A Pilgrimage to Enlightenment

Just finished reading an epoch in popular science books. 'The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkins. No, this is not a tirade against religion, which by the way is getting a bit stale off late- 'The God Delusion' becomes painfully redundant from the middle through the end, especially if you have read some of his previous books or discourses. No, this is pure Science. And yes, Science in every sense.

The book is a journey in time. We start off from the present and march backward in time through hundreds, thousands and millions of years to the beginning of life on earth. On the way, we meet 'pilgrims'- organisms/group of organisms- who join us at a commonly shared ancestor. At each rendezvous point, selected pilgrims tell a tale of how they came about. The structure is inspired from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. A total of 40 Rendezvous points before we finally reach the Canterbury of life- the primordial replicating machine 4 billion years ago. 614 pages of an epic journey, and not one of them you would want to skip in haste. Dawkins, with his well known wit and clarity, forces the reader to see what he sees. Every distinctive piece of biology and every idea that's worth mentioning is given an thorough analysis that it deserves. And Dawkins does this with a judicious and brilliant use of all the tools of Science available under the sun- from Bio-Chemistry to Anthropology, from Quantum Mechanics to Computer Science. In short, this book is the biology-equivalent of Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time'. Its a Brief History of Life.

Toward the end of the last chapter, when the pilgrims return back to the present (and even that is not a simple retracing of steps forward in time, but a far more fascinating study of what kind of organisms would statistical reruns of evolution MIGHT produce in 4 billion years time!), Dawkins, in the voice of the host bidding farewell, expresses the exhilaration after having traversed the journey, which every avid reader would share, summarizing the spirit of the book-

If, as returning host, I reflect on the whole pilgrimage of which I have been a grateful part, my overwhelming reaction is one of amazement. Amazement not only at the extravaganza of details that we have seen; amazement, too, at the very fact that there are any such details to be had at all, on any planet. The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple- just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not- the fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing- is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it. The very fact that we have evolved the brain power to understand our evolutionary genesis redoubles the amazement and compounds the satisfaction.

I'm not a bad man

I'm just dangerously inquisitive.

Hence, I shall add some of my own (may be related to what is already given in the link):

1. With technology doing away with many types of interpersonal dependencies and creating some new kinds, is it possible that most of the present day forms social organization, including marriage, will become obsolete in the not so distant future?

2. Do we all, irrespective of our ethnicity, possess an inherent attraction (however small) toward people of fairer complexion?

3. Is everyone, some what racially prejudiced (both positively and negatively)? And is it some how related to, or gives rise to, skin-color-based sexual preferences?

4. (With respect to the history of modern democracy, including the most progressive of societies) Are women leaders more impulsive and show more unwanted aggressive behaviour than their male counterparts, rendering their reign highly controversial if not unpopular?

5. With the growing awareness and the spread of Gender Equality, as it is currently defined by most proactive agents, will chivalry be lost, as an act of insult to the capabilities of women?

6. Whenever a species becomes very successful, countering forces start to kick in and the exploding population is controlled. Most of these forces have been tamed through non-natural selection means by humans. Given this unchallenged supremacy, the onus is on us to conscioulsy overcome our immediate survival instincts and control our own impact on the environment. So are research and medical procedures dealing with the longevity of human life immoral?

Disclaimer: The above questions do not represent my personal views and are open only for a rational debate.

And I think I have an answer to one of the questions raised by Steven Pinker in this book, about which I'm reasonably confident-

Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality?
Answer: Yes, yes and yes. Otherwise why would it change with times?
(Of course there are one or two unchanging building blocks of morality from which most of our sophisticated moral tenets sprout. But once we isolate them, its very easy to show their irrelevance by not attributing the material benefits incurred as a consequence of practising them)

Nothingness or Uncertainity?

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?

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.

Return to the Dark Ages

It sounds scary. But definitely a sad truth of our day supported by overwhelming evidence.

End of 21st century- May be a return to the times when it was the norm to either wait for the disease to subside or wait for death?


Creationists: What more proof do you want?