Darwinian and neo-Darwinian ideas of natural selection, differential extinction and adaptive evolution have traditionally been linked to capitalistic views of “survival of the fittest”. As decades passed by, people including the scientific community at large began seeing Darwinian Laws of evolution (its not just a theory any more) as a justification for the greed, consumerism, “hire-fire” notions and at times, the imperialistic overtones of right winged capitalism and market rule.
There are no evidences to show that Darwin himself took his theories to this extent. But the synonymity between capitalistic notions of “might is right” has been increasingly supported by many studies on genetic determinism. Now, anything from racial superiority to anti-reservation campaign is justified by these contorted interpretations of laws of evolution. Even though Galton’s eugenics failed miserably in its original form (negative eugenics), it is coming back in many new disguises from white supremacy to culture-war theories – a poetic justice to history, I should say.
Are the laws of evolution as anti-socialistic as is viewed to be?
It is an undisputed fact that selection process of nature is highly merit-based and extinction awaits anything that is maladapted to its environs.
What helps adaptation?
Phenotypic expressions of genes on an individual basis and in combinations.
This is where determinists hijack the theory.
First, every trait from music and arts to adoption of a religious belief becomes the responsibility of genes. And if genes are the basis of selection, then there has to be superiority and i
nferiority among genes, as there are superior and inferior qualities, they say. Any animal that inherits undesirable or malfunctioning genes, as a rule, becomes inferior by their standards. Some take it a little further and attribute every trait they hate, on genes.
Thus ‘black skin’ becomes an undesired trait; lower scores on IQ tests become an undesired trait; poor performance in economic issues becomes an undesirable trait; inability of the brain to concur with societal laws becomes undesirable…the hate-list soon grows to include anything from eating habits, ideologies, cultures to (these days) even religious beliefs!
It is not surprising that the Nature versus Nurture debate
now revolves around this controversy.
What these people and scientists don’t see is the context in which “survival of the fittest” is applicable. Homosapiens as a species needs to compete with everything around, including other life forms as well as nature for survival and he is doing the job remarkably well. But within the species are we supposed to keep this rule alive? Mammals, as a group, have evolved to the present state facing stiff competition from many other groups – mostly reptiles. And it is undoubtedly, societal cooperation that has helped them the most in the fight.
Hominids are no different…
In fact, it is ‘intra-specific cooperation’ that has been key in the development of many humanly attributable qualities – like language, script, technology and science; this is true for every social animal. There is ample evidence to show that all those ‘human’ qualities that we boast about, are result of nurturing the right kind of genes. The recent expositions regarding the environmental influences on psychosocial development and human intelligence points to this direction.
The laws of evolution, far from being the Trojan horse for social injustice, are actually excellent tools for social-engineering in every positive sense of the word. To see this, you just have to consider the whole of humanity – rather hominids – as one large group pitched against the forces of nature. The importance of universal nurturing of advantageous traits thru global initiatives will thus become clearer in the new light.
This essentially will mean that leaving various sects of the society to its own fate thru unrestricted finance capital and free market economy is not only against the spirit of human evolution but also the greatest blunder that man can commit, considering the unique ability of his brain to stand up against his genes. And that is where Socialism marries Darwinism.
Let me conclude quoting Dawkins, the messiah of ‘selfish gene’, who wrote in a rebuttal of Lewontin, Rose & Kamin:
…. it is perfectly possible to hold that genes exert a statistical influence on human behaviour while at the same time believing that this influence can be modified, overridden or reversed by other influences…. human sexuality has evolved from natural selection just the same way any animal trait evolved…this means that there have been genes influencing sexual desire just as genes ever influence anything. Yet ‘genetic determinists’ have no trouble holding back their sexual desires when it is socially necessary to do so. What is dualist about that? Obviously nothing…We, that is our brains, are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them…we do so in a small way when we use contraception. There is no reason why we should not rebel in a large way too…
[The Selfish Gene : 1989 OUP edition End notes to Chapter 11]
