The primary focus of this essay is on adaptationism and the theory of evolution, which, of course, challenges fundamental religious beliefs. In fact, perhaps as a substitute for religion, some have adopted a distortion of Darwinism to explain the \”purpose\” of life: one depiction of human existence is that we’re actually survival machines programmed to perpetuate our genes, according to \”selfish gene\” pursuits. From this POV, the purpose of life is survival for the sake of continued reproduction- each life then is a carrier, a brief repository of gene pool elements.
Because of this belief, some Darwinists seek to find adaptationist explanations for all aspects of the human physique and behavior. They do so because they believe that all traits must make rational, \”selfish gene\” sense somehow because that’s their whole point; because natural selection wouldn’t allow it otherwise. Some people even have a bizarre \”faith\” in evolution as if life can always be counted on to devise a way somehow (even miraculously) to survive, i. e. , \”life will find a way\”.
The SF writer, Robert A. Heinlein, a Social Darwinist, once wrote, \”there will always be survivors\”; he meant only \”survival of the fittest\”, of course, with the implication that the \”non-fit\” don’t \”deserve\” to live. Nazism (blatant power fantasy) was an outgrowth of Social Darwinism with the implication that \”natural order\” dictates that human society should be patterned on this; that the \”unfit\”, \”weak and inferior\” should be actively \”weeded\” out by society. However, it’s a fallacy to infer morality from natural law.
After all, the law of gravity doesn’t mean human society should strive to promote falling down. This essay has been another attempt to dispel these simplistic notions. Natural selection alone doesn’t explain all aspects of ourselves: mere statistics (of distribution and variation) alone prevents that as previously explained. Adaptationism is a major factor, of course, but not all traits are the result of direct adaptations- and this is increasingly true with greater complexity. Where does one draw the line between direct adaptation, random drift and peripheral serendipity (unintended consequences)?
Again, it can’t be emphasized enough that technically, genes have no purpose- nor are they \”trying to survive\” or enhance their reproductive success or do anything for that matter. It’s just that the gene pool will obviously TEND to consist of genes that have happened to have done so- by default; i. e. , the other genes that happened not to have done so will obviously not be around in as great numbers, if at all. Life will continue to perpetuate in the ways that it’s possible to do so within the laws of nature.
The so-called ingenious ways that species \”devised\” to survive were often the only feasible options left (no miracle was involved)- by default- given the current environment and the previous genetic lineage and the preexistence of requisite traits. But remember, most species- perhaps, all species- go extinct eventually. Evolution is a constant \”work in progress\”; just because a particular species has existed for millions of years doesn’t mean that a kind of \”perfection\” or optimization has been achieved. Sometimes, a species can exist for millennia IN SPITE of \”bad\” adaptations.
And past reproductive success doesn’t predict future success- just look at the dinosaurs. So there’s no preordained \”destiny\” to evolution. Evolutionary biology provides a context for understanding HOW current behavior modes may’ve developed and why they persist. However, it doesn’t directly explain WHY we are as we are. Saying that men seek power and status for sex and are violent to fight over women; and that women seek high status males; or that genes seek to maximize reproductive fitness is a useful model (stereotype)- a teleological explanation- but it’s certainly not the \”meaning of life\”.
The primary focus of natural selection has always been on the \”winners\” (life); but I think evolution can be extended to encompass non-life as well. In semiconductor physics, electrical current can be defined either as negative charge moving, say, in one direction or as positive charge moving in the opposite direction. Likewise, instead of saying that evolution is all about reproductive fitness, one could just as well say it’s about death and extinction- the other side of the coin.
Hell, death is the most likely outcome of natural selection after all. When you get down to it, the only fundamental generalization that makes sense about both life and nonlife is that both aren’t really about survival or reproductive fitness or \”progress\” or anything for that matter, but mere existence: life’s \”purpose\” then isn’t to survive- it’s exactly the same as the purpose of everything else- to simply exist- as some form of matter and/or energy. Existence for the sake of existence.
From this POV, rather than being \”masters of the world\”, we’re actually on \”equal\” footing with everything else in this universe. (I. e. , there’s no such thing as \”inferior\” or \”superior\”. ) Human existence has no more cosmic significance than, well, anything else. In that sense, everything’s the same, and nothing’s really \”meant to be\”. This POV also automatically incorporates adaptationism’s limitations. For ex. , this essay has attempted to explain behavior that doesn’t make gene-centric sense (like parents who murder their own children) as ex. f adaptationism’s statistical limitations or as subtle extreme-case adaptations.
But if this POV is taken, then no other explanation is required- it’s already taken into account; so it kind of makes \”perfect sense\” in a perverse sort of way. One doesn’t have to get bogged down, devising adaptationist scenarios for everything. One doesn’t have to puzzle why a father may kill his estranged wife and his children before killing himself by resorting to agonized \”just-so\” stories.
If there’s no afterlife, and death is followed by eternal oblivion, then what’s so bad about that? Some say only the \”weak\” commit suicide, but maybe, the truly smart people are the ones who just kill themselves and get it over with. Why should death be feared or avoided? (Well, obviously, an aversion to death is an adaptation. ) In fact, one could argue suicide is a good thing. It may be bad for reproductive fitness and for society, but why should people give a damn about that or anything for that matter? Why should people struggle and suffer- when they can have quiet oblivion instead? I’m not advocating this, but it is a \”valid\” POV. In a way, nihilism represents the ultimate freedom…
I once saw a book in a bookstore that describes evolution as an entropic (increasing disorder) process. The general concept of entropy has come to be synonymous with the general decline of things, so this makes intuitive sense. From an energy POV, our greatest energy potential is as embryos; living is an inevitable progression towards death (and in the process, we consume so much). In fact, all of human progress and the ever increasing amount of energy our high-tech civilization consumes might be seen as promoting entropy. Maybe then, all of existence is simply an expression of entropy and we’re the means (agents of entropy) by which the universe expends its energy. Perhaps, this is an equivalent view.