We must redefine archaic evolutionary language – Virginia Tech Collegiate Times

When a scientific field reaches the stage in which constructed explanations are replaced with facts, it is a step forward. Of course, all sciences have their implicit epistemological framework. This is something that should be at least admitted, but there is a pressing specific issue: the projection of values onto evolution in both common understanding and serious discourse. It is important not to retain fiction when facts are available, especially when that fiction is dangerous.

There is no intention to evolutionary process. Nature is not an entity that intends in the way that we intend. Traits do not evolve for purposes, contrary to what we often project onto them. The traits are not means to behavioral ends, especially reproductive ends. By projecting means-to-reproduction narratives onto evolution, we strip away the beauty of life, rendering fascinating existences nothing but a nihilistic game of chemicals and competition. Beyond that, however, it is dangerous. Why? It is dangerous because it enables systemic hatred.

Lets start with the phrase survival of the fittest. What can you do with that phrase? Well, lets break it down. The most fit to survive will survive. It is ambiguous. It could mean that what tends to replicate itself and not get killed will be most abundant. This is fair, and it is no more political than saying radioactive elements will decay until they are stable. It is intuitive if it does not replicate itself, it will not be around long, and if it gets killed, it will not have the opportunity. This is how it should be interpreted, yet it is almost never stated in such a basic way. Even in biology, and especially in psychology and other health sciences, it gets twisted.

Lets go back to the most fit to survive will survive. What if it was just slightly tweaked: the best will survive, or the fittest should survive. Here, a value judgment was added. There is no best, no quality, if it is viewed as a statement of tendency, but there is if survival is seen as good rather than neutral. From here, simultaneously, one can interpret that survival is the end goal, rather than a statement of tendency. Then, retroactively, the constructed end goal of survival makes traits and behaviors a game of competition, in which the best gets to live.

This can adopt any prejudice one wants to incorporate. It can be turned into an argument for eugenics, for sexism or against the disabled. It can enable human-centrism if mental capacity is held as a measure of value. It can be turned into an argument for gender roles and heterosexuality by pitting men and women as inherently different (viewing gender as entirely nature and disregarding nurture), using selective biological facts as evidence and generalizing to such an extent that everything is binary with no middle ground. The middle ground, androgyny, is a deviation in this view. Relationships that do not lead to procreation are a deviation as well. And deviations do not lead to survival, do they?

It also makes the case for capitalism, perhaps explaining why the twisted interpretation of evolution is the prevailing one. By adopting the value-infused interpretation, you can absolve yourself of any guilt you might have about exploiting labor, concentrating power, hoarding wealth while the majority struggles to get by, pitting people against each other or devaluing expression in favor of anything that further increases your wealth and power. You do not have to feel bad about causing deaths, stripping creative joy from peoples lives and inhibiting mutual fostering and collective growth. You fought hard from the bottom and made it to the top. You earned it because you just had the ability. It is just facts; it is just how it is. You cannot be held responsible because it is nature.

This is why it is so important to understand the phrase survival of the fittest, and evolution in general, completely free of value judgments, even one as simple as survival is good, because from there, many flavors of hate and structural oppression can co-opt the concept of evolution to justify themselves. It may seem tedious to make that distinction, but in the grand scheme of things, our lives and livelihoods depend on it.

Read the original:

We must redefine archaic evolutionary language - Virginia Tech Collegiate Times