Evolution: Resisting the Shackles of Human Failure

[Kassad]

There are multiple common misconceptions about human evolution and development. Though many reject the theory of evolution in favor of religious conservatism and reactionary ideological clinging, even those who embrace the revolutionary theories of Darwin fail to comprehend how the human species develops. Evolution is not the development of a single human, or even the development of the entire species. Instead, evolution is the means of which humanity finds its common ground and consciousness with the Earth.

If you embrace the theory of evolution, more specifically the theory of the 'Big Bang,' you must realize a simple concept. If we all come from the explosive reaction of a star, which means that all atoms, all molecules and all matter in itself originates from the same central area. All of matter on Earth comes from the same place, whether it is I, all of you or the computer I am currently typing on. Regardless, evolution did not end with this reaction.

Humans did not spring forth from this explosion. Humans are the result of billions of years of development, but we are not the end result. We are never the end result. Humans are consistently developing; ideologically, physically and emotionally. We consistently promote technological innovation and new forms of educational procedures. This tool for creation is a beautiful thing, but it can also be mishandled, misunderstood and used to create massive atrocities.

Everything we have in and outside of our bodies is the result of our developmental innovation. As the first cells that spawned the initial evolution of the human species were formulated, they were not totally identical. The environment of the Earth, whether it be hot or cold; barren or moist is consistently different. When the initial Ice Ages were in effect, other areas of the Earth were home to some of the warmest environments on the planet. The initial humans developed according to these climates and environmental changes. The entire concept of race, at its core, is based on the 'different' physical attributes of humans. Some humans have darker skin, for obvious reasons. The hot African climate required a darker skin to cope with the scalding climate. The varying Arabic summers and winters developed a lighter brown skin to adapt. But it does not end there! The very physical attributes, such as muscle sizes and height come from consistent adaptation of genetic change, which is why different cultures have different hair colors, eye colors and complexion, as well as different amounts of hair on the body.

We begin to see a very important pattern here. Humans do not develop merely as individuals. Humans develop with the Earth as a whole. If the climate becomes windy, the body eventually adapts. Sunny weather developed darker skin and hair attributes throughout the course of time. This is where the failure of religion comes from. Humans long for a sense of oneness as times; that oneness that already exists with our consistent development with the Earth, its climate and its environment. Religion exploits this material development which is totally dialectical. Religion promotes the ideology of oneness in a deity or a prophet, which is a total farce. Together, in unison, we are united with the development of the Earth, but we must realize one single fact.

If the earliest humans exploited each other through the manipulation of labor and the necessity of gathering food and shelter, no early society would have ever survived. If the hunters and gatherers were forced to exploit each other and claim only what they themselves killed, the mighty Mammoths of the Arctic Ages would never have been dominated. This is the earliest form of human collaboration, which once again proves that humans are meant to collaborate and develop together. The ridiculous ‘human nature’ argument promoted by capitalist ideologues and their cronies is a fallacious argument that rejects the initial contributions of collaborative cultures across the globe.

But it didn’t end there. Evolution did not end with humans growing thumbs or developing different complexions. The earliest cells and objects of matter developed through billions of years of necessity. The necessities of humanity were consistently met through, as stated, the providing of necessities. If these essential commodities are manipulation and launched into the market to be manipulated, humans fail to obtain these necessities and human development, as we know it, is slowed dramatically. Our development comes from collaboration and unity; that unity that is ever-present and consistently available for us to take.

Regardless, it will not come easy. A revolutionary movement is needed to continue this collaboration and that is the core of revolutionary socialism. Whether you are a Trotskyist or an anti-revisionist; an anarchist or a Leninist, it does not matter. We are a untied community of humans and the true meaning of life is the continuation of human collaboration and the consistent advocacy of necessity. Scarcity is a commodity of capitalism and the elimination of this atrocity is needed if we seek to continue our development. Our development comes from unity, which there is no need for religion or capitalism to promote. This material innovation is available for all of us, as it was in the earliest stages of our development. Time is of the essence, for the havoc capitalism wreaks upon us will not be stopped without revolution. We see the destructive nature of the separation of human development and human necessity. We must continue our evolution through socialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This should be in science, I think.

[Hit The North]

This should be in science, I think.

Really? I thought you'd be condemning this as a-priori nonsense, not recommending it to the Science forum (no offence, Kassad).

There's enough philosophical bullshi-*cough*-speculation in the op to let it stick around here, I feel.

And you obviously missed this:
Religion exploits this material development which is totally dialectical.Otherwise you'd be throwing great swathes of the Postface to the second edition of Das Kapital (Vol 1) at it and cursing Kassad for being a high-priest of hermetic mysticism and foulest traitor to the world proletariat.

(Again, no offence, Kassad)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Really? I thought you'd be condemning this as a-priori nonsense, not recommending it to the Science forum (no offence, Kassad).
(Again, no offence, Kassad)

Have you seen the stuff posted on the science forum? Half of the people believe in aliens. Clearly whatever definition of science revleft has, it's not a rational one.

As for the OP post, it seems the explanation of what evolutionary theory is wasn't really necessary to make the point you were trying to make. Secondly, the point you made isn't even an argument. More of a speech to people you assume agree with you (maybe that is what you intended, I do not know).

You suggest that human beings would not have evolved to where they are today without cooperation. Sounds reasonable, but you have no argument. If someone told me human beings would not have evolved to where they are today without selfishness, I would say that sounds reasonable, too. But that's not a proof either.

If I accept your conclusion that cooperation is necessary for us to evolve as a society (which I do, for my own reasons), that does not entail that I should work with Trotskyists, Leninists, Marxists, or even fellow anarchists that I disagree with about issues. As little as a few years ago, I thought revolutionary leftist = rational. I was mistaken.

Revolutionary leftists are susceptible to studipity like any other group of people. Sure, you may find a larger proportion of intellectuals among the left-wing, in general, you will still find idiots. Revolutionary leftism has a huge amount of immature individuals who simply want to "Rage Against the Machine" and have no understanding of the issues. In addition, there are people who reach a true conclusion through faulty reasoning.

The majority of revolutionary leftists do have one thing in common. They don't like the system. However, as long as the majority of revolutionaries remain illogical nitwits, destroying capitalist society could simply create an even worse society (as we have seen before).

Unless leftists share a rational conception of what a new society should look like (as well as the means to acheive that society), there is no point in destroying the capitalist system. Even Marx would concede that capitalism is preferable to the state of nature. Conservatism has a point when it comes to appreciating what you already have. Don't get rid of what you have unless you're really confident you're getting something better.

A revolution won't create a communist society until a rational conception of how to achieve communism (and what communism is) becomes agreed upon. I'm not going to destroy capitalism because I dislike it when every 10th person has a different view on what should happen next. I'm not going to "deal with it later."

If we could destroy capitalism today, why should I do it if there is a 50% chance a flawed Marxist model (not that all Marxist models are necessarily flawed) will be implemented? A 50% chance I will live under a totalitarian state.

[Kassad]

I disagree. One of the recent arguments against socialism from the capitalists, notable the laissez-faire market types, is that human nature contradicts the theory of applied Marxism. They claim that people will always expect to get back the equivalent of what they put in to the system through labor. The problem is that they fail to see that capitalism is what spawns greedy nature, as conditioning under a capitalist system breeds tyranny, but I don't need to tell you that. We're all very aware of that (That sounds sarcastic, but it isn't).

I did provide an argument, though it was very broad. I'll go into a little more detail. Take some of the most primitive humans, such as what are commonly referred to as 'cave men.' These early humans, if you see it that way, relied totally on primitive tools, such as spears and their brute force to capture prey for survival. They could not harness fire and electricity in the manner that we do in the present. If each of these primitive humans decided to go out on their own, hunt prey and eat just what they killed; no sharing with others, how would society have fluctuated? It took mass collaboration to bring down Mammoths during the Ice Age. What if people attempted to be so incredibly divisive about labor as they are today? If a man did not throw the spear that finished the Mammoth off, should he not receive a ration of the food and fur for survival? As we can see, this is incredibly narrow-minded, as the earliest civilizations fluctuated through cooperation.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that Anarchists, anti-revisionists and Trotskyists should all join hands and frolick in the meadows towards a brighter tomorrow. However, through consistent application and discussion of theory, I believe we will consistently promote revolutionary socialism into the new age. We cannot cling to a decadent past, as our evolution never ends. The development of theory and science must move forward with human evolution.

I'm not saying we can throw off the shackles of capitalism at this very moment. What is required, which goes hand in hand with our development, is organization and educational application that consistently applies socialism in the modern world. As divided as we are on this very forum, we all realize that our means of revolutionary struggle and the eventual emancipation of humanity is surely preferable to the bourgeoisie dictatorship. It is our duty to organize the working class, which is the obligation of all class conscious individuals. We have the means for revolution and establishing a workers society and I highly disagree that the destruction of capitalism will result in any kind of bureaucracy or failure if we properly sustain Marxist principles, which most prior revolutions have failed to do due to revisionism.

The main point I am saying is that there is no human nature, but there is human behavior and human evolution. Collaboration is the only means we have of continued innovation and revolution will come through consistent cooperation, which capitalism is the antithesis of. Capitalism is individual struggle, which will never bring liberation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Really? I thought you'd be condemning this as a-priori nonsense, not recommending it to the Science forum (no offence, Kassad).

1) So, you can recognise a priori BS when you see it?

2) Dooga is right: What makes you think that science is immune?

3) And I didn't miss this:


Religion exploits this material development which is totally dialectical.

Of course religion exploits this, since dialectics and (the theological side of) religion arose from the same ruling class cesspit. Religion also exploits science, and that is why this sort of thing should be debated in science.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Though your mammoth case is compelling, I'm not sure a capitalist couldn't argue that evolution could have occured without cooperation or, even if it did occur with it, it was not necessary for us to evolve in that way. I don't think this is the main issue at hand though. The main point is that it is simply beneficial for people to work together.

Humans as innately "selfish" being the so-called criticism is, I think, what you are trying to criticize. However, I would disagree about there being no human nature. Humans want to maximize pleasure and reduce pain. There are exceptions to this, but evolution doesn't favor those exceptions. To be a rationally selfish person, however, you need to cooperate with other people. I think selfishness and cooperation go hand in hand, but maybe I am mistaken.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


To be a rationally selfish person, however, you need to cooperate with other people. I think selfishness and cooperation go hand in hand, but maybe I am mistaken.

This, I think, is based on the theory of inclusive fitness, which is scientifically flawed.

Moreover, I think you are confusing self regard with selfishness.

[Cumannach]

Kassad, what pro-capitalist argument about human nature exactly is it that you've come across?

I brought this up several times before, but;

There is a scientific theory for the evolution of human reciprocal altruism, which is to say, for unselfish acts by humans towards their fellow humans, including those not closely related to them (unlike in 'kin selection' (inclusive fitness)). It's pretty solid science and is generally accepted as far as I'm aware. It is a theory of human nature. It posits that altruism is a part of human nature, is human nature, and like upright posture and and opposable thumbs, became a part of human nature through evolution, through natural selection. If you're interested in it, this is it;

I posted this before;

Altruism occurs between organisms that are not closely related, and can become a behavioural trait of a whole species.

Maybe you've heard of Robert Trivers? In the 1970's he published a famous paper called "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism". This paper can be read in full for free here;

http://anthro.rutgers.edu/index.php?...102&Itemid=136 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://anthro.rutgers.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=136) (It's in pdf-the very last of his papers at the bottom)

I'll just quote a couple of extracts;

"Altruistic behaviour can be defined as behaviour that benefits another organism not closely related while apparently detrimental to the organism performing the behaviour... One human leaping into water, at some danger to himself, to save another distantly related human being from drowning may be said to display altruistic behaviour. If he were to leap in to save his own child the behaviour would not neccesarily be an instance of altruism; he may merely be contributing to the survival of his own genes invested in the child."

"One human being saving another who is not closely related and is about to drown is an instance of altruism. Assume that the chance of the drowning man dying is one half if no one leaps in to save him, but that the chance that his potential rescuer will drown is much smaller, say one in twenty. Assume that the drowning man always drowns when his rescuer does and that he is always saved when his rescuer survives the rescue attempt. Also assume that the energy costs involved in rescuing are trivial compared to the survival probabilities. Were this an isolated event it is clear that the rescuer should not bother to save the drowning man, but if the drowning man reciprocates at some future time and if the survival chances are then exactly reversed it will have been to the benefit of each participant to have risked his life for the other. Each participant will have traded a one half chance of dying for about a one tenth chance. If we assume that the entire population is sooner or later exposed to the same risk of drowning, the two individuals who risk their lives to save each other will be selected over those who face drowning on their own...

"Why should the rescued individual bother to reciprocate?...Why not cheat? Selection will discriminate against the cheater if cheating has later adverse affects on his life which outweigh the benefit of not reciprocating.
This may happen if the altruist responds to the cheating by curtailing all future possible altruistic gestures to this individual. Assuming that the benefits of the altruistic acts outweigh the cost of reciprocating, the cheater will be selected against relative to individuals who, because neither cheats, exchange many altruistic acts."

("The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism") Trivers

And so true altruism evolves.

The paper goes into much greater detail and formulates the model precisely.

Now Trivers is not a reactionary guy. Here's a video of him in a discussion with Chomsky.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02537648426467 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7520102537648426467)

He also co-authored a paper with Huey P.Newton!

This theory lays a fairly solid scientific basis for a large part of human morality and emotion and is pretty hard to draw reactionary conclusions from.

[Kassad]

The argument for human nature deliberately ignores a key flaw in its nature. A human's desire for necessity does not infer that there is an innate nature to humans. A human needs food and water, as much as they require education and shelter to develop in a safe and sanitary environment. The inception of capitalism has forged scarcity in modern society, but that's irrelevant. Human necessity is not human nature. Thus, if a human requires something for survival, it is just that. A requirement for survival. It is not in their nature to obtain food, for it is in their ability of survival.

The ideology that there is human nature shackles human beings into stereotypes, when in truth, all of 'human nature' can be shattered and it has consistently been shattered throughout the course of time. Labor exploitation did not exist in the lives of the Native Americans. This manipulative nature came with the ideology of capitalism and the enslavement of humanity in the form of wage slavery. Thus, humans did not always 'act greedy.' Some of them might have, but some of them probably liked to fuck kittens as well. That doesn't mean it's 'human nature.' It means that it's human behavior and it has consistently updated throughout human development and the evolution of the Earth's climate, environment and requirements for survival.

[Rebel_Serigan]

The evelution of man and the evelution of society are two completely different things. One could agrue that Capitolism is the best and most evolved form of society because it has survived the best. This is however a flawed argument in that it is not the only way and most certainly not the best way to make people happy. Human have evolved because of neccesity and society has evolved because of a desire to improove. No human conciously attempts to evolve, that would be a truely pointless batle, but to force evolution on a society is the only way which sociological evolution comes about, no society just happens.

I do not think these two concepts should be lumped, because clearly the evolution level of man and the evolution of society are not on the same scale.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cummanch:


There is a scientific theory for the evolution of human reciprocal altruism, which is to say, for unselfish acts by humans towards their fellow humans, including those not closely related to them (unlike in 'kin selection' (inclusive fitness)). It's pretty solid science and is generally accepted as far as I'm aware. It is a theory of human nature. It posits that altruism is a part of human nature, is human nature, and like upright posture and opposable thumbs, became a part of human nature through evolution, through natural selection. If you're interested in it, this is it;

Inclusive fitness is bunkum, and no more 'solid' than belief in Phlogiston.

It doesn't even work with the Hymenoptera, where it was hailed as a breakthrough.

For example, worker ants promote the reproductive success of the queen with whom they share half their genes, while their sister ants (with whom they share 3/4s of their genes) do not reproduce!

Moreover, bacteria, which share all their genes, should be perfect altruists! Same with any other organism that reproduces asexually.

More details here (chapter eight):

http://rapidshare.com/files/208568596/Darwinian_Fairytales_complete.pdf.html

Click on the 'Free User' link.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry, commyrebel, but your post is incoherent.

[ZeroNowhere]

The evelution of man and the evelution of society are two completely different things. One could agrue that Capitolism is the best and most evolved form of society because it has survived the best.
False. Feudalism and primitive societies both outlived it by a load.

[black magick hustla]

Any attempt to argue on the grounds of "human nature" generally reduces to gibberish and blanket statements that border the mystical. The attempt of building some political doctrine with"human nature" at its base goes all the way back to plato, who's "good city" was the first big attempt of using "human nature" as the underlying structure of a sociopolitical belief.

[Cumannach]

Cummanch:

Inclusive fitness is bunkum, and no more 'solid' than belief in Phlogiston.

...



Well I don't know about that, but you have to agree that Reciprocal Altruism is perfectly sound, and is independent of Kin Selection Theory, in fact the opposite of it. Reciprocal Altruism even works between different species, nevermind two unrelated people.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Dooga:



This, I think, is based on the theory of inclusive fitness, which is scientifically flawed.

Moreover, I think you are confusing self regard with selfishness.

That comparison might be somewhat valid, but I'm not sure how that concept is scientifically flawed. If I understand it, it means being handicapped due to an ability to produce nourish eggs, might be utility minimizing for the individual outside of society. But as long as they remain in that society, it is maximizing because they are appreciated for their ability. Let's assume they also have laser eyes to prevent exploitation.

Anyway, that's beside the point. My main idea is that a selfish person may see cooperation as a way to better their own ends. If a selfish person says all the oranges on the tree are theirs, they will get the oranges at the bottom of the tree. If they agree to share the oranges, someone can lift them up to get the oranges higher up on the tree.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cummanch:


Well I don't know about that, but you have to agree that Reciprocal Altruism is perfectly sound, and is independent of Kin Selection Theory, in fact the opposite of it. Reciprocal Altruism even works between different species, nevermind two unrelated people.

In fact, I deny that Darwinian theory has anything interesting to tell us about human evolution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


That comparison might be somewhat valid, but I'm not sure how that concept is scientifically flawed. If I understand it, it means being handicapped due to an ability to produce nourish eggs, might be utility minimizing for the individual outside of society. But as long as they remain in that society, it is maximizing because they are appreciated for their ability. Let's assume they also have laser eyes to prevent exploitation.

Check out my reply to Cummanach:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1383898&postcount=13

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unfortunately, Cummanch's reply to me has been lost, but he argued that since Darwinism is the only theory of evolution we have, then it cannot fail to cover human evolution, and that I cannot fail to find the explanation it gives of altruism interesting (if I have summarised him correctly)'

I replied that this turns Darwinism into a dogma, and thus undermines its scientific standing, and that it also represents a collective slander on the human race, since it in effect denies there is such a thing as altruism.

[Lynx]

There's no need to concern ourselves with slanders on the human race (or exaltations for that matter).
What's wrong with the idea of reciprocal altruism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


What's wrong with the idea of reciprocal altruism?

Depends on how you go about describing it.