Darwin and the Left (updated)

Comments

1. 

   February 12, 2004

   tony hutchison

   nicely I think. I wouldn’t blame Marx for 20th century totalitarianism (not that I think you are) just as I wouldn’t blame Mohammed for its new 21st century variants!
   Don’t know much about EP but there was a fascinating leftist strand within the ‘social Darwinist’ thought that emerged in the late nineteeth century. Thinkers such as Lester Ward sought to harness Darwinism to progressive politics by drawing attention to the unique extent to which humans have interfered with ‘natural’ processes for desirable ends. This was, Ward argued, itself a stage in human evolution.
   Let’s not forget also that Marx wished to dedicate Kapital to Darwin (though he refused– not wishing his ideas to be ‘politicised’).

   Reply
2. 

   February 12, 2004

   Mick H

   Tony – According to Richard Dawkins (http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,900206,00.html) that story about Marx wishing to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin is an urban legend, an “agreeable falsehood”. I guess he should know.

   Reply
3. 

   February 12, 2004

   Paul Craddick

   Nice post.
   Not meaning to nitpick, but …
   Despite your aim to eschew ‘metaphysical discussion,’ I’d say that adverting to Hobbes and Rousseau as spokesmen for markedly different views on the human condition does entail a metaphysical discussion – and that’s entirely legitimate. I don’t see how we can avoid ‘metaphysics’ here; to entertain questions as to man’s lot, the character of human nature and agency, and so on, unavoidably entails questions like: what does it mean to be anything at all? what do we mean by ‘nature’ – that protean term – in the expression ‘human nature’? what’s at issue in opposing ‘volition’ to ‘determinism’, and so on (Note that Aristotle discusses both ‘formal’ and ‘final’ causality [i.e., entelechy & teleology] in The Ethics, The Physics, and The Metaphysics – not to mention in On the Parts of Animals, etc.).

   Reply
4. 

   February 14, 2004

   Joseph Yaroch

   portant point about evolutionary psychology is that it must be understood in the context of evolutionary process. This means that natural selection does not act only on fixed traits — such as height, weight, or strength; rather, it acts on traits (including behavioral tendencies) that adapt with the circumstance.
   For example, it might seem that if what you want to do is to have a lot of kids, and you are a male, you should pick fights with all the other guys and kill them and take their females. Note that I am talking about natural selection, not ethics. Obviously it is not ethical to act in such a manner. The point is, such behavior is not necessarily advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, either. There are some circumstances in which you are not likely to win, so the best tactic is to keep a low profile until a better opportunity arises. Thus, you do not expect natural selection to always favor brute strength. A capacity to adapt dynamically to the circumstance is at least as important as sheer power. Thus, a given set of genes could influence a person to act one way in one situation, and another way in a different situation.
   One common misperception of genetics stems from the assumption that genes always map 1:1 with physical traits. For example, if you have the gene for brown eyes, you get brown eyes. Actually, only a small minority of genes act that way. Genes code for proteins, and proteins — aptly named — are incredibly versatile chemicals. It is more accurate to think of genes as factors that exert an influence on a chemical process. Repeat: they influence chemical process; only rarely do they determine anything. Thus, having a certain gene will increase or decrease the probability that a given chemical process will occur at any point in time.
   A concrete example of this occurs during childhood, when adult height is determined. If food is plentiful, the creatures grows up to be big. If food is scarce, the creatures ends up being small. But the actual size of the adult is not determined strictly by the genetic makeup of the creature; nor is it directly proportional to the abundance of the food supply. The final size of the adult is determined by the dynamic interaction between genes and environment.
   From this perspective, it would make sense for a creature to be born with the capacity for evil; a capacity that would be activated only in certain circumstances. As in the example of the relationship between genetic makeup, food supply, and adult size, the ultimate evilness of a person is determined not by “human nature” (genetic constitution) alone, nor by the environment alone; rather, it is determined by the interaction between the two.
   This line of reasoning would not lead to the conclusion that some persons are born to be evil; nor would it lead to the conclusion that all persons can be made to be evil if exposed to an environment conducive to evil behavior. The more logical conclusion is that genes and environment will interact in a highly complex — and to some extent unpredictable — manner. The dice may be loaded, but they still are dice.

   Adopting this paradigm, it no longer makes sense to argue about whether human nature is fundamentally good or fundamentally evil. The only thing that is fundamental about human behavior is the unpredictability of it.

   By the way, evolutionists do have an explanation for cooperative behavior. The explanation is the concept of inclusive fitness. See:
   http://hss.fullerton.edu/sociology/orleans/sociobiol.htm

   For a decent explication of the concept of inclusive fitness.

   Who has the best credentials to discuss this: liberals or conservatives, authoritarians or libertarians? The biologists have had their say. I’ll leave that question for the social scientists to decide.

   Reply
5. 

   April 7, 2004

   Thomas Taylor

   Now there is the internet. And I really appreciate people like you who take their chance in such an excellent way to give an impression on certain topics. Thanks for having me here.
   Thomas Taylor

   Reply
6. 

   December 20, 2004

   David Stack

   The relationship between Darwinism and the left has always been more complex than Singer allows. And yes, the story that Marx offered dedicate Capital to Marx is UNTRUE. Any one interested in understanding how the left responded to Darwin in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries will probably be interested in my book: The First Darwinian Left: socialism and Darwinism, 1859-1914 (New Clarion Press, 2003).
   http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/202-2847653-7743056

   Reply