1

According to the theory of evolution, a law or thing happens only if it's not harmful to the organism itself as well as others. But peeping into entire historical and current situation of mankind, what is the explanation of the theory of evolution towards these issues that involve abnormal human casualties and animal beings due to war, crime and criminal activities, violent activities of past and present, intense pain and suffering, both physical and moral, of countless living beings due to such activities?

How does this theory explain and deal with the high amount of crime rate, death, rape, racism, fraud, corruption, murder, violence, social crime and countless bad activities of human beings? Is all this fair in the eyes of evolution? Or is all of this part of evolution and for good reason? Does it all seem fair to this theory and to natural selection and survival of fittest traits? Is there any other gentle way nature would have thought to bring good to universe other than this?

  • 1
    This is how I understand your question: Evolutionists such as B.F. Skinner claim that the fitness for survival includes behavior. Skinner, for example, says, "A culture may be defined as the contingencies of social reinforcement maintained by a group. As such it evolves in its own way, as new cultural practices, however they arise, contribute to the survival of the group and are perpetuated because they do so." If it's true that evolution can mold our behavior in this way, why does our self-destructive nature seem to indicate otherwise? Is that what you're asking? – user3017 May 13 '16 at 9:27
  • 2
    "According to the theory of evolution, a law or thing happens only if it's not harmful to the organism itself as well as others" - No that is not what the theory of evolution is. The theory of evolution is about the ability to reproduce - there are many of examples of animals that do harmful things to themselves and others in order to reproduce. – James Kingsbery May 13 '16 at 13:59
2

(Parts of this answer are unsourced, but it is too long to fit as a comment)

There are some assumptions you are making about evolution that you need to correct, and then you will understand how evolution can explain such behavior.

According to the theory of evolution, a law or thing happens only if it's not harmful to the organism itself as well as others.

There are 3 problems with this statement:

  • You say "a law or thing happens only if...": Here you are assuming that evolution is a deterministic process. It is not. Evolution is a random process that makes some outcomes more likely than others, but it doesn't have any certain outcomes and for a given scenario more than one outcome is possible.
  • You say: "..if it's not harmful to the organism itself...": As others have pointed out, this is not the case. Evolution is about the propagation of genetic material. If individuals within a species harming themselves or harming others will improve the chances of passing on genes to the next generation, then evolution will encourage this behavior. Consider some species of insects where the females eat the males after mating, since this will improve the future chances of the eggs she carries. Another example is of male lions killing the cubs of previous males once they take control of the pride to increase their own chances at reproduction.
  • You say "not harmful to the organism itself as well as others": Again this is not the case. Evolution propagates genetic material based on natural selection, i.e. survival of the fittest. That means that the fittest members of a species will survive and pass on their genetic traits to the next generation even at the expense of other members of the species. The giraffe with the tallest neck will mate the most because it has access to more food than the other giraffes, and the genetic trait of very tall neck will get passed on to the next generation. --> Note here that the principle of natural selection seems to actually encourage selfish and amoral behavior, see the concept of Social Darwinism.

Is all this fair in the eyes of evolution?

The concept of fairness is a moral concept specific to humans. Evolution operates independently of human concepts.

If by "fair in the eyes of evolution" you mean "can things like crime, war, racism, etc...., be reconciled with the theory of evolution" then the answer is yes they can. It is perfectly possible that all of these things provided evolutionary advantages to the species which developed them. For example a state of constant war would insure that only the strongest members of a species survive, eliminating the genetic traits of weaker individuals. In environments were food is scarce theft and crime would have developed as efficient means of obtaining food, etc....

Is there any other gentle way nature would have thought to bring good to universe other than this?

Yes there is. While some species, including homo sapiens might have developed various selfish behaviors as the best way to propagate their genes, other species have developed altruism and cooperation as the best way to propagate. Think of various hive insects: Worker bees and ants do not reproduce at all, only the queens reproduce in such species. Yet the workers do their best for the survival of the hive. This is a case of evolution leading to completely selfless and altruistic behavior.

You say "...bring good to universe other than this?": Like fairness, goodness is a purely human concept. Evolution is a neutral process that doesn't care about good or bad, and as I have shown earlier it can lead to either selfish behavior or altruistic behavior, whichever strategy leads to the most reproduction.

One can argue that this is exactly what makes human special: We are the only species that can see beyond the evolutionary imperatives, and lead our lives according to a higher purpose. But only because we can go against evolution, instead of following it.

  • 1
    Another example you may use: In a pride of lions, if the leader is beaten/killed by a younger rival, the new leader will kill all kittens within the pride, because it serves the logic of evolution., +1 for actually reasoning within the concept and discourse of evolution with sources on that – Philip Klöcking May 13 '16 at 18:03
  • Thanks a very good answer, i am aware that evolution works at genetic levele, but its genes that defines us also. I also know that its media hype, and their are majority numbers are good people. But is this the exclusive way ?? Why not make our genes strong just by learning , is this all randomness ,cheos and confusion is actually needed to improve genes and to bring so much little improvement ,which itself is confusion to choose the traits at indivisual level. – SwiftPushkar May 13 '16 at 20:14
  • The term survival of fittest is i think applicable to survival of fittest traits not of survival of fittest indivisuals. Even at near starvation and at age of 70-80 humana can reproduce offsprings. And are in all millions of years only fittest have survived or today is the ? What dose really mean fittest ? Are all starved and poor people are not fit to reproduce, or incapable of passing on strong genes. Or only people with guns , swords, rocks were the fittest? What about Fittest with mind ? – SwiftPushkar May 13 '16 at 21:12
1

I'm not sure about your definition of the theory of evolution. You can find plenty of them on internet, so I won't copy them here and try to give my feeling about it : Information about living entity are in the genome. The important thing is that gene can change, mutate, resulting in differences in some element of the species. If the mutation give an advantage to one individual, he is more likely to have children, and will give the new gene to them. After several generation these gene might become common, and share by a majority of the species, resulting in some evolution. But these process take a really long time.

So in my opinion it doesn't mean nothing bad will ever happen to a species. Being able to feel some fear can help you to survive, and not be eaten by a predator. Still, to much fear can be bad for you. Some aggressiveness might help you to survive in a dangerous world. Also a individual that really want to have sex, even at the cost of raping other in the species have more probability to reproduce and have children. All these behavior might not be adapted now, but if some gene of aggressiveness are present in the population they can't disappear really fast.

My explanation would be : mankind has redefined really fast the environment, faster than evolution could do. People with bad behavior due to gene can still reproduce and have children that will share these gene.

Evolution doesn't guarantee that people will be good and nice to each other. It just selects individual able to survive and reproduce. Being a social animal goes further than that. We are able to make people survive even if they have small defects. Evolution is just a logical consequence of the diversity of gene and mutation.

  • 1
    (My explanation would be : mankind has redefined really fast the environment, faster than evolution could do. People with bad behavior due to gene can still reproduce and have children that will share these gene.) Excellent point i have slipped that point out. Thanks. – SwiftPushkar May 13 '16 at 20:18
1

Yes,

... it's not harmful to the organism itself as well as others

because in the opposite case the organism would not survive. Statement is true only in a long scale.

In my humble opinion your question is referring more to psychology, particularly to the topic of Human destructiveness. In particular Death drive by Freud. A good read will be first chapter (maybe also introduction) of The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness by Fromm where author is trying to explain our underlying destructive behaviour referring to From, Lorenz, etc.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.