Sociobiological Induced Philosophical Conundrum? Over the last couple of years, I've become increasing aware of the influence sociobiology (evolutionary biology) is starting to exert over practically every scientific discipline covering the development of human formation, behavior, and relationships on both an individual and communal level. I find the general arguments (including the occasional comic gems such as "Female resistance should be favored by natural selection as a way to avoid having a son who is an inept rapist," which leads me to believe that in the next ten years we will witness at least one rape trial where the defendent argues- "I didn't think she was resisting me, I thought she was just testing my suitability as a gene donor, I swear!") compelling and well-founded, although the whole theory just leaves me feeling slightly queasy, like watching food being prepared at a fast food restaurant.
I can't argue against any of it on a scientific basis (which probably leads to my discomfort) but philosophically, I dislike the idea of being reduced to a superorganism of relatively autonomous parts, or having the purpose of my life solely be the passing of my genes (which apparently dictate my behavior much more than I could imagine) through procreation. Regardless of whether or not creationists try to thwart evolutionary programmed genetic code through practices such as NFP (I think I just heard Dennis Miller laugh somewhere on that), sociobiology (specifically books such as "The Sperm Wars" and "The Moral Animal"- anyone else read them?) is definately reshaping the way I view human interactions, especially sexual interactions, and will most likely affect how I interact with others in the future.
In order to break this down a bit further, I'm going to have to establish some background. I can't name the prominent philosophers on this topic (I'm sure Charles can), but I feel that what makes me... me is more than a bunch of carefully ordered molecules, and that my personality/consciousness/essence/soul (I included soul since this dichotomy is usually phrased in terms of soul vs. body by philosophers of note, including Death Cab for Cutie, although for the moment I'm willing to let go of the religious implications of the term) exists outside of firing synapses and frontal lobes contained in my "triune brain".
As a result, I think there is more to human abstractions such as love, courage, and self-sacrifice than just a selfish interest in saving personally disseminated genetic material, or an evolutionary derived propensity for taking risks for the good of the superorganism. Call me a romantic or misguided, but I want to believe that women (more specifically, A woman, of matrimonal quality- also, I'm not including men, since I can't remember any sociobiology attempting to explain fraternal love, and I'm clinging to that as a possible counterpoint) will be attracted to me for greater reasons than my incredible genetic material or my ability to suitably rape her (referencing the lone quote up top), such as personality.
It's getting late, and I don't see this resolving successfully (without at least 13 more paragraphs and a bibliography) towards any of the main points or conclusions I originally intended, so I'll end it, possibly prematurely, to avoid having one comment from Redhurt that says- "Too long! Clanky!" and to open it up. Specifically, I'm interested in the reconciliation of sociobiology to Christian/Biblical views on human formation/sexuality since I don't think that it can be successfully discounted (Hans and Barnabas- I'm not sure where you stand on this, but if you think you can discount it- go for it!), reactions to said books on evolutionary induced sexuality (especially to see if a follow up post focusing on just "The Sperm Wars" is warranted), other interesting books on the subject (especially dissenting ones), general reactions, non-related interesting comments, and/or offers for copulation not fueled by evolutionary concerns. Have at it!
Can I make one more rape joke? Or would that cross the line?
I can't argue against any of it on a scientific basis (which probably leads to my discomfort) but philosophically, I dislike the idea of being reduced to a superorganism of relatively autonomous parts, or having the purpose of my life solely be the passing of my genes (which apparently dictate my behavior much more than I could imagine) through procreation. Regardless of whether or not creationists try to thwart evolutionary programmed genetic code through practices such as NFP (I think I just heard Dennis Miller laugh somewhere on that), sociobiology (specifically books such as "The Sperm Wars" and "The Moral Animal"- anyone else read them?) is definately reshaping the way I view human interactions, especially sexual interactions, and will most likely affect how I interact with others in the future.
In order to break this down a bit further, I'm going to have to establish some background. I can't name the prominent philosophers on this topic (I'm sure Charles can), but I feel that what makes me... me is more than a bunch of carefully ordered molecules, and that my personality/consciousness/essence/soul (I included soul since this dichotomy is usually phrased in terms of soul vs. body by philosophers of note, including Death Cab for Cutie, although for the moment I'm willing to let go of the religious implications of the term) exists outside of firing synapses and frontal lobes contained in my "triune brain".
As a result, I think there is more to human abstractions such as love, courage, and self-sacrifice than just a selfish interest in saving personally disseminated genetic material, or an evolutionary derived propensity for taking risks for the good of the superorganism. Call me a romantic or misguided, but I want to believe that women (more specifically, A woman, of matrimonal quality- also, I'm not including men, since I can't remember any sociobiology attempting to explain fraternal love, and I'm clinging to that as a possible counterpoint) will be attracted to me for greater reasons than my incredible genetic material or my ability to suitably rape her (referencing the lone quote up top), such as personality.
It's getting late, and I don't see this resolving successfully (without at least 13 more paragraphs and a bibliography) towards any of the main points or conclusions I originally intended, so I'll end it, possibly prematurely, to avoid having one comment from Redhurt that says- "Too long! Clanky!" and to open it up. Specifically, I'm interested in the reconciliation of sociobiology to Christian/Biblical views on human formation/sexuality since I don't think that it can be successfully discounted (Hans and Barnabas- I'm not sure where you stand on this, but if you think you can discount it- go for it!), reactions to said books on evolutionary induced sexuality (especially to see if a follow up post focusing on just "The Sperm Wars" is warranted), other interesting books on the subject (especially dissenting ones), general reactions, non-related interesting comments, and/or offers for copulation not fueled by evolutionary concerns. Have at it!
Can I make one more rape joke? Or would that cross the line? posted by Justin at 12:13 AM 
3 Comments:
I'm sure there's some soulless way to explain it away, but I've always wondered why, if we are just super-organisms etc., we ascribe such deep significance to the value of a person's "being" and NOT just judge them based on appearances, abilities, etc. I mean, in a purely material world, isn't it ok to hate people simply because they're not good at whatever it is I want them to do? Or beacuse they're ugly? Or hate dogs simply because they've only got three legs? Genetic superiority makes right, if that's really the point and purpose of the whole thing.
I could write all day about this topic, and the supposedly needed "reconciliation" between evolutionary biology and faith, and maybe I will. But, right now, quickly, and with lots of commas, I want to point out one thing: as soon as evolutionary biologists cease doing the sort of biological history that they're supposed to and begin issuing pronouncements about meaning and will and identity, they've left the realm of science and begun to do philosophy and psychology. The idea of random mutation is so hard to wrap your mind around that it's nearly impossible to avoid what I call the Lamarck fallacy, after Lamarck, who thought giraffes' necks got longer as the giraffes stretched them to reach the leaves on the top of the trees. That's incorrect. New paradigm: through natural selection, the giraffes that were better able to get at the higher leaves survived better and were selected for. When Richard Dawkins comes along and says that my genes are using me to get passed on, I'm done with him, just as I'm done with trying to convince devout fundamentalists that the world isn't 10,000 years old. I read the Sperm Wars the other day--fascinating. All of that stuff "holds" insofar as we don't get Lamarckian or Dawkin-ian and start talking about existing solely to reproduce. We control our own evolution now, we define ourselves and our purposes, and we give life meaning. We're not gene machines--that's an incoherent concept.
Stuff to read: check out anything by Henri Bergson for an early 20th century philosopher's take on evolution, psychology and philosophy. William James, Charles Peirce and John Dewey wrestled with the implications of biology for free will and psychology as well. For a modern look at some of this stuff, the more philosophical side, Daniel Dennett is great--check out "Elbow Room" or "Consciousness Explained." And as for reproduction and rape and such, check out "A Natural History of Rape" by Thornhill and Palmer and "Against our Will" by Susan Brownmiller.
Okay, not so short...
"They've left the realm of science and begun to do philosophy and psychology."
Agreed, although that is a point that will be conceded by some of them also. For instance, "The Moral Animal", a current book of interest, is subtitled- "Why we are the way we are, the new science of evolutionary psychology." I can imagine that a book headlining a focus on "Evolutionary Philosophy" isn't far behind, except for the apparant consensus by sociobiologists that values should in no way be derived from naturally selected traits. I think that even though some of them have left the realms of hard science, not every new philosophical or psychological theory is necessarily a quantum leap, so I'll agree to what I'll call the Charles Compromise- the decision to go along "insofar as [they] don't get Lamarckian or Dawkin-ian."
Also, regardless of its suitability as a tag line for some low budget thriller on the SciFi network, I agree with the phrase (cue timpani)- "We control our own evolution now"- at least in theory. Granted, while humanity has the ability through reproductive choice to highlight certain traits (and hopefully sparing future males the indignity of back hair) I think that the pace of cultural value change will outstrip humanity's ability to unconsciously naturally select certain traits, especially in monogamous, or largely monogamous (low digit serial monogamy) cultures. So I think we largely agree for now, and I'll wait for your post on how the previously mentioned reconciliation isn't needed while keeping an eye for said books.
Post a Comment
<< Home