by Tom Brend

Created on: November 13, 2009

If we look into nature, there are plenty of hints for "general" evolution, not devolution. In fact, the very process of evolution is essential for linking several sub-fields of biology together: We acknowledge our DNA is a product of evolution, and we cannot help but laugh about the annual "Darwin Award" handed out posthumously for removing "stupid DNA" from the gene pool. But all too often biological evolution is confused or equated with an assumed cultural evolution of societies. The vulgarisation of Darwinian theory was quite en vogue in the early 20th century Europe - which resulted in the disaster of Nazi Germany.

So if we don't want to equate cultural values with biological evolution, we have to consider each field alone.

Strictly biologically, we are devolving gradually. Of course, we are still evolving through epidemics, et cetera; but think of the deciding factor your day was so comfortable. It's technology: Warm houses, plenty of food, excellent medicine and efficient transportation - all due to technology. The consequence for natural selection is quite easy to deduce: You just might not have to be as tough biologically anymore to survive. Sure, it'll help, but it certainly is not a must anymore. The standard of the human gene pool gradually devolves to the current state of technology. This certainly does not sound good at first sight.

Strictly culturally, we seem to be "evolving". The arrogance and politcal implications of one society declaring itself leading or superior aside, one could measure the success of a society through the level of happiness of its citizens. Certainly, I would prefer the democratic system as known today to any other system of rules governing my life. On the other hand, declaring the current form of rule as permanent and the most advanced is the greatest misjudgement of history itself. This leads us to the next question: What is history? Only if our history is evolving, and not cyclic or devolving, we could say that there is such a thing as "cultural evolution".

So what happens if we fuse, not equate these two fields together? In my opinion, the outcome would be that both strains of evolution are overlapping and inter-dependent. What is meant by that?

Humans are the very reflection of this thought - these two spheres overlap and are inter-dependent. Some apes and all humans are able to form with their hands what their mind envisions. But only humans may through parental and institutional education accumulate knowledge. If

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>