The first known self proclaimed atheist, Baron d'Holbach(1723-1789), predates Charles Darwin's publication of his theory of natural selection(1856) by almost 70 years. There exist atheists even today, who do not really know or understand evolution.
The theory of Evolution by natural selection was the first ever scientific approach in search of a possible naturalistic explanation for the world around us and it's workings. And still stands as one of the most dominant such approach.
Then how did atheists come to be without knowing it? What was their basis for rejecting God, if not science?
In other words, how do atheists ignorant of Evolution tackle the question of 'Why we are here'?
Or are majority of the people who claim to be atheists(which includes many Marxists) actually agnostics?
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Darwinian Politics!
KG fired me this strange info last week. Its veracity and applicability doesn't seem to have been universally agreed upon yet. Nevertheless, I was overwhelmed when I deliberated upon the implications of the hypothesis that political orientations could actually be inherited.
For one, Darwinian Natural Selection should be applicable. Let us assume that all the people in the world are subjected to a completely neutral and passive environment to grow up and given a completely factual form of education. The purpose is to annul any external influences. In which case, the political orientations would be governed entirely by the genes (this is kind of self contradictory because the very existence of right and left wingers would mean 'neutral' education does not exist, but we shall make this assumption anyway for the sake of argument). And let us also assume that half the people of the world are conservatives and half the people are liberals to begin with. If things are left as it is, one of the ideologies is bound to perish in the long run, of say a few thousand years. The ideology which would help mankind survive longer would be naturally selected. And finally we are left with a race which is entirely liberal or entirely conservative! The question then is, which one of the two ideologies would survive nature's ultimate Election?
After a brief contemplation I ended up ruling in favour of the liberals (now that's a surprise!). Well, I could very well be biased. So if you feel otherwise (or come to the same conclusion but using a different argument), please comment your views.
Before I present my solution, I'll define the terms involved for the benefit of the readers.
Natural Selection: It is the phenomenon which gives direction to evolution. To put it in simple terms, only those members of a population who are able to survive longer would end up spreading their genes. Hence, the population becomes stronger and stronger with each generation. The species then is said to have 'evolved'.
Conservatives: They are a class of politicians, who believe in upholding what they think are 'traditional' values (depending on the scenario, it could be religion, culture, ethnicity, race etc.). They are usually intolerant toward other traditions, always try to control the personal lives of individuals and are in constant conflict with foreign cultures.
Liberals: They believe in cultural and ethnic accommodation and usually uphold individual freedom.
Clearly, Conservatives lead a life of constant struggle, not only against Liberals, but also against other conservatives. This turns odds of survival against them. Of course, a lot depends on what kind of government is in power. If I was a native German living in Hitler's reign, I would choose to endorse his fanatical ways, and go about killing Jews and waging wars, if I wanted to live. Being a liberal would mean suicide in this case. But we need to look at long term implications here. A Nazi would have made more enemies in his life time than his victims. This would be true even if the Germans had won the war and were controlling the world now. There would be Anti Nazi terrorist groups all over the world (a situation similar to the one Americans find themselves today among Muslims all over the world). Sooner or later, the Nazis were bound to be annihilated. Now it could be unfair to label conservatives as Nazis. But their ideology does seem to be a distorted and milder version of that very fanatical movement. Be it the Sangh Parivar in India, the church-backed Republicans in the US etc.
I agree that the above argument is quite incomplete. The conditions assumed are quite idealistic. The contribution of Sexual Selection has not been taken into account. A lot also depends on the economic policies of the two groups which I haven't considered. Further, bringing in the now-small-but-fast-growing third class of Centrists could drastically change the equations. Comments are welcome.
For one, Darwinian Natural Selection should be applicable. Let us assume that all the people in the world are subjected to a completely neutral and passive environment to grow up and given a completely factual form of education. The purpose is to annul any external influences. In which case, the political orientations would be governed entirely by the genes (this is kind of self contradictory because the very existence of right and left wingers would mean 'neutral' education does not exist, but we shall make this assumption anyway for the sake of argument). And let us also assume that half the people of the world are conservatives and half the people are liberals to begin with. If things are left as it is, one of the ideologies is bound to perish in the long run, of say a few thousand years. The ideology which would help mankind survive longer would be naturally selected. And finally we are left with a race which is entirely liberal or entirely conservative! The question then is, which one of the two ideologies would survive nature's ultimate Election?
After a brief contemplation I ended up ruling in favour of the liberals (now that's a surprise!). Well, I could very well be biased. So if you feel otherwise (or come to the same conclusion but using a different argument), please comment your views.
Before I present my solution, I'll define the terms involved for the benefit of the readers.
Natural Selection: It is the phenomenon which gives direction to evolution. To put it in simple terms, only those members of a population who are able to survive longer would end up spreading their genes. Hence, the population becomes stronger and stronger with each generation. The species then is said to have 'evolved'.
Conservatives: They are a class of politicians, who believe in upholding what they think are 'traditional' values (depending on the scenario, it could be religion, culture, ethnicity, race etc.). They are usually intolerant toward other traditions, always try to control the personal lives of individuals and are in constant conflict with foreign cultures.
Liberals: They believe in cultural and ethnic accommodation and usually uphold individual freedom.
Clearly, Conservatives lead a life of constant struggle, not only against Liberals, but also against other conservatives. This turns odds of survival against them. Of course, a lot depends on what kind of government is in power. If I was a native German living in Hitler's reign, I would choose to endorse his fanatical ways, and go about killing Jews and waging wars, if I wanted to live. Being a liberal would mean suicide in this case. But we need to look at long term implications here. A Nazi would have made more enemies in his life time than his victims. This would be true even if the Germans had won the war and were controlling the world now. There would be Anti Nazi terrorist groups all over the world (a situation similar to the one Americans find themselves today among Muslims all over the world). Sooner or later, the Nazis were bound to be annihilated. Now it could be unfair to label conservatives as Nazis. But their ideology does seem to be a distorted and milder version of that very fanatical movement. Be it the Sangh Parivar in India, the church-backed Republicans in the US etc.
I agree that the above argument is quite incomplete. The conditions assumed are quite idealistic. The contribution of Sexual Selection has not been taken into account. A lot also depends on the economic policies of the two groups which I haven't considered. Further, bringing in the now-small-but-fast-growing third class of Centrists could drastically change the equations. Comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)