History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Our ignorance of human evolution…up from social darwinism as pseudo-evolution

November 3rd, 2014 · No Comments

Nye’s speculation about future human evolution evokes Last and First Men (Nye was probably thinking of the book) which directly raises the issue of future evolution, and this controversially in the context of a study of the so-called macro effect in world history, its relation to modernism and the relation of this to the politics of democracy/communism. How can the issue of evolution be connected to politics? It can’t, but the current view, sub rosa, is crypto-social-darwinist and claims without saying so that economic competition in capitalist markets is somehow evolving man to a new man. The idea is nuts, given its Ayn Randian interpretation: we are to evolve into greedy competitors in the capitalist market, the rich being evidently the superior men to the future. We can at least propose that a postcapitalist system will halt social-darwinist degeneration. There are clear signs that man will degenerate is such a system. To think that to make man more greedy to compete on the evolutionary track is dangerous lunacy, and the kind of idiocy that darwinism has let loose and can’t refute.
The statement of LFM is rather that a postcapitalist system can allow humanity to relax a little so that they can perhaps address the question of future evolution. Darwinism proposes that a particular subset is going to evolve against the whole and then eliminate that in a final eugenic genocide. It is completely pathological and certainly on the wrong track to think so.

The question of ‘species evolution’ is therefore unclear. We don’t know how the original homo sapiens emerged. There is evidence that subsets of hominids close to homo sapiens separated from a core group in some fashion in an ‘out of Africa’ de facto partition that created what we think to call homo sapiens. But darwinian speculations here are also misleading. We don’t have the facts here and no darwinian conclusion can be adopted. In future if man were to come to understand his own evolution it would not be necessary to partition anything: the future man could simply come into existence among ordinary men, peacefully with the prospect of bringing this to all.
Keep in mind the jokers in the deck here: if man has a soul or reincarnates the correct theory must determine the nature of these possibilities and adapt the evolutionary deductions around them. Not likely any time soon!

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment