From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Anarchy and Evolution (was Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT)
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:07:02 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct4143450@sartre.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
>Anarchocapitalism requires that most people act rationally, and I
>think this would be difficult to achieve.  On the other hand, most
>people no longer believe in evil spirits and ghosts and witches, so
>at least some progress has been made.
>
>Left anarchism requires that most people act unselfishly, and I think
>that would be nearly impossible to achieve.  Most religions have been
>trying to do this for millenia.  Are people today less selfish than
>they were 100 or 1000 years ago?
>
>Rationality is adaptive in the evolutionary sense.  Doing stupid
>things will, on the average, get you killed sooner than doing smart
>things.
>
>Selfishness (when combined with rationality) is also adaptive.  If you
>rationally pursue your own self-interest, you will tend to survive
>longer than if you sacrifice your own interests.  Unlike Objectivists,
>I don't consider this to be inherently good, but unlike altruists, I
>don't consider this to be inherently evil.
>
>Altruism may be adaptive at the societal level, but Richard Dawkins
>makes the point that evolution selects for individual fitness -- not
>societal fitness.  He mentions one theory that lemmings altruistically
>sacrifice themselves when population densities get too high, and
>points out the flaw in the theory by referring to a Far Side cartoon --
>the lemming with the life preserver.  As soon as one individual
>mutates to lose the self-sacrifice gene, he will tend to survive
>longer and pass this on to more offspring and eventually, this gene
>will dominate the population.  (I suppose self-sacrifice for one's
>offspring might be the exception to this rule, but even this requires
>self-serving behavior until the offspring are produced and the pursuit
>of one's family's interests over the interests of others.)
>
>He also raises an interesting point about the evolution of cooperative
>behavior:
>
>RD> Leigh was interested in that perennial problem, the evolution of
>RD> 'altruistic' behavior in individuals.  He correctly recognized
>RD> that if individual interest conflict with those of the species,
>RD> the individual interests -- short-term interests -- must prevail.
>RD> Nothing, it seems, can prevent the march of selfish genes.  But
>RD> Leigh made the following interesting suggestion.  There must be
>RD> some groups or species in which, as it happens, what is best for
>RD> the individual pretty much coincides with what is best for the
>RD> species.  And there must be other species in which the interests
>RD> of the individual happen to depart especially strongly from the
>RD> interests of the species.  Other things being equal, the second
>RD> type of species could well be more likely to go extinct.  A form
>RD> of species selection, then, could favor, not individual
>RD> self-sacrifice, but those species in which individuals are not
>RD> _asked_ to sacrifice their own welfare.
>
I find the resurgence of Social Darwinism amusing.

Fortunately (IMHO) the "selfish gene" faces some serious challenges...

The "mutation" that enables us to throw a monkey wrench into Natural Selection.
The "mutation" that endows us with a tendency to "examine" life.

We have reached a point where many if not most people consider survival past
middle age (or pretty good probability of it) to be their Birthright.  Most of
us are willing to compete over some extra Status or Comfort, but I think
getting most people to accept competition over survival per se is no more
realistic than getting people to behave "unselfishly".  Of course Reality never
required anyone's acceptance.

A social ethic that comes close to placing INFINITE value on human life is
inevitable.  It's already happening.  People no longer see having kids as an
exercise in throwing DNA at the wall to see how much sticks.  The question
is... will this Social Ethic lead to an unprecedented Mediocrity, or will it
inspire what I think needs to be done...beat the System.  Are species
tendencies like territoriality, dominance/submission (hierarchy), kinship
warfare etc. our inevitable Biological Destiny to be fulfilled?  Or are they
(like so much of the natural world) another obstacle to be overcome?  I prefer
to treat them as the latter, although I don't know how.


>
>Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
>yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>
Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy