The Watermelon Blog Green on the outside, social justice inside
"We can do better" (Kennedy)
Richest fluency
"This is what you shall do: Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul; and your very flesh shall be a great poem, and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body." Walt Whitman
In response to an article I wrote recently on evolution I had a response from an American reader as follows: 'Several of my Republican "friends" (I'm a liberal) seem to think that by attempting to dominate the world militarily, mankind is acting as the ultimate agent of Evolution. "We are killing off the lazy and the stupid," is how these people phrase their arguments. So it's almost like these Neocons are -- instead of rejecting the notion of Natural Selection and Evolution -- now adopting it as their own vehicle to explain imperialism and non-inclusive Conservative policies.'
These 'Republican friends' and their counterparts in Australia have a long history for their ideas. They are essentially restating 'Social Darwinism', which became briefly popular in the late nineteenth century to justify the gross inequalities in British society, and British imperialism, before it became obvious that it was rubbish. The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh? When neocons talk in this way they are thinking of the phrase 'nature red in tooth and claw', which they think comes from Darwin, but in fact comes from a poem by Tennyson. This phrase in turn comes from 'Survival of the fittest', which again is thought of as Darwin, but initially came from Herbert Spencer, who began the idea known as Social Darwinism. Darwin had originally just talked about 'natural selection' by analogy with 'artificial selection' (what farmers and horticulturists do), but added the term 'survival of the fittest' later in recognition of Spencer's ideas.
The image of course is of the triumphant buck deer, antlers bloodied, killing all his rivals, or the male lion, supreme after chasing off the young males from the pride. And it is the image of George Bush in his flight suit, mission accomplished, or Tony Abbott wearing boxing gloves, or Mark Latham arm wrestling John Howard. It is the world of Gordon Gecko's 'greed is good', Maggie Thatcher's 'no such thing as society' and Ayn Rand's promotion of selfishness, and of economic rationalism, and of every empire's notion of imposing civilisation on inferior beings. It is the Dickensian world of Victorian England and of 21st century Australia, with deserving poor and undeserving poor, of every man for himself, and of wealth as a measure of virtue and success. And it is the world in which the people who benefit from it can say, with a straight face, that capitalism has defeated socialism because of 'human nature'.
And it is all nonsense.
Evolution doesn't work like that.
Human society certainly doesn't work like that.
Artificial selection is a slow process, natural selection is a very slow process. Both are working on tiny genetic differences, making use of occasional tiny mutations. The changes are brought about because individuals with a particular genetic makeup have a slightly above average chance of raising slightly more of their offspring to reproductive age than those with a different genetic makeup. Slightly above average chance, slightly more. That's all. You wouldn't see it happening, but you would see the end results a long way down the track. And there is no sense of 'every man for himself', there are many examples of cooperative behaviour evolving because it improves the chances of the survival of a group as a whole - and certainly this would have been a factor in the evolution of early human groups.
And leaving all that aside, the philosophy of Ayn Rand (and all her followers down to the neocons and economic rationalists now running Australia and much of the rest of the world with the help of right wing think tanks and radio shock jocks) requires that differences in wealth between individuals in a society, and between countries, is not just a measure of virtue but of genetic worth. It ignores all of the historic events, the chance factors, the luck, the nepotism, the actions of government in favour of their friends, the aftermath of wars and slavery and resource exploitation. And there is, in any case, no genetic basis of any kind in the economic inequalities within and between societies. The Right dismiss any talk of context to explain inequalities of wealth in individuals or countries as bleeding heart liberalism, preferring instead an outdated and wrong reading of Charles Darwin to justify their continued appropriation of the potential wealth of the poor individuals and the poor countries of the world.
And in Australia we continue, with the help of the tax system, to make what used to be the merely filthy rich into the super rich (perhaps the uber rich), and by getting rid of regulations once intended to protect people, we make corporations even richer too. And the Labor Party, anxious not to appear soft headed, and anxious not to annoy the media owners and the big corporate political donors, goes along with this. Even echoing the mantra of the Right that you can't change things because it is what 'aspirational voters' (or as we now call them 'Middle Australia') want, can't argue with human nature, it's in our genes. Competition, not cooperation, both parties agree, is what makes the world go round, and it is expressed most clearly in the Dickensian world of the new industrial relations system. Workplace agreements are the most recent manifestation of Herbert Spencer's 'every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost' view of human nature as he fantasized that it had evolved under natural selection.
Human nature? No, an alibi, easily broken, for greed.
{ 6:56 PM, 7 August 2006 }
{ Posted by Anonymous }
I would argue that social or communal beliefs do evolve but politics are not intrinsic to this. In fact I would argue that evolution of politics is highly removed from social or communal beliefs as we are not truly a democratic system.
Evolution of politics to me is, for example; a politician getting away with pandering to big business, the business financially supports the party, forcing opposing parties to do likewise in order to compete, hence a self perpetuating adaptation to the political environment. A counteractive social mechanism of not voting for said politician is flawed for many reasons, (eg forced to vote for them anyway for different reasons). Hence my claim that political policies should not be considered social evolution at all.
My idea of social evolution would be for example; increasing divorce rate or something like that. Many of these concepts are tied to religious beliefs but it is my position that religions evolve as an intrinsic part of the communal belief system (eg Catholic division over homosexuality).
I'm just responding to let you know there are many different perspectives regarding social evolution, and not all of them are related to the harsh social darwinistic concepts you discussed.
"You are a person of some interest,one comes to you and takes strange gain away." (Pound)
"I find that I can have no enjoyment in the world but the continual drinking of knowledge. I find there is no worthy pursuit but the idea of doing some good for the world." (Keats)
"nothing startles me beyond the moment. The setting sun will always set me to rights - or if a sparrow come before my window I take part in its existence and pick about the gravel." (Keats)