My hubby John and I were talking last night about eugenics and the Victorians – yes, this is the curse\/blessing of two intellectuals married to each other. In fact, it’s easy to demean the Victorians (and others as well of course) for their politically backward views, but they were lacking an understanding which we now have and which makes all the difference. It occurred to me that there is a social benefit, absolutely dependent on theories of evolution, that you don’t see foregrounded because it falls into the chasm between religion and science. <\/p>\n
One of the primary tenets of any theory of evolution is the idea of survival of the fittest, i.e. competitive selection. If you don’t study evolution, you think you know what that means – but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the strongest or smartest will survive. It only means that those who live to reproduce, and those who actually reproduce, have the advantage. We don’t necessarily know in advance what qualities, what genes, what behaviors will have survival value given new circumstances. Therefore, we now value the widest possible diversity in the gene pool – and we understand such diversity itself as having survival value. (Incidentally, this is one reason that cutting down on the variety of our grown crops is dangerous in terms of our food supply; a blight that kills off the major forms or grain might not harm an uncommon variety.)
Before this understanding of the survival as well as social value of diversity, it was easy to simply say that your own in-group was “superior” – which leads to racism, attempted genocide, sterilization programs, and so on.
The scientists don’t dwell on this as a social value – the fact of genetic diversity as a value stands alone. They don’t enter into the social changes it allows since it is not theri area of expertise. On the other side, (literalistic) religionists don’t really want to take anything from evolutionary theories, so if they are socially progressive they have to rely on something like universal love ( we are all God’s children, etc ). Historically that view really never helped all that much.
When you realize that in order to survive and thrive we need the greatest possible diversity, then socially that means all variations must be valued as necessary. You just never know what traits will have survival value!
To ignore this fact is to exist in a profoundly deluded (and historically destructive) state. To understand this fact brings together religion and science into social synergy – a scientific ethical stance which neither side is comfortable discussing.
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
My hubby John and I were talking last night about eugenics and the Victorians – yes, this is the curse\/blessing of two intellectuals married to each other. In fact, it’s easy to demean the Victorians (and others as well of course) for their politically backward views, but they were lacking an understanding which we now have and which makes all the difference. It occurred to me that there is a social benefit, absolutely dependent on theories of evolution, that you don’t see foregrounded…<\/p>\n