Biology, Politics, and the Left

[Jayhawker Soule]

I jiust happened upon what I find to be a pretty interesting article titled:

On Biology and Politics: Why the Left must take human evolution seriously​

Here are a couple of (somewhat disjointed) quotes ...

• Broad political factors are also at play here, with both the Left and the Right largely dismissive of the application of evolutionary theory to human affairs. On the Right, the distrust of Darwinism is strongly influenced by religious doctrine. In addition, many conservatives typically regard human nature (whether evolved or God-given) as inherently flawed, thus requiring constant constraint by custom or tradition. The standard leftist reaction is to reject this vision of a fixed and flawed human psyche entirely in favour of a mouldable and perfectable vision of human nature. And even when evolutionary theory is accepted in general, for many on the Left, its application to human society is indelibly linked to its egregious past—the cutthroat competition of Social Darwinism, say, or eugenics and Nazi racial science. Given the lingering reek of extreme right-wing ideology, it is hardly surprising that many of those most vehemently opposed to evolutionary accounts of human nature are found on the political Left.

• A Darwinian Left therefore takes particular aim at Marx’s conception of an infinitely malleable human nature, an idealistic notion that still holds sway over large sections of the Left. Briefly, this “blank slate” belief holds that human behaviour merely mirrors the prevailing social environment—that, for example, human competition stems from competitive societies not inherent competitive traits in individuals themselves. According to this view, if social structures change, so too will people’s nature. The political appeal of this for leftists is obvious: the prospect that more egalitarian societies will foster more egalitarian human beings, those whose deep-felt selflessness would truly reflect the Marxist dictum, “From each according to ability, to each according to need.”

• Take another apparent species-typical behaviour—human beings’ seemingly ubiquitous status hierarchies. Here, Singer notes how rapidly new hierarchies replaced the old aristocratic ones following the American, French, and Russian revolutions. “Getting rid of [hierarchy] is not going to be nearly as easy as revolutionaries usually imagine,” Singer cautions—a warning equally applicable to leftist policies aimed at mitigating widening inequalities between societies’ haves and have-nots, say, or the growing pay disparities between ordinary workers and CEOs. He makes a similar point about status disparities between men and women: that by focusing solely on discrimination as the root cause of sex inequality, and ignoring the possibility of different evolved preferences between men and women, egalitarians may fail to devise effective policies for achieving genuine gender equality.

It is a long article, but hopefully some will find it worth reading.

 

[danieldemol]

Tried reading a large amount of it, it seemed to contain wording to the effect of, "This in no way excuses female subjugation; rather, the political point is how such insights could provide additional means to challenge unjust male dominance more effectively."

But did it ever get round in a substantially sized article to provide examples of those means? I honestly didn't have the attention span to find out.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I jiust happened upon what I find to be a pretty interesting article titled:

On Biology and Politics: Why the Left must take human evolution seriously​

Here are a couple of (somewhat disjointed) quotes ...

• 
  
• 
  

It is a long article, but hopefully some will find it worth reading.

A very interesting article. But, really, this Right and Left divide on this topic is too simplistic, IMHO.

 

[siti]

Tried reading a large amount of it, it seemed to contain wording to the effect of, "This in no way excuses female subjugation; rather, the political point is how such insights could provide additional means to challenge unjust male dominance more effectively."

But did it ever get round in a substantially sized article to provide examples of those means? I honestly didn't have the attention span to find out.

The point of the article seemed to be to address the need for the political "left" to be realistic about the undeniable evolutionary biological aspects of race, sex, gender etc. The point he was making is that the politics of race, sex, gender etc. seem to be founded on ideologies that predate Darwin regardless of whether you are on the conservative (don't believe in evolution) or the progressive (we're all fundamentally equal) side.

What I thought the author overlooked to some extent is the fact that our traditions and cultures, just like the biological traits of our species, have also evolved in a changing environment...so he kind of opposed culture and tradition to biological evolution but the reality is they evolve in tandem (albeit at very different rates).

I agree with him that the left does need to let go of some its cherished "we're all fundamentally the same" doctrine if it wants to make more meaningful inroads into the manifest and persistent unfairness that pervades human societies. Men and women, African and European...we are NOT really all the same - even "under the skin" - and we are certainly not equal...but that certainly does not mean that one should be more highly valued than another as a human being. And his point really, which I agree with, is that you ain't going to fix that by denying the very obvious and very real differences among us.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I thought the author overlooked to some extent is the fact that our traditions and cultures, just like the biological traits of our species, have also evolved in a changing environment ...

Counter-culture is a culture as well, but one that tends to be more reactive than adaptive. Tradition is that which survives the was and resists being thrown out with the bathwater.

It's a social enterprise where dialectical materialism meets evolutionary biology and they dance.

 

[libre]

Men and women, African and European...we are NOT really all the same - even "under the skin" - and we are certainly not equal...but that certainly does not mean that one should be more highly valued than another as a human being.

In what respect do you think that African and European people are not equal ?

 

[libre]

I think most of the article's allusions to Marx are not well grounded, not sure if that is attributable to the author of such or Singer.

that exploitative capitalism would inevitably collapse and from its ashes a classless socialist system would just as inevitably arise.

Marx was not a spontanaeist, he thought capitalist collapse was inevitable, but realized that the success of socialism was contingent on the working classes learning their history and adopting a scientific world outlook and practice. 'Inevitable' in the sense that the system produced it's own gravediggers, but not that they were incapable of making mistakes or that the victory of any singular revolution was guaranteed.

A Darwinian Left therefore takes particular aim at Marx’s conception of an infinitely malleable human nature, an idealistic notion that still holds sway over large sections of the Left.

Marx's alleged theory of human nature is typically found in his 1844 essays, which were published almost a century later and in my view obstruct understandings of of Marx's later views which were much more developed. Marx read On the Origins of Species and was highly influenced by Darwin, but if one fixates on his earlier 'humanist' manuscripts before Darwin's work was published, this influence can be missed. Marx's contribution that the manifestation of human nature is determined in part by the conditions of production seems to be lost here.

Singer pours cold water on this utopian belief. Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Khmer Rouge Cambodia, he argues, not to mention the long, dismal history of failed “egalitarian” revolutions the world over, proves the lie of the Left’s naive blank-slate position.

I think this is a viewpoint about Communism that preexisted the USSR and China and dogmatically uses those failures as evidence, rather than it being an analysis grounded in their experiences.

 

[libre]

With social ranking, for example, he is content to note: “The fact that humans may have an evolved tendency to form social hierarchies need not curtail our demands for a more equal society, rather we simply use our evolutionary understanding of these tendencies to design political policies that mitigate their non-egalitarian consequences.”

Despite my nitpicks, I agree with this conclusion.

However, I am concerned that evolutionary understandings of politics can serve as an alternative to psychopolitics, wherein it would suffer from the same 3 flaws.

I argue that psychological explanations for political leaders and movements (a) tend to be reductionist and based on interpretations that slight or ignore political data,

(b) carry hidden political presumptions that prefigure the kind of analysis made,

(c) offer no guidance for understanding the substance and process of public policy as such.

 

[siti]

In what respect do you think that African and European people are not equal ?

In what respect could it be said that they are? Culture? Tradition? Social structures? Immune system response to disease (as one example of a real genetically mediated difference)? And all of these genuine differences emerging within different climates and environments - physically and socially...over tens of thousands of years - you can't pretend all that just isn't there.

 

[siti]

....I am concerned that evolutionary understandings of politics can serve as an alternative to psychopolitics, wherein it would suffer from the same 3 flaws....

...carry hidden political presumptions that prefigure the kind of analysis made,

Like the presumption that "we're all the same" when that is manifestly not the case, perhaps?

 

[wellwisher]

I jiust happened upon what I find to be a pretty interesting article titled:

On Biology and Politics: Why the Left must take human evolution seriously

This is connected, in part, to the modern Left and their take on gender. There is no genetic basis for gender beyond two main tangible layers of evidence; male and female. The latter is evident in the two distinct chromosomes; one for male; Y and one for female; X. Modern evolution equates changes in species to changes in the DNA. Without that direct evidence in its not genetic science. However, there may be other things in play, but not directly connected to the DNA. We all have the urge to eat in our DNA, but how we use that urge can be directed by the ego; favorite food. Ego will and choice is where diversity appears from genetic root causes; branch by learning and choice; cultural foods.

The Left seems to play the game of saying they are for science, based on the contrast between evolution and religion. At the same time they ignore DNA when it comes to many of their social assumptions; bait and switch. They are for Democracy while censoring and attacking political opponents with Big Brother Government; bait and switch. There is a pattern, with this article more restrictive to just the science bait and switch.

This article, I assume, is seeking consistency from the Left to its claim of supporting science. They pretend to accept evolution, but it appears to be mostly as a way to bludgeon religion, while secretly acting like their own religion of alternate science reality; we are all the same or there are an infinite number of genders. DNA shows otherwise. Go to ancestry.com to other ancestry site and they can trace your ancestors not only to a race but a specific country for that race; France or Germany, or Nigeria or Ethiopia, China or Korea, etc.

Although the Leftist claim of gender difference, beyond male and female, does not have DNA evidence, which is the foundation of evolution and genetic science, it does have much in common with other social conventions, such as acting and dress up for Halloween. In the former, a good actor or actress can play any role and appear very convincing. There are awards given if you do it very well.

In the latter; Halloween dress, which is more connected to laymen and sunshine amateurs, you can become any character you like, from cartoon characters, professional characters; doctor, sci fi characters; Mr Spock, to animals; cat, to mythological, to historical; Abe Lincoln or Jesus, to even transgender characters; tootsie. There is a psychological basis for being someone besides your natural DNA self; it can be fun to role play. Fun is part of human will and choice, at least on the superficial level, that much of science uses; empirical data in black boxes to ignore the deeper root causes.

Many human females have used makeup for centuries; lure a mate. Men are visual animals. Now science has added augmentation surgery for females to become even better than their own natural DNA secondary sexual selves; better superficial level of empirical evidence. Men are looking deeper and you need even better superficial evidence to maintain the black box. The term makeup is still used since women are not trying to fool themselves, but only playing the mating game fooling others, like an actor, who feeds off an audience.

Maybe there is a genetic connection to imagination and pretend, since this spontaneously appears in most children; air guitar, but which is not intended to last as an adult, unless the Left encourages it to help people fool themselves; way beyond their DNA. There are video games you can pretend air guitar and get objective game feedback to feed your fantasy.

It is healthy to play and even pretend, but it is also healthy to know the difference between play and reality. DNA offers a way to know what is physically real and what is ego individual choice and collective misguided pretend; games and social fads.

 

[Stevicus]

Like the presumption that "we're all the same" when that is manifestly not the case, perhaps?

I don't think "we're all the same," but we are of the same species. In recent centuries, concepts of human rights developed with the idea that society can produce optimal results if people have, at the very least, equal rights before the law.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Left seems to play the game of saying they are for science, based on the contrast between evolution and religion. At the same time they ignore DNA when it comes to many of their social assumptions; bait and switch.

Clearly, the failure of evolutionary biology to find a genetic link between left-bashing and verbosity should serve as a warning to all of us.

 

[libre]

In what respect could it be said that they are?

Is finding things that different ethnic groups are equal at really a stumper?

 

[libre]

And all of these genuine differences emerging within different climates and environments - physically and socially...over tens of thousands of years - you can't pretend all that just isn't there.

I wouldn't argue for ignoring differences.

I do know however that life on this planet has been evolving for billions of years.
Human beings have only emerged in the last 200k or so years ago. That's a very slight amount of time as far as evolution is concerned.
We have much more in common genetically than we differ.

 

[siti]

I don't think "we're all the same," but we are of the same species.

Of course we are, but can you name one species in which both sexes (for example) perform identical roles? And there are now, much more so in the last few decades, emerging examples of social culture, learned (and taught) behaviors etc...in many species of non-human animals. My point is that "equity" (rather than equality) has to take into account the reality of our biology and the manner in which our socio-cultural "norms" have evolved in response to our various socio-ecological environments...otherwise it becomes unrealistic and unachievable. Denying the real biological differences between male and female athletes (for example) doesn't make women more "equal" - for most of them it would simply deny them the opportunity for sporting success.

In recent centuries, concepts of human rights developed with the idea that society can produce optimal results if people have, at the very least, equal rights before the law.

But as a species we are still a very, very long way from that. I'm not saying we should abandon that goal, I'm just saying we have to be very realistic about where we are starting from...and also, we obviously cannot legislate against biology and should not legislate against cultural diversity...so we have to be very realistic about exactly what "equal rights before the law" means.

And with all that in mind, the point of the OP linked article was that the "political left" still seems to have its ideological roots in pre-Darwinian thought. I agree with that (at least to some degree). I think it is time for a re-evaluation of the foundations of a more realistic "socialism" that genuinely elevates the dignity (not just the economic fortunes) of the human family in all its glorious biological and cultural diversity.

 

[siti]

Is finding things that different ethnic groups are equal at really a stumper?

Well you know very well that's not what I said, so I'll reply in "right back at ya" kind...

Is finding things that different ethnic groups are not equal at a stumper?

For a more serious response please read my previous post #16.

 

[wellwisher]

There is a difference between biological males and biological females, connected to how their brain's are wired. The female brain is wired more left to right; ear to ear, while the male brain is more wired front to back; eye to mind's eye. Left to right connects more to the language processing centers; women are more verbal. While front to back is more connected to the visual cortex and the frontal lobe; men are more visual. Each area processes the data in different ways; women are from Venus and men are from Mars. We can use all these areas but men and women have natural extra in certain areas based on selective advantages for each.

Since women are more wired left to right, they tend to use both sides of the brain, much more easily; thought and feelings. They can be both differential; left brain, and integral or spatial; right brain. This is by natural design, needed for child raising, since babies and small children cannot effectively communicate needs with complex language, so women have more access to the right brain to process emotional output. The mother's child may have ten different cries she can left brain differentiate, knowing how to react to each; hungry, hurt, tired, frustrated, angry, scamming, need changing, coaxing, etc.

As adults, women continue to use both sides of the brain; differential and integral, to find a balance between the real time and long term needs of her family and job. This is the basis for unconstitutional love; short term differential is part of a longer term integration; acceptance of differences and long term endurance. Boys can learn this from their mothers to make more use of the right side of the brain; Divine Woman pregnant with child.

The male's DNA wires him more front to back, in line with the visual center and frontal lobes of the brain. There are 7000 spoken languages on earth, implying spoken langue is not absolute or objective, but is highly subjective. Any noise or sound can be anything you wish. The subjectivity of spoken and written language is also why in discussion on this site, often lack a meeting of the minds in terms of meaning. This often due to difference understandings of what a language based topic actually means; Socialism.

The visual language, on the other hand, is a universal language, based on photons and receptors of the eyes; colors and how light reflect off textures and geometry. It is innate and is not learned. We will learn the words that represent what we see so we can communication with others when away from objects and action, but we can see things, even if we do not know its name in any of the 7000 languages. We do not have to teach the eyes to appreciate the details the world. Many people go to exotic places to feed the eyes with unique beauty data.

The visual wiring of men connects them more to a place of objectivity; universal visual data; science. This is why the male is more connected to conditional love. It is less based on the female understanding of real time subjectivity; spoken language subjectivity of today, and more about objectivity over time; science data and wisdom for the ages. The front of the brain is where the imagination is processed. It get data from long term storage; visual and spoken language data, as well as real time sight, using the universal language; fiction and innovation. Women, via a good father figure can learn to wire their brain's this way.

Marriage between men and women; two brains, one wired naturally left to right and the other wired front to back, learn to cross program and cross wire each other, into the neural sign of the cross, where you have more access to other aspects of the brain; team becomes more than the sum of its parts since they learn from each other to coordinate.

If we go back to ethnicity, culture is learned behavior, with both language and the visual aspects; connected to long term male and female aspects; cultural marriage in the sense of an amalgam; ethnic sign of the neural wiring cross. If done for centuries it appears this can become part of their DNA; has long term selective advantages in that cultural world.

 

[MikeF]

I don't think "we're all the same," but we are of the same species. In recent centuries, concepts of human rights developed with the idea that society can produce optimal results if people have, at the very least, equal rights before the law.

It depends on what constitutes a "right", and which rights are adopted and protected by the political system at play. For example, if all have an equal right to the same quality educational environment, yet not all have equal potential to maximize that right to the same extent, there will still be a measurable inequity in education attained despite equal access.

To your example, equal rights under the law may be meaningless if there is not an equal ability in advocating for one's rights under the law.

 

[wellwisher]

It depends on what constitutes a "right", and which rights are adopted and protected by the political system at play. For example, if all have an equal right to the same quality educational environment, yet not all have equal potential to maximize that right to the same extent, there will still be a measurable inequity in education attained despite equal access.

To your example, equal rights under the law may be meaningless if there is not an equal ability in advocating for one's rights under the law.

Equal rights is similar to playing sports, where we all play by the same set of rules. In organized sports there are referees whose job it is to penalize violations so the rules are the fair and the same for all. In the rat race of life, we all play our best and on any given day there are winners and losers, with every dog having his day. Not everyone is going to be the MVP, since sports is only not a function of equal rights for all; one set of rules, but it is also a function of natural talent, hard work, and desire. In life it is more about the variable or those individuals that appear among the herd animals and rise above. In nature this equal but different is called the call of the wild and natural selection. After the mating Olympics the herds once again walks as allies.

Neither systemic racism or affirmative action had one set of rules for all. Equal rights were stolen from some people. In the sport of social life, natural talent, hard work and desire do not matter as much, when rights are stolen; two sets of rules. Luckily this is being corrected so we have equal rights and therefore one set of rules for all. Although one political leadership team still cheats and maintains a dual justice system; two sets of rules.

For example, one side is brought to trial for sexual assault and is fined, while the other side uses his buddies in the FBI to target and harass his accuser; operation Casandra, so she becomes the victim again and again; FBI gang bang with two sets of rules. It appears one side does not believe in equal rights, but rather two sets of rules with their binary rule system more favorable to their side and agenda.

This is slowly being corrected, but lingers since rights are still misunderstood by one party, due to the subjectivity of language and language games. I am try to clarify these games with simple neutral examples, that are not politically charged, since that can result in emotional thinking clouding reason, so the subjective language games, seem to make sense.