A recent Dawkins talk relevant to free will opportunities for humans to 
intentionally craft their future. I personally think he is confused 
philosophically, since this sounds a bit like disembodied brain/mind 
escaping evolutionary constraints. However, freedom at least seems real; 
and how else can we proceed to live our lives? As zombies or automatons?

Steve
===============================================

12 February 2002 22:56 GMT
Independent
Richard Dawkins: Our big brains can overcome our selfish genes
 From a lecture by the Charles Simonyi professor of the understanding of 
science, given at the Royal Institution, in London
12 February 2002

"What comes naturally" is a topic which Darwinism might be expected to 
illuminate. Darwinian natural selection gives us just about everything 
else in our nature - our bones, our organs, our instincts. If there is a 
reason to exclude our values, it had better be a good one.

The values of sustainability are important to all of us here, and I 
enthusiastically include myself. We therefore might hope that these too 
are built into us by natural selection. I shall tell you today that this 
is not so. On the contrary, there is something profoundly anti-Darwinian 
about the very idea of sustainability. But this is not as pessimistic as 
it sounds. Although we are products of Darwinism, we are not slaves to 
it. Using the large brains that Darwinian natural selection has given 
us, it is possible to fashion new values that contradict Darwinian values.

 From a Darwinian point of view, the problem with sustainability is 
this: sustainability is all about long-term benefits of the world at the 
expense of short-term benefits. Darwinism encourages precisely the 
opposite values. Short-term genetic benefit is all that matters in a 
Darwinian world. Superficially, the values that will have been built 
into us will have been short-term values, not long-term ones.

But this is not a reason for despair, nor does it mean that we should 
cynically abandon the long-term future, gleefully scrap the Kyoto 
accords and similar agreements, and get our noses down in the trough of 
short-term greed. What it does mean is that we must work all the harder 
for the long-term future, in spite of getting no help from nature, 
precisely because nature is not on our side.

Humans are no worse than the rest of the animal kingdom. We are no more 
selfish than any other animals, just rather more effective in our 
selfishness and therefore more devastating. All animals do what natural 
selection programmed their ancestors to do, which is to look after the 
short-term interest of themselves and their close family, cronies and 
allies.

If any species in the history of life has the possibility of breaking 
away from short-term Darwinian selfishness and of planning for the 
distant future, it is our species. We are earth's last best hope, even 
if we are simultaneously the species most capable in practice of 
destroying life on the planet. When it comes to taking the long view we 
are literally unique. No other species is remotely capable of it. If we 
do not plan for the future, no other species will.

There is a tension between short-term individual welfare and long term 
group welfare or world welfare. If it were left to Darwinism alone there 
would be no hope. Short-term greed is bound to win. The only hope lies 
in the unique human capacity to use our big brains with our massive 
communal database and our forward simulating imaginations.

Brains, although they are the products of natural selection, follow 
their own rules, which are different from the rules of natural 
selection. The brain exists originally as a device to aid gene survival. 
The ultimate rationale for the brain's existence, and for its large size 
in our own species, is like everything else in the natural world, gene 
survival. As part of this, the brain has been equipped by the natural 
selection of genes with the power to take its own decisions - decisions 
based not directly upon the ultimate Darwinian value of gene survival, 
but upon other more proximal values, such as hedonistic pleasure or 
something more noble.

It is a manifest fact that the brain - especially the human brain - is 
well able to over-ride its ultimate programming; well able to dispense 
with the ultimate value of gene survival and substitute other values. I 
have used hedonistic pleasure as just an example, but I could also 
mention more noble values, like a love of poetry or music, and, of 
course, the long-term survival of the planet - and sustainability.
===================================================

-- 
http://magma.ca/~gpco/
http://www.scientists4pr.org/
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a
finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding


Reply via email to