On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Dan Minette wrote: > Marvin, if you want me just to laugh at a joke, don't hide a good question > in your joke. :-) You got me to thinking about when a gene pool becomes so > small that its members are evolutionarily disfavored. IIRC, some major > evolutionary changes often come when most species are wiped out and a > relatively small gene pool is the source for repopulation.
Or when a gene pool is separated from the rest of the species and goes off in its own direction. I'm not sure that saying that evolution occurs when the gene pool is reduced is the same as saying that evolution favors one's actively seeking to wipe out genes different from one's own as a rule. I guess it depends on whether we're talking about evolution of the species as a whole, or propagation of one's own genes as a percentage of the gene pool. > But, having said that, I do not wish to sound like I'm arguing that evil is > inherently evolutionarily favored. I don't think it is. But, by the same > token, I think that it would be near impossible to derive generally agreed > upon views of good from considering that which is evolutionarily favored. > You can see my underlying theme here, I bet: one does not have morality > without some sort of "self evident truth." (Yes, its a list oldie but a > goodie.) Well, you'd have to get everyone to agree that it's a self-evident truth that the success of the species always trumps the concept of individual rights, and you'd have to get people to agree that throwing out concepts of individual rights actually benefits the species (rather than causing us to exceed the point of diminishing returns for intra-species competition). But I'm generally inclined to agree that some kind of faith statement is required. That, or a goal statement. I wonder if it matters whether everyone agrees that certain values are given (by nature or God), or whether everyone agrees that a society expressing certain values is worth striving for. > > Well, I've thought of some tests of ideology being the groundwork for > killing, and it doesn't appear to me to pass the test. If true, then one > will be able to look at the foundation documents for the ideology and see > the clear call for massive killing. If you look at the New Testament and > look at the horrors done in the name of Christianity, you would have a very > hard time explaining why those horrors are the inevitable outcome of the > ideology. Or, when we saw the horrors of Bosnia continue after the > religious leaders proclaimed that they were in opposition, not support of > the religions the people were allegedly fighting in the name of. "The ideology" does not necessarily equal "the source text." Another key point would be to note what the ideology's ideology regarding other ideologies is. Does it have a master-race/master-doctrine component? Does the live-and-let-live clause only apply to those already embraced by the ideology, etc. Such things may not be spelled out in the source text but fully present in the culture served by the text. > Let me suggest that ideology can be a tool that is used to unify a people > behind a cause, but that it is usually not the prime source of the evil that > is done. The vast amount of evil done in the name of good causes indicates > to me that the ideology is a neat cover for another agenda: power/wealth for > the leaders and sometimes followers of the cause. Generally, I agree. I think, though, that ideology is required to move from "I want to be the big fish in this pond" to "I want to conquer all the ponds." Also, for human beings it may be the case that the ideology of dominance and the biology of dominance are irretrievably intertwined. I don't say this is The Truth, but I think it's very likely. > Second, if this were true, one would go back to prehistory, before > ideologies and find a gentler simpler age. But, from the hints of > prehistory that we get from archeology and very ancient writings, we see > that era as a very violent time. Here's a question: was pre-ideological violence evil? Did evil as evil even exist? > I think what separates us from the animals is the ability to see into the > future. The leader of a strong tribe which is fighting with another tribe > for control of a hunting area can think "wow if we wipe them out, then this > is all ours." Animals don't see that. So, I'm guessing that warfare dates > back to reason, not civilization. I have to think about this for a little bit.. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
