From: beaver.cs.washington.edu!gnosys!postoffice.brown.edu!Martha_Dunham
Subject: Darwinism, social and otherwise
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:56:44 GMT

Original-Sender: postoffice.brown.edu!Martha_Dunham

Alan McGowen has expressed some important thoughts in his last few
postings, but I cringe at his use of the ideas he has taken from ecology
and from the theory of evolution by natural selection.  Scientists try to
explain how things work.  They generally shy away from statements like
"that's the way it SHOULD work".  This seems to be what Alan McGowan is
implying, however - that natural selection is the right way, and that we
should follow wherever it leads us.  Even more, he implies that we should
second guess where we are being led so we can get there faster.  His use of
established scientific thought to underscore his political views is as
insidious as earlier use of Darwinism to justify genocide.

        I am not saying his ideas are to be compared to those of the
various people who espoused social Darwinism.  At the very least, he would
have us head in a different direction.  To use a (perhaps inappropriate)
analogy - one who claims to know where natural selection is headed is
similar to one who declares himself High Priest.  The fact is, no one knows
where the knife will carve next.  We only can determine what is present
now, and struggle to piece together some idea of how the knife may have
carved in the past. It seems therefore inappropriate to invoke Darwin's
theory of natural selection to support ANY political views.

        As I suggested at the beginning of this post, this does not
automatically negate everything Alan McGowan says.  If we choose to live in
balance with nature, it makes sense to look to peoples who have done so in
the past.  We should be aware, however, that this is our own choice.  If
nature really preferred balanced ecosystems, then we would all be
single-celled organisms - complex lifeforms would never have evolved.

> A niche is (...) a kind of natural common law, or natural justice, which
> reasonable organisms observe in order that the whole commonwealth of life may
> go on.  [That is a very controversial statement which most biologists would
> reject...]

It certainly is.  It is an individual's opinion, derived from his personal
understanding of a scientific theory.  I emphasize, it is an opinion only,
NOT supported by science.  The consequences of natural selection can also
be interpreted somewhat differently, for example:  If humans step out of
the bounds of their niche, natural selection will ensure that they are
slapped back into place (microorganisms always have room to work).  This
interpretation could lead, as Peshewegunzh suggested, to the political
belief that anything we do is ok, because if it weren't we couldn't do it.
Yet it is as good an interpretation of natural selection as any other, in
the eyes of science.

At this point (or even much earlier!) some might be horrified at the
implication that scientists can just charge ahead, searching out new
explanations for the world with utter disregard for the political
consequences.  They would be misinterpreting me.  Scientists, being humans,
are political beings and should be aware of political consequences.
Science, as a method of inquiry, is expected to be objective, giving
explanations of how things work the way they do, but not how they SHOULD
work.

I hope we are not getting too horribly off the topic here.  We seem to be
getting more into environmentalist politics than is appropriate.  I, for
one, would like to learn more about what Native Americans see as their own
role in politics.  Given sovereignty, how will you affect the larger
governing body?  What is your (individual or collective) stance on
environmental issues?

Cheers,
Martha Dunham

Being set on the idea
   Of getting to Atlantis,
You have discovered of course
   Only the Ship of Fools is
Making the voyage this year
        -	W.H.Auden

Xref: sparky alt.native:995 alt.config:5760