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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Thanks for the reassurance :-)
I've read about that research. Interesting, but at this point it seems like a vehicle for a bunch of Phd dissertations.
Even if people have innate sociological bents, that doesn't answer why whole regions of a country like the USA have one predominant ideological view or the other. For example, the North-east and the west coast are characterized as left leaning whereas the center and the south are considered right leaning. There is a form of group "think" going on.
I actually can come to the opposite answer to the question of which ideology natural selection may favor. I think that with conservatism comes a will and motivation that does not seem to be a hallmark of liberalism. Conservative groups can forge relationships of convenience with other conservative groups in order to eliminate liberalism. Even freedom fighters such as Mahatma Gandhi drew strength from their conservative principles to oust the British. But, then descending into liberal secularism only brought chaos into the picture (Indian partition).
The rub may actually lie in the definitions itself. Many may not agree with your definitions of either ideology, and to typecast either in black and white is a futile exercise. Yes, conservatism leaning towards fundamentalism can unleash some monsters, but liberalism unchecked has also resulted in equally damnable demons such as communism, because liberalism actually relies on a higher power such as the government to keep everyone on a level playing field. Such liberal molly-coddling has had the exact opposite effect resulting in unchecked growth of fundamental ideologies such as radical Islam in the west.
@Ram: I completely agree that unchecked liberalism has time and again failed its own people. But my point here is not which ideology is right and which is wrong. Infact, I dont consider myself to be a judge on that aspect. The question here is, which one of the ideology has a better chance of long term survival(assuming life has no other purpose ;) ).
When look through a pragmatic view point, I find the conservatives to be 70% of the time wrong and liberals 30% of the time wrong. This itself may suggest some sort of bias. But it is not. The everyday happenings are evidence that most of the things the conservatives do or the causes they stand for serve, at the end of the day, no pragmatic purpose for the common man or for the nation. The temple issue in Ayodhya for example. This is a testimony of the fact that conservatives lead a more violent life than liberals, by incurring 'dead weight' conflicts in addition to the struggle of day to day living. And that reduces their chances of survival.
In addition, I differ in the other arguments you have put forth. It was Mahatma Gandhi's extreme liberal stand, which became the reason for his assasination at the hands of a Hindu fundamentalist. He always viewed independence only as a means to a better living, not an end.
Regarding partition, it was definitely brought about by a leaning government, but the question itself was raised and actively promoted by conservatives on either side.
Liberalism did pave way for islamic fundamentalism. But the very reason they are existing is because of an equally conservative right in the US. This has been proved again and again. Even now, it's the US foreign policy which is fueling the Jehadi war machine more than anything else.
My point is, which mode of living is better for human beings as a species- one of constant struggle, or of mutual co operation and accomodation? And which group gets a lower score in this scale statistically?
I have tried to give a very generic definition of the ideologies. Is there another definition which is completely unrelated to this one?
Actually you are using your perceptions of right and wrong to determine the outcome of natural selection. Unfortunately, we cannot avoid our biases from coloring our opinions. I don't think nature works that way. A lion hunting down a poor baby elephant may seem incredibly cruel to our moral senses, but it is an essential function for the lion's survival.
Coming back to the question-du-jour, what would an outsider to planet Earth see if she were to observe natural selection among humans based on political bent? To answer this rhetorical question I'd say - simple, the dogged ones i.e. the conservatives would probably triumph.
In talking about definitions, it is incorrect to equate insidious Sangh Parivar type fundamentalists to the majority of peaceful conservatives. The same way one cannot equate full-government control type liberals with the majority of peaceful ones. You cited Hitler as an extreme form of conservatism, but I contend that he was not. But, his nemesis Churchill was in my opinion a very good example of a conservative. Without conservative thinkers like him, you and I may be speaking German now.
Putting aside hypotheticals, in reality, man needs good doses of both liberalism and conservatism for survival. Taking it to the extreme on either end is the source of conflict. Fortunately most human beings exist somewhere in that middle state, and therefore man survives ....... until of course the next large meteor strike; and then all of this will be moot. :-)
Oh, and don't get me started on Islamic fundamentalism. That is age old and has existed in one form of another since before the USA came of age. There can be no end as long as scripture overrides common sense. We will have to deal with it. But, if it wasn't the USA, there would be another excuse for them. This is not isolated to the USA and the middle-east - our sub-continent has burned because of it as have many others. Places like Indonesia and Thailand are just present day examples.
There is one more thing in favor of the conservatives - birth rate! Liberals seem to have a lower birth rate in general. For example the liberal European culture has caused sharply declining birth rates for the natives. While their Muslim population is burgeoning exponentially. At this rate many European countries will soon be Islamic. How much more conservative can it get than that!!
@Ram: that could have an opposite explanation too! (;))...
u would observe that carnivorous animals like cats and dogs (including all sub-familes) give birth to many offspring at a time while herbivours like cattle have usually only one... this is because the chances of survival among meat eaters is very low and so nature balances itself by letting atleast one of the many siblings survive to adulthood...
so the very fact that the more conservative a family, the higher the tendency to procreate could be a way of negating the ill effects of an uncertain and violent life???
Post a Comment