all heard the joke, "Why did the fly fly?" Answer: "Because the spider spider." This afternoon that joke became incarnate, right in the corner of my garage. Though these macro photos didn't turn out in the sharpest focus, you can clearly see that a spider had caught one of the flies in a web and was making a meal of it (there's also a piece of leaf in the foreground). image by Erich Vieth If only we humans ate spiders, this cycle would be at its end (or a beginning), but it gets all the more convoluted from here. For instance, 90% of the cells in your body are "aliens," most of them are bacteria that allow us to digest our food. Without them we would die. And while I'm pointing out connections, consider that parallel universe of fungi living under the ground. Two weeks ago, I saw an eruption of mushroom (their fruiting bodies) in the front yard. Without this fungi, most of our plants would die. img_6679 It occurred to me today that, right here in the middle of a major city, whether or not I'm aware of it, nature is churning away, doing its thing in an entirely amoral way. Except for us humans, they say. We supposedly have a "moral" sense that is not anchored to our animal-ness. Or are we spinning elaborate intellectual webs in coming to this conclusion?

Continue ReadingThe wheel of life turns in the backyard

George Lakoff frames eco-talk

Linguist George Lakoff, who I have often discussed at this website (see here and here), has spent a lot of time discussing the power of framing. In fact, the way we frame serve as tectonic plates of sorts underneath all the chatter. Exposing the frames can clear up misunderstandings. Being careful of how one frames one's arguments can make for a much more effective message. Turning to environmental issues, Lakoff suggests that we need to consciously note that certain types of frames will enhance the message. What are those frames? Here's Lakoff's list, from a long post at Huffpo:

First, the public's very understanding of nature has to change. We are part of nature; nature is not separate from us. Nature nurtures us. The destructive exploitation of nature is evil. What is good is the use of nature that doesn't use up nature.

Second, the economic and ecological meltdowns have the same cause: the unregulated free market and the idea that greed is good and that the natural world is a resource for short-term private enrichment. The result has been deadly, toxic assets and a toxic atmosphere.

Third, the global economy and ecology are both systems. Global causes are systemic, not local. Global risk is systemic, not local. The localization of causation and risk is what has brought about our twin disasters. We have to think in global, system terms and we don't do so naturally. That is why a massive communications effort is needed.

Fourth, the Right's economic arguments need to be countered. Is it too expensive to save the earth? How could it be? If the earth goes, business goes.

Fifth, we are the polar bears. Human existence is threatened, and the existence of most living beings on earth.

Sixth, we own the air jointly and we can't transfer ownership. Polluting corporations are dumping pollution into our air. They need to gradually be made to stop, two-percent less a year for 40 years: that is what a "cap" on carbon dioxide pollution is about. And meanwhile the polluters should pay us dumping fees to offset the cost of fuel increases and pay for the development of better fuels.

Seventh, even the most successful emissions cap would only take us halfway. Business needs to do its part to take us the rest of the way. Large corporations need to face up to reality and join in the effort.

Finally, for those in the business world: Corporate interests are constantly putting forth arguments based on cost-benefit analysis. But the very mathematics of cost-benefit analysis is anti-ecological; the equations themselves are destructive of the earth . . . [I]n a fairly short time, any monetary benefits compared to costs will tend to zero. That says there are no long-term benefits to saving the earth!

Continue ReadingGeorge Lakoff frames eco-talk

Hear the story about all of our stuff

In The Story of Stuff, Annie Leonard tells us that all of our "stuff" is part of a linear system that is clashing with our finite planet. Her video is extremely popular (5.5 million views) and easy to follow. Here's a short description from her site:

From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It'll teach you something, it'll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever.

What are the main problems? We are externalizing costs, so that we are oblivious to the damages we are causing around the world when we buy so much of the stuff that we are buying. We are running out of resources. Her stats from the United States are especially troubling because we are so very much living beyond our means. We generating huge heaps of waste. We are using energy + contaminated products to promulgate toxic products and untested products. One of the highest concentrations of toxic food substances has become human breast milk. 200,000 people move from their resource-exhausted long-time communities into crowded cities, many of them slums. And consider that 99% of the stuff we run through our economic system is trash within 6 months. This is not an accident, either. It is long-time government and industry policy that we should shop and consume. We shop three to four times as much as Europeans. Which, again, leads to disposal problems. For every trash can full of waste we throw away there were 70 trash cans of waste produced to make that one can of waste. Incredible. Many DI related posts can be found here. Further, listen to Daniel Goleman's description of the basic problem and the solution in his interview with Daniel Goleman.

Continue ReadingHear the story about all of our stuff

Republicans idea-less on energy issues

Think Progress has summarized current thinking by the GOP on energy issues:

Throughout the discussion on America's energy future, Republicans have been notably absent. In March, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) announced the creation of the House GOP American Energy Solutions Group, an effort to "work on crafting Republican solutions to lower energy prices for American families and small businesses." The man chosen to head the committee -- which includes notorious climate change deniers Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and John Shimkus (R-IL) -- is none other than House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN), who, just last night, refused to even admit that climate change is real. "Well, let me tell you," he told MSNBC's Chris Matthews, "I think the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming." "Then why should your party believe you're going to get serious about it, if you say the science is mixed?" Matthews asked. Pence replied, "Yeah, it's a fair question."
And what about the Chamber of Commerce? It MUST be walking in lockstep with the GOP, right? Wrong:
An analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC) found that just four of the 122 board members at the Chamber share the group's questioning of science and stark opposition to federal regulations to reduce global warming pollution.

Continue ReadingRepublicans idea-less on energy issues