Evolution and morality: How to answer this comment.

[Achán hiNidráne]

The controversy over Eric Pianka's alleged statements (http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/04/eric_pianka_sme.shtml)about human extinction as a means to save the environment was raised on Reason's Hit & Run blog today. One of the blog's frequent Xian commentators made the following statement:

If our morality is determined by evolution, then Pianka's attitude expressed in this post, makes a lot of sense. he is thinking about good outcomes from an evolutionary perspective and found the one he thinks is best as far as survival of the species. That is what evolution is all about, Ms. Young.

On the other hand, if you have faith in some kind of morality that values things other than evolutionary survival, then Pianka may be saying bad things from that perspective.

You want to throw out Pianka: fine. Just be prepared to throw out yer Pinker and Dawkins, too.

What 's the best response to a comment like that?

[Achán hiNidráne]

John, another of H&R Xian posters had this to say:

If you are an athiest and believe in evolution, what is so damed special about human beings? Further, what possible end could their be for human beings other than to propegate and push the species still higher on the evolutionary scale? If that is the case, and the human race would emerge from a mass die off a healthy stronger race further down evolutionary rode to becoming a better species, wouldn't that die off be in the words of Professor Pianka "pretty cool" in the long scheme of things? I think notebook makes a pretty damn good point.

[brodski]

how the hell is extinction of an organism an evolutionary advantage for that organism?
And as for the second comment, they are presuming that evolution has a goal or purpose. It doesn't, species evolve because they can, indeed because they must in order to survive, but they aren't aiming for anything, and the idea that one species should make itself extinct to help annoyer species because of evolution is just so damn stupid hat I don't know here to begin.
You could of course ask them why, if they are going to spend eternity in paradise when they die, hey do not prey for death every day?
And then explain to Ethe that their so called "objection" to evolution is even more as mind numbingly stupid as that statement.

[Dogdoctor]

I am not sure that our morality is determined by evolution so much as the other way around. Evolution is determined by our morality or more probably they are inextricably associated. We have some base feelings of doing right but how we manifest that is largely determined by us and not evolution. Does that help?

[Achán hiNidráne]

And as for the second comment, they are presuming that evolution has a goal or purpose.
That was pointed out to him, but John came back with the old "Without God, life has no meaning" line:

I agree, but I am not an athiest and I believe in God and the special place of humanity. Without that belief, I don't see any reason at all why the answer would be no.
Meanwhile Dave W had this to say:

Pinker would argue that your mind thinks that way because it has been evolutionarily conditioned by evolutionary processes.

The problem comes when conditions change such that what is good evolutionarily now conflicts with what was good evolutionarily during the long period when your genetic material was being conditioned. The easy answer is to say what was good then for human survival is still good now for human survival. Pinker takes this easy answer, which is probably why he is more popular with atheists than Pianka.

However, if you take Pianka seriously, then our evolutionary conditioning is about to come into a stark conflict with current evolutionary imperatives. How an atheist would engage this conflict hypothetically says a lot about the depth of the person's atheism. If the person can't understand the conflict, even in hypothetical terms, then they probably haven't thought enuf about their own atheism. On the other hand, if they want to make a moral criticism of Pianka, then they should have some idea of what makes it wrong to be gleeful about a helpful die off. If it ain't God and it ain't evolutionary conditioning, then what? Cuzusedso?

Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but hard-question-avoidance is the opiate of the atheist.

[jimlintott]

Neither evolution or the environment give a crap about us. Nor are they obligated to. If humans put so much pressure on the environment that we become extinct then we really weren't very well adapted and would have to be considered another evolutionary failure.

[CapelDodger]

Neither evolution or the environment give a crap about us. Nor are they obligated to. If humans put so much pressure on the environment that we become extinct then we really weren't very well adapted and would have to be considered another evolutionary failure.
Quite right. Intelligence has enabled Hom Sap to create an environment very different from the one it evolved in. Whether that intelligence enables it to cope with that is an open question. The Easter Island example isn't encouraging.

If another intelligent species evolves after the demise of Hom Sap their palaeontologists will, presumably, detect a rapid mass-extinction event at this time (let's face it, we're not going over that cliff alone). Our fate may serve as a salutory lesson.

[Achán hiNidráne]

The point the Xians were making is that Atheists should be right at home with Pianka's alledged beliefs on human extinction since without a God to give humanity "value" we are no better than any other animal. Therefore, If saving the planet is "good" then our demise should follow. If human's have God-given worth, then we should condemn them. To John and Dave W, you can't be both and atheist and condemn what Pianka might have said.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Another nugget of wisdom from John:

I have had this discussion on here with Athiests before over the "I have a strong moral conviction and don't need to be told by a imaginary higher being what is right." I have no doubt you do. My point is that the fact that you do is nothing more than an assertion of your will. Something is immoral or moral because you say it is, nothing more. Yes, you have a greater affinity for humans than animals. That is probably from an evolutionary view to be expected. If humans didn't have a survival instinct, they probably wouldn't have survived very long. That said, this guy has apparently come to the conclusion that he values the lives of animals more than humans. It is a perfectlly consistent moral theory. He seems to be saying that all creatures are equal in the world and that human beings have become destructive to other creatures, therefore, it would be a good thing if 90% of the human race died off so that the remaining 10% would live in better harmony with the other creatures. It is no different than slaughtering off nutrias or ferrel hogs. Nutrias and hogs are not native to the southern U.S., so we cut down their populations so that they don't do too much damage to the native species. If humans are a product of evolution and there is no God, it is perfectly rational to see humans as no different than ferrel Russian bores running roughshod over the environment.


I fail to see why that is such a horrible morality, as long as you do not consider humans to be of any special significance. If humans are special and not just apes with large brains, then it is a horribly immoral philosophy. However, from an athiestic evolutionary perscpective, I don't see what is so special about human beings and why their continued existence on the planet in large numbers is an unqualified good, which is why I am not an athiest.


Comments?

[Bob Klase]

However, from an athiestic evolutionary perscpective, I don't see what is so special about human beings and why their continued existence on the planet in large numbers is an unqualified good, which is why I am not an athiest.

In other words, "I can't stand the thought that humans aren't special, therefore I'll believe in a god regardless of the truth of the matter".

Much like a short discussion I had with one of my brothers-in-law not long ago. When he learned I was a non-believer, he asked "so what do you think happens after you die". When I told him "the same thing that happens to dog, cats and flies when they die" he covered his ears and said "ohhhh- I don't want to hear that". My reply was "exactly- you don't care what really happens after you die, you just want to be able to pretend that you don't cease to exist, so you believe in god and an afterlife. Most xians I've talked to in my life are the same- they believe because they want it to be true, not because it is true."

[Jeremy]

Why oppose Pianka?

Because I am more likely to be one of those who die than one of those who survive. Evolution didn't impart morality to care about others, society, or the planet further than our own drive to survive.

[Smart_Cookie]

Hi Mark

Personally, I would be objecting to what John says, that Pianka thinks "it would be a good thing" if 90% of the human population were gone.

I have a hard copy of the speech that Dr. Pianka gave. Now, I just skimmed it, but I really don't see that Pianka is suggesting that it would be a good thing if we were almost all killed off by microbes. He's suggesting that it will probably happen, based on the current state of affairs in the world.

His speech is very much centred on conservation. On how much we have messed up the eco-system. Face it, we've destroyed masses of wildlife habitat, we're polluting the planet, and the world's human population is still growing. His whole speech is a cautionary message. That if we don't do something now, basically, the earth is past it's carrying capacity for humans and if we don't act, something might happen that will reduce our population for us.

One quote though. He does quote someone else - Aldo Leopold - as saying "Now one of his statements was that we cannot act as conquerors, that we weren't given some God-given right to do anything we want like chop down the redwood trees and we have to have respect for fellow members of the earth. And this has to transcend anthropocentrism. They have a right to this planet, too."

I'm gonna go read the whole speech now.

[Jeremy]

"Now one of his statements was that we cannot act as conquerors, that we weren't given some God-given right to do anything we want like chop down the redwood trees and we have to have respect for fellow members of the earth. And this has to transcend anthropocentrism. They have a right to this planet, too."

I don't think anyone need accuse Pianka of evolutionary morality, the docor seems to have simply replaced a god given right to, with a no more clearly defined prohibition against.

[Smart_Cookie]

The point the Xians were making is that Atheists should be right at home with Pianka's alledged beliefs on human extinction since without a God to give humanity "value" we are no better than any other animal. Therefore, If saving the planet is "good" then our demise should follow. If human's have God-given worth, then we should condemn them. To John and Dave W, you can't be both and atheist and condemn what Pianka might have said.

So...who's saying we (atheists) would condemn what Pianka said? Do you?

Now that I've read the speech, I agree with Pianka. In his opinion, human overpopulation, destruction of habitat and pollution have led us to an environmental crisis. He's saying a reduction in population is a logical result, based on overpopulation in other species. He doesn't appear to ascribe any morality to it, and he certainly did seem like he was gleefully endorsing said possibility.

It just also happens that, now that I've read the speech, I can see how Creationists would have been deeply insulted. There's references to cavemen, to our closest relatives the apes, etc.

[Pae]

we really weren't very well adapted and would have to be considered another evolutionary failure.

A failure? Does this mean there's a goal that the process of evolution is trying to accomplish?

[Melendwyr]

First of all, the statements about what were said in the speech were lies. It's very important to point that out.

Secondly, even though the statements about the speech are lies, the basic argument (that Christian morality doesn't care about survival).

The whole point of Christian faith is survival -- it asserts that souls exist after death, and that what happens to the soul is a great deal more important than here, so you need to act the right way now to ensure that your soul isn't destroyed in the afterlife. It's self-interest the whole way through.

[Jeff Corkern]

I finally tracked the transcript down. The Seguin Gazette has removed all Plinka stuff from their Website for some strange reason.:)

Man, talk about your fuzzy-headed academics living with their heads in the clouds.

He didn't actually say he was looking forward to the mass death of human beings. He did kind of hint at it, but being a writer, it struck me more as sloppy speech-writing than anything else. People don't always understand the implications of their words.

In fact, that whole speech struck me as kind of rambling and unfocused.

This Plinka guy did say one thing that was truly stunning, coming from a scientist.

"There's one exception — far, far off to the left — one species out of these one hundred and thirty-eight that thinks it can violate the rules of the natural world that thinks it can grow indefinitely and that's us — homo is bad."

Ah, pardon me, but there's this little teeny-tiny difference between us and ALL other species.

We understand most of the fundamental physical laws. Physics, chemistry, biology, WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THOSE THINGS. That's why there's so many of us now, right? If we didn't, we would've had that mass die-off LONG before now!

A scientist---a SCIENTIST---doesn't see that?

So it is more than possible we can grow indefinitely. We know the basic rules, we can use them to shape our world, and those other species DON'T. Sorry, Dr. Plinka.

Look at the bird flu thing. That's certainly one of those potential plagues that could wipe out a substantial fraction of humanity.

And yet, THEY'RE ON TOP OF IT, more or less. Even if H5N1 mutates to a human-infectious version, the death toll will be far less than it would've been BECAUSE WE KNOW A GREAT DEAL ABOUT FLU VIRUSES AND WILL THEREFORE BE ABLE TO TAKE COUNTERMEASURES.

Again, just another fuzzy-headed academic, IMO.

[brodski]

A failure? Does this mean there's a goal that the process of evolution is trying to accomplish?
no, but just because there is no final "success" doesn't mean that there is no failure.Think of evolution as a perpetual "flagpole sitter", there is no point at which a species "succeeds", but if it falls (becomes extinct) it has failed.

[Beerina]

Neither evolution or the environment give a crap about us. Nor are they obligated to. If humans put so much pressure on the environment that we become extinct then we really weren't very well adapted and would have to be considered another evolutionary failure.

Well, the only two rational solutions* to the Fermii Paradox are that intelligent species kill themselves off, or the Omega Point occurs, and we evolve quickly into something so far advanced, clumsy radio waves are no longer useful, at least not in any way remotely like the way we use them, or detectable as such.

And given the ever-increasing ease with which smaller groups can produce WMDs, the former may be a statistical inevitability.

And we won't even get into "horizon effect" problems where you can't see the danger until after it's too late, such as a physics experiment going awry, reducing the planet to a pile of strange matter rubble in anywhere from months to seconds.


* One could also argue this is some virtual reality embedded in a larger, completely different reality. But if that's the case, all bets are off as to what's really going on, and the purpose of it all.

[Beerina]

The point the Xians were making is that Atheists should be right at home with Pianka's alledged beliefs on human extinction since without a God to give humanity "value" we are no better than any other animal. Therefore, If saving the planet is "good" then our demise should follow. If human's have God-given worth, then we should condemn them. To John and Dave W, you can't be both and atheist and condemn what Pianka might have said.


Which seems a bit odd to me. If there is no God (which I believe), then there is no cosmic meaning. So far, so good. But then claiming humans are not special is a value judgement, made by humans.

To further claim that the environment as a whole, which is to say the ecosystem as a whole, is more important than humans, is itself another value judgement, by humans. They've used judgements by humans to declare some positions superior to others.

If there is no God, then there's no reason whatsoever for humans not to turn themselves into gods, so to speak. What good is the environment if in 200 years we've got every last organism's genetics in a computer and can "print out" fertilized eggs of any design that exists, or many more that we invent ourselves? The "environment" as such turns into just another quaint artifact, like an old west ghost town, or a Roman catacomb, or a pyramid of Egypt.

[CapelDodger]

Why oppose Pianka?

Because I am more likely to be one of those who die than one of those who survive. Evolution didn't impart morality to care about others, society, or the planet further than our own drive to survive.
Evolved morality makes us care about group survival, particlularly the family. Many people would put family, rather than self, at the top of the priority list, often followed by friends and neighbours.

Family and/or friends are key to survival through whatever catastrophe might cull Hom Sap. Pure luck will feature prominently, of course, if an asteroid lands on you networking skills will not help.

Would you oppose Pianka's reported glee if you felt you (and yours) were likely to be one of the survivors? Survivalists have long been gagging for society to break down so they can emerge as Lords of the Universe. I doubt you're like that. :)

[CapelDodger]

A failure? Does this mean there's a goal that the process of evolution is trying to accomplish?
Hom Sap will become extinct. If it has no successor species it will have failed at that point. There is no success when there's no finishing-line. There is failure for those that drop out, or fall off brodski's flag-pole.

[CapelDodger]

no, but just because there is no final "success" doesn't mean that there is no failure.Think of evolution as a perpetual "flagpole sitter", there is no point at which a species "succeeds", but if it falls (becomes extinct) it has failed.
"Brodski's Flagpole" should be eponymised, like "Occam's Razor". :)

[brodski]

"Brodski's Flagpole" should be eponymised, like "Occam's Razor". :) thanks, no one has offered to eponymise my flagpole before. :D

[CapelDodger]

In fact, that whole speech struck me as kind of rambling and unfocused.Friendly advice : don't put that in a long post with capitalised words. It's like chum for the sharks.

This Plinka guy did say one thing that was truly stunning, coming from a scientist.

"There's one exception — far, far off to the left — one species out of these one hundred and thirty-eight that thinks it can violate the rules of the natural world that thinks it can grow indefinitely and that's us — homo is bad."

Ah, pardon me, but there's this little teeny-tiny difference between us and ALL other species.

We understand most of the fundamental physical laws. Physics, chemistry, biology, WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THOSE THINGS. That's why there's so many of us now, right? If we didn't, we would've had that mass die-off LONG before now!
If we'd had that mass die-off before, intelligent people would have predicted it, and they'd have had just as much influence as scientists do now. Whatever the behaviour that was leading to it, influential people would have an interest in it continuing. Otherwise it wouldn't be happening.

There have been regional mass die-offs. Global population has taken occasional dips. Globalisation is far-advanced, and exponential. A global mass die-off resulting from human activities has only recently become possible. So the next one will be the first.

A scientist---a SCIENTIST---doesn't see that?

So it is more than possible we can grow indefinitely. We know the basic rules, we can use them to shape our world, and those other species DON'T. Sorry, Dr. Plinka.
We cannot grow indefinitely. That's exponential increase and resources are static or falling.

Look at the bird flu thing. That's certainly one of those potential plagues that could wipe out a substantial fraction of humanity.

And yet, THEY'RE ON TOP OF IT, more or less. Even if H5N1 mutates to a human-infectious version, the death toll will be far less than it would've been BECAUSE WE KNOW A GREAT DEAL ABOUT FLU VIRUSES AND WILL THEREFORE BE ABLE TO TAKE COUNTERMEASURES.

Again, just another fuzzy-headed academic, IMO.
Bum note at the end, as well. Best avoided.

Look at the Spanish Flu thing, back in the early days of globalisation. Killed about 20m documented humans when most people were undocumented. Scientists do know a great deal about flu viruses, a glaring example being what tricky little buggers they are. Viruses generally are tricky customers.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That was pointed out to him, but John came back with the old "Without God, life has no meaning" line
Someday, someone will explain to me how God adds meaning. Is there like a little tube where the meaning gets poured into my head?

~~ Paul

[CapelDodger]

thanks, no one has offered to eponymise my flagpole before. :DOr wanted to fall off it, I'll be bound.

Eponomy is not in anyone's gift, it has to be a group effort. And it may take a few years to get it into the OED. But with JREF Forums as Staff HQ, it could surely be done.

together, we could launch a meme. :cool:

[CapelDodger]

Someday, someone will explain to me how God adds meaning. Is there like a little tube where the meaning gets poured into my head?

~~ Paul
It's a mystery to me. It must be one of those you either get, or you don't. I'm perfectly happy to be a startled sentience that looks, learns, takes on board my transitory nature and enjoys life anyway.

[Renfield]

Someday, someone will explain to me how God adds meaning. Is there like a little tube where the meaning gets poured into my head?

~~ Paul

I guess since there is a really sweet reward waiting for you at the end of all this garbage.

[Jeremy]

Evolved morality makes us care about group survival, particlularly the family. Many people would put family, rather than self, at the top of the priority list, often followed by friends and neighbours.
Because such prioritization is one's best bet for passing on genes.

Would you oppose Pianka's reported glee if you felt you (and yours) were likely to be one of the survivors? Survivalists have long been gagging for society to break down so they can emerge as Lords of the Universe. I doubt you're like that.

I've considered it before.
But, I have decided that my best chance for passing on my genes is in the arificial environment of human society.