The Place of Homo sapiens in Nature

Evolution Charles Darwin ( ) Developed the theory of evolution while traveling on the Beagle in the Galapagos Islands. In 1859 published: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (usually referred to as “The Origin of Species”) Descent with variation, survival of the fittest The individuals most well-adapted to their environment survive and leave the most descendants. The survival of those that survive. C19 th anti-Darwin cartoon

The place of Homo sapiens in nature Entirely new way to view the relation between people and nature People are animals. Intelligence (like eyes, wings, etc.) evolved naturally and for no reason (i.e. nature has no foresight) An naturalistic solution to the watchmaker problem The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins (1986) Materialistic: not dualistic, no supernatural explanation: God? “I have no need of that hypothesis” – Laplace (early C19th)

Common misconceptions Evolution is sometimes identified with the great chain of being, hence: Evolution represents progress. Evolution can be represented as a tree or ladder of life, and humans are at the top. Man is the most “evolved” animal, hence newest, most intelligent and most successful. Further evolution of humans would lead to more intelligent and better people.

Why these are misconceptions Evolution is better represented as a bush or ever-expanding pool than a ladder or tree. The most successful organisms ever in evolutionary terms (i.e. occupying the largest amount of biomass on earth) are bacteria, and have been since their development on earth. Evolution can cause change in the direction of more complex to less complex and more intelligent to less intelligent, e.g. viruses, sloths. Increasing complexity does not imply increasing intelligence.

Environmental Implications We are animals. We are natural products of evolution. But are we special? We are unique among animals in our intelligence, creativity and capacity for destruction. This may give us a special responsibility towards the rest of nature. Or it may just give us reason to be careful (out of self interest) – not to destroy our home. Nature is neither good nor bad: it just is. We are part of nature, and, in one sense, it is impossible for us to go against nature (like the Great Tao – we cannot go against the laws of nature). But, in another sense, we can go against our nature or live unnaturally (c.f. the human dao), i.e. live in a way that is contrary to the environment or way of life that we evolved to be adapted to. E.g. we evolved to live in small tribal groups, thus living in sprawling cities is relatively unnatural for us (hence the high rate of mental illness in modern people?)

Environmental Implications (cont.) If there is no purpose in nature, the natural way isn’t necessarily the better way. So, going against nature (i.e. changing nature or our relationship to nature), isn’t necessarily bad. It may be an improvement. But: the natural way is the way that we have evolved to be adapted to, e.g. it is natural for us to eat a highly vegetarian, low fat, low sugar diet. If we eat “unnaturally”, e.g. candy and chips, we will not be healthy, because we are not adapted by evolution to live on such a diet. Also, if we interfere with nature (e.g. through genetic engineering or global warming), we may not be able to adapt to the changes that will result. Nature is a complex interactive system. Small changes may lead to large changes, and we do not know enough about the biosystem as a whole to predict the results of changing conditions. We may accidentally cause drastic changes that we cannot control and cannot adjust to.

The Roots of Morality Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) British biologist The Selfish Gene (1976) The God Delusion (2006)

An evolutionary account of morality How did altruism evolve? 1) Altruism towards kin 2) Reciprocal altruism -- symbiosis -- mutualism -- reputation 3) Advertisement of superiority

Why are we still altruistic even when it doesn’t benefit our genes? Misfiring of instinct cf sexual instinct Dawkins: doesn’t devalue altruism “[a] blessed precious mistake…” Our values are independent of the welfare of our genes, even if they owe their origin to that mechanism

Readings for next week Required: Des Jardins, Environmental Ethics (2001), Chapter 2, on reserve in the Main Library