This is what I love about TFP, nice people like
sapiens who give friendly replies and constructive criticism and people like
John Henry who come up with good threads. But enough of my sappiness, I have work to get back to so can't ramble long.
I really didn't give my last post much thought, just threw some ideas out there, but now they are there I might as well try and support the poor little things!
Post-evolutionary stage:
[NB: I can't paste quotes attractively, does anyone want to teach me how?]
From an interview with E.O.Wilson Biology Professor at Harvard and all round good guy:
http://www.salon.com/people/conv/200...son/index.html
(Interviewer) Q. Are humans still evolving at all?
(Wilson) A. No, at least not in any directional sense. But we are changing quickly in another sense. We are changing into a more homogeneous gene pool -- a trend that in a few more centuries could result in a fairly similar human population. The genes that make up traditional racial differences will be more and more shared.
Super animals?
Yes we are, of course, still animals. But self-consciousness, abstract thought and advanced reasoning have clearly set us apart from all other species. We may not be better (the cockroach will probably have the last laugh) or at the top of tree, but in some ways we are certainly superior and with this superiority comes opportunities and (some may argue) responsibilities.
What are these?
Again, I'm just throwing out ideas here, but Wilson's phrasing above has inspired me.
We are no longer part of a
directional evolutionary process that is out of our conscious control. We are the first animal to be able to set its own direction - be this mutual self-destruction or a 'better' world for our descedents.
This gives rise to the question (similar to John Henry's): "How should I/we live?".
Of course within us all there are still evolutionarily conditioned instincts, but at some point (I don't know if it was self-consciousness or something else) we 'overtook' evolution - we had free time on our hands and the mental horsepower to do things with it (e.g. art) that the simple rules of evolutionary biology and psychology were no longer controlling.
[I am trying here to acknowledge that our brains, no matter how powerful, will always be the product of / tied to a genetic-environmental background shaped by nature, whilst also saying that they can do something unique that, whilst not cutting these ties, can loosen them to the extent that they play only a minor role in our actions.]
Better rap it up.
So self-aware morality has emerged from animalistic insticts and we have asked ourselves the question "How should I live?".
... We may choose to fall back upon our behavioural roots and do what our instincts tell us, do what "feels right".
Meaning, amongst other things:
1) There is no coherent structure to our actions with which we can explain them to ourselves or to others.
2) There is no objective morality with which to condemn or praise others.
3) If we are to build a better world it must be through power and not reason.
... Or we may try and look for a moral structure. If we find one, we should be bloody relieved and proud of it.
I shall end with a quote from one of the most annoying men I know, Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, p.2)
"I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals co-operate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."