Survival of the fittest

FYI: it was a guy called Herbert Spencer [Darwin’s contemporary] who coined the title phrase, not Darwin himself. Darwin also didn’t invent the concept of evolution, even his grandfather had suggested it. Darwin only proposed a plausible mechanism for the process.

Are we fundamentally different biologically from the very first homo sapien? I don’t think so. Yeah sure there’s a mini-neo-Lamarckist [two words, among others: gay people!] in me, but for all intents and purposes, physiologically, we’re still the same. Which is to say, if a homo sapien caveman baby [yeah I really love cavemen] were born to us now, it is possible [discounting Baldwinian cumulative effect] it will grow up to be a very normal human being. That’s what I think.
The point? The only difference between then and now, is the baby’s instant, constant and extensive exposure to culture and information from the moment it’s born.

And previously, by the rules of classical Darwinism, if you put a guy who’s lived in the tropics all his life in perma-frosted Siberia, he won’t live long enough to pass his genes in the new area [unless he’s lucky and smart and manages to skin some furry mammal for protective clothing]. Exactly my point.

Humans are past that helpless stage of evolving physically to nature’s whims. We are intelligent enough to hunt. To see the wisdom of having fur, and apply it by wearing it. We’re not compelled to evolve physically anymore!

Does that mean we have started to stagnate? Are we truly at the pinnacle of our evolutionary branch? Is there no where else to go but down?

Then you start seeing similar trends elsewhere. The capitalist economy is another rat race isn’t it? Survival of the richest. It follows the same trends as physical evolution. If a parent is able to come out on top of his peers in this generation [amass a lot of monetary resources], then the offspring more often than not, get a headstart in that economy [and maybe not in others, depending on local currency’s exchange power]. And make no mistake, money *IS* power. This “adaptation” empowers.

That’s not to say the poorly “adapted” die out forever. They manage to eke out a living in unfavourable conditions, just barely. Ah the tenacity of life. What’s more, the best way to ride out adversity [that you cant seem to fight] is to minimize losses [perecentage?] and hope for the best. Developing nations have ever-increasing birthrates. Maybe…

So have we unknowingly [or otherwise] imposed a new avenue for “evolution” upon ourselves? It’s definitely possible. We didn’t get where we are now by not changing, that’s for sure.

So if it’s definitely possible, then it warrants an extrapolation. If our physical evolution has more or less come to a standstill, is it too far-fetched to believe economic “evolution” will too? And end in roughly the same way out physical evolution has? With all of us on pretty much the same footing? [Marxism gods that be! Please let this be true.]

And what’s next? Excerpt from Waking Life:
[From American-Buddha.org. The website’s not on the net anymore! But luckily I had a backup copy of the sccript in my harddrive.]

(A very intense man is talking in his office, gesturing wildly)

If we’re looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism, and then at the development of its interaction with the environment.

Evolution of the organism begins with the evolution of life, proceeds through the hominid, coming to the evolution of mankind: Neanderthal and Cro-magnon man. Now interestingly, what you’re looking at here are three strains: biological, anthropological — development of the cities — and cultur[al], which is human expression.

Now what you’ve seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time scales that are involved here, two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it, you’re beginning to see the telescopic nature of the evolutionary timeline.

And then when you get to agriculture, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you’re looking at 10,0000 years, 400 years, 150 years, and you’re seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time.

What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it’s going to telescope to the point we should be able to manifest it within our lifetime, within a generation.

The new evolution stems from information. And it stems from two types of information, digital and analog. The digital is artificial intelligence, the analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism, and you knit the two together with neurobiology.

Before, on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, non-competitive grouping, independent from the external.

And what’s interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process emanating from the needs and desires of the individual, and [NOT] an external process, a passive process, where the individual is just at the whim of the collective.

So you produce a neo-human, okay, with a new individuality, a new consciousness. But that’s only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle, because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles upon ability, the speed changes. Until what?

Until we reach a crescendo. In a way, it could almost be imagined as an almost instantaneous fulfillment of human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual, the multiplication of individual existences. Parallel existences. Now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space.

And the manifestations of this neo-human type evolution, the manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive. That’s the interesting part. The old evolution is cold, it’s sterile, it’s efficient, and its manifestations are those of social adaptation: we’re talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, war, predation. These will be subject to de-emphasis. These will be subject to de-evolution.

The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty, of justice, of freedom. These will be the manifestations of the new evolution. And that is what we would hope to see. Yes, that would be nice.


A neo-human evolution. A cultural evolution that rediscovers and accepts [without enforcing] every aspect of its colourful and abandoned [due to the menace of Westernisation] past. And the best part is, it might be coming soon!

And much like the early decades of capitalism [we’re in it now], the intellectuals [like the rich now] will be empowered, and might even abuse their “superiority” and establish an elitist society [similar to the rich supremacy now] and in time, it will right itself.

Everyone will realize their place. Everyone will have specific role in society, a purpose to feel committed to. [self-chosen and diligently lived-up to]. Hermann Hesse’s Castalia comes to mind.

Yeah cultural evolution sorta might do away with the “selfish gene” that has so obviously extended its lifetime way past physical evolution.

And that might be our much-feared Novus Ordo Mundi. Eat that!

Advertisements

About this entry