Subject: 
            Re: [evol-psych] Re: Richard Dawkins: Our big brains can overcome our
            selfish genes
       Date: 
            Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:29:38 -0600 (CST)
      From: 
            "Dave Schmitt" 
        To: 
            [email protected]
 References: 
            1 , 2




>Dawkins wrote: 
 >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 ...>
***************************************************

One of the difficulties I have with the discussion on 
this thread is that people are conflating different 
conceptions of adaptation.  For instance, people are 
confusing adaptation as a process with adaptation as a 
product, as well as adaptation in the past and 
adaptation in the present.  Without clarity in using 
the concept of adaptation, this type of argumentation 
can lead to a neverending spiral of rhetoric, as both 
sides continually misconstrue the other.

ADAPTATION PROCESS 

IMHO, the process of adaptation, as Dawkins' Selfish 
Gene metaphor rightly points out, is about genes out-
competing one another and usually involves what most 
would consider an immoral, or at least an amoral, 
ethic.  This is most especially true about past human 
adaptation processes and the process of adaptation in 
other species.  

As some have stated, the ethic of the process of 
adaptation, or natural selection, is like a mother who 
let's her children play in the middle of the highway.  
The process of adaptation kills the weak, and to a 
lesser degree rewards the strong.  

ADAPTATION PRODUCTS

The adaptation products, on the other hand, are those 
features of organisms (in a Williams, 1966 sense) that 
helped with the process of adaptation in the past, and 
show signs "special design" and so forth.  

We have many adaptation products that appear to 
motivate us, as Arnhart has delineated, and some of 
these seem to jibe with historical and religious 
conceptions of morality. Desires for reciprocity, 
fairness, justice, altruism, and so forth are all the 
adaptation products, the result of the historical 
process of adaptation.

MORALITY AND ADAPTATION

I think the problem people have with Dawkins' statement 
above is that he emphasizes that even these seemingly 
"moral" adaptation products are really amoral.  At 
times, they can be immoral.  Altruism, for example, 
tends to be naturally directed more toward kin.  

I believe what Dawkins is suggesting is that we don't 
have to put up with that, and we probably shouldn't.  
There may be political and global problems that require 
us to break away from our natural adaptation products 
that bias investment toward kin, and we can use science 
and reason to overcome these normally gene-profligating 
desires.  

I would add that we can also use the lessons of 
history, religion, and Shakespeare to help us create a 
better world as well (though our conception of "better" 
will be largely contrained by our evolved morality, the 
ability to think critically and forward-thinking may 
allow us to overcome these biases as well).

So, just because our adaptation products (e.g., kin-
biased investment) helped with the adaptation process 
in the long-term past, doesn't mean we need to obey 
them in the adaptation process in the short-term 
present.  Indeed, what most of use would agree on is 
that we don't want to let the adaptation process 
continue unimpeded without reflection and forward 
thinking.  As Dawkins stated, let's "break away from 
short-term Darwinian selfishness..."

Dave Schmitt
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Bradley University