I've been reading Robert Wright's The Moral Animal -- about how evolution shapes human behavior. As with many books, I set it aside when I was midway through it, but I plan to finish it eventually.
And, well, it's changed how I think about people! One thought that especially made an impression on me: Explaining human behavior as the result of natural selection doesn't mean justifying the behavior. This seems so obvious to me now that it almost doesn't even seem worth pointing out, but I don't know if I had realized it before reading this book. And this is what really got me:
we're all puppets, and our best hope for even partial liberation is to try to decipher the logic of the puppeteer.
And he goes even further:
Just because natural selection created us doesn't mean we have to slavishly follow it's peculiar agenda. (If anything, we might be tempted to spite it for all the ridiculous baggage it's saddled us with.)*
People tend to assume that if want to effect social change, you need to somehow show that nature is on your side. Thus, if you're for gay rights, you need to argue that homosexuality is inborn, not a choice.
But the problem is that we don't know that. To my knowledge, we haven't solved the mystery of homosexuality. It doesn't seem to fit very well with natural selection: why haven't gays died out as a result of their distaste for procreation? Wright (a liberal and a supporter of gay rights) raises that question and admits the answer is unclear.**
The reason we respect gays isn't that they have a well-defined place in the natural order of things. We simply respect them because they're not doing anything wrong.
I wish everyone could agree to stop equating "nature" with good, and instead adopt the view that, "Look, of course the world is a terrible place. There are huge problems intrinsic to the world itself. Some of them might be fundamental defects in human nature" -- in this case, aversion to homosexuality, distrust of outside-the-mainstream behavior, etc. -- "and we should try to solve them using human ingenuity. Those solutions might just as well come from rebelling against nature or tradition rather than returning to nature or tradition."
But it's hard to make this kind of argument and win over many people. One problem is religion: if you believe that God is good and is the creator of the natural order, then the natural order must be good. Maybe that's why we're going to keep getting sidetracked by "issues" that shouldn't be issues, like "Is homosexuality a choice?"
Speaking of human tendencies that are natural but evil, I also want to highlight what Wright says about rape on pages 52-53 -- and, relatedly, what he says about tall men -- but that will have to wait till later.
On the negative side, there is one little issue that I was disappointed to see Wright failed to address.*** He makes the familiar point that male animals typically have bright colors or other features designed to attract women. This is because females are "choosier" than males when it comes to sex,**** so their preferences are more influential than males' on which traits get passed down to future generations.
But this is the opposite of what we observe in humans. Women are the ones who wear visible makeup, not men. Women have much more leeway to wear clothes with bright colors and ornate patterns. [UPDATE: This might have been too simplistic if we're talking about human beings in general rather than merely our own culture and era. See the comments. Also, this intro to one of Wright's diavlogs suggests that he himself may be an exception to the rule.] Throughout the book he explains how human traits and behavior parallel those observed in animals, but then there's this one discrepancy that seems to contradict how you'd expect the sexes to behave based on natural selection.
If men are the ones who want to have as much sex as possible (because that will maximize how many of their genes get passed on), then what's the point in women getting all dolled up?
If anyone knows the explanation for this, or has a guess, please let me know in the comments. I can't be the first person to notice this. (I tried Googling for it, but that didn't work.) Maybe it's just one of those "I'm not going to point this out because it would contradict the whole theory of this book" things. That's a big problem with books.
So, apparently this is going to be a blog with footnotes. I didn't plan that -- it just happened. I'll try to cut down on them in the future.
* This used to be a paraphrase, but I've now replaced it with the exact quote, thanks to this complete searchable text. I originally said I would delete this very footnote, but I'm going to leave it in so that I preserve this point: That's how I want to do this blog -- make it a constant work in progress in which I'm allowed to go back and revise old posts as long as I think it improves them, not being bound by the definition of a "blog" as something that's always in reverse-chronological order. [back]
** He wrote the book in 1994, so it's possible that more recent research provides the answer. But something like this 2007 study offering various highly speculative theories suggests that not a lot of progress has been made since then. For example, one theory -- mentioned by both Wright and the linked study -- is that gays contribute to the survival of their own genes by caring for their family members. As Wright points out, it follows from this theory that we should be able to observe gay people being extraordinarily devoted to their nephews and nieces, far more so than heterosexuals. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that that's the case. (384-6) [back]
*** Since I haven't read the whole book yet, I don't know if he addresses it in a section of the book I haven't gotten to yet. But I have reason to think that's not the case given the way the book is structured. [back]
**** This is a huge theme of the book, and he certainly thinks it applies to humans as well as other animals. [back]
No comments:
Post a Comment