Well, apparently there are parts of Darwin's theories that most don't want taught in schools. The full title of his most famous work is The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or,The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. What you won't in there however, is extensive discussion about humans or their evolution. For full treatment of the subject of humans, readers must look to The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, published 12 years later as Darwin's clarification on what his earlier work could potentially mean about the human races.
Consider the following quotes from Chapter 5 of The Descent of Man:
Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.- I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,* and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.*(2) Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Sounds like eugenics to me. Note the mention of Mr. Galton, Darwin's cousin and the father of eugenics. Surely we shouldn't teach this in school, should we? Darwin continues:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Well good, Darwin doesn't actually prescribe eugenics. As much as it would benefit the human races, those pesky instincts of sympathy and nobility get in the way. But he continues:
We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.
Hmmm, I'll let that speak for itself, but given the birth rate trends between industrialized and 3rd world countries, I am thinking Darwin's hopes are in the process of being dashed. Still, maybe that bumper sticker should say "Darwin has sympathy for you" or "Darwin Loves Superman."
For more on the implications of Darwin's quotes above, see a more in depth look at Stand to Reason Blog.
5 comments:
In fact, Margaret Sanger and many of the leading Progressive intellectuals in America took great inspiration from Darwin (cf. Jonah Goldber's Liberal Fascism). The thinking went something like this...if man can evolve, then society could too. So long as we keep experimenting, we CAN create a superior society through progressive means.
The irony of this is completely lost on those who today refer to conservative (or classically liberal) policies as "Darwinian."
One of your best posts yet Homme. I will ponder this for the rest of the day. Thanks!
My wife having *just* delivered our first child, I more fully appreciate the helplessness of newborns. I'm not fully up to speed on Darwin's theory, but what account does he provide for the exceptionally long developmental period required for humans to reach maturity as compared to other complex organisms? Applying these selections from Darwin's work to the infant would lead to the conclusion that that humanity shouldn't have lasted beyond the first few generations. So are humans compassionate by nature, or is that an evolved trait?
From my limited reading, he seems to offer general observations, but not answer your question directly about the uniquely long time to maturity in humans. He seems to stick to the universal traits of maternal instinct and sympathy found in higher organisms: Here are a few selections from "Descent of Man":
As Whewell* has well asked, "Who that reads the touching instances of maternal affection, related so often of the women of all nations, and of the females of all animals, can doubt that the principle of action is the same in the two cases?"
The development of the moral qualities is a more interesting problem. The foundation lies in the social instincts, including under this term the family ties. These instincts are highly complex, and in the case of the lower animals give special tendencies towards certain definite actions; but the more important elements are love, and the distinct emotion of sympathy. Animals endowed with the social instincts take pleasure in one another's company, warn one another of danger, defend and aid one another in many ways. These instincts do not extend to all the individuals of the species, but only to those of the same community. As they are highly beneficial to the species, they have in all probability been acquired through natural selection.
It is evident in the first place, that with mankind the instinctive impulses have different degrees of strength; a savage will risk his own life to save that of a member of the same community, but will be wholly indifferent about a stranger: a young and timid mother urged by the maternal instinct will, without a moment's hesitation, run the greatest danger for her own infant, but not for a mere fellow-creature. Nevertheless many a civilized man, or even boy, who never before risked his life for another, but full of courage and sympathy, has disregarded the instinct of self-preservation, and plunged at once into a torrent to save a drowning man, though a stranger. In this case man is impelled by the same instinctive motive, which made the heroic little American monkey, formerly described, save his keeper, by attacking the great and dreaded baboon. Such actions as the above appear to be the simple result of the greater strength of the social or maternal instincts rather than that of any other instinct or motive; for they are performed too instantaneously for reflection, or for pleasure or pain to be felt at the time; though, if prevented by any cause, distress or even misery might be felt. In a timid man, on the other hand, the instinct of self-preservation, might be so strong, that he would be unable to force himself to run any such risk, perhaps not even for his own child.
No one disputes that the bull differs in disposition from the cow, the wild-boar from the sow, the stallion from the mare, and, as is well known to the keepers of menageries, the males of the larger apes from the females. Woman seems to differ from man in mental disposition, chiefly in her greater tenderness and less selfishness; and this holds good even with savages, as shewn by a well-known passage in Mungo Park's Travels, and by statements made by many other travellers. Woman, owing to her maternal instincts, displays these qualities towards her infants in an eminent degree; therefore it is likely that she would often extend them towards her fellow-creatures. Man is the rival of other men; he delights in competition, and this leads to ambition which passes too easily into selfishness.These latter qualities seem to be his natural and unfortunate birthright. It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation.
And per our offline conversation:
The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture.
That somewhat answers my question, but, alas, we are only left with that portion of Darwin's thoughts that he chose to commit to paper.
And I don't necessarily disagree with his notions of belief in God, but I don't look to Darwin for an understanding of my faith any more than I look to my thermodynamics text book for answers about the wonder of the universe. Darwin, to me, is nothing more than an observant naturalist, trying to describe what he has experienced with his 5 senses and then attempting to reconcile any incongruity with his Anglican faith. So while his observations have a bearing on my understanding of the natural world, they add little to my understanding of the super-natural God.
Post a Comment