The author of the article suggested a shift in paradigm to look at evolution in a new way. Rather than the simple, single directional 'survival of the fittest' paradigm, he suggested that the evolutionary paradigm should be looked at as having two driving forces. These are (from the article):
- the individual/self-interest/survival of the fittest/genetic heritage; and
- the community/benevolence/mutual aid/cultural heritage.
The first point is the normal/current evolutionary paradigm I referred to above. The second point, however, suggests that natural selection is not driven solely by the suitability of each single organism, but that the community an organism lives within will also drive its evolutionary pathway.
I found this to ring true with humans especially. We've basically ruined the idea of natural selection applying to us by creating things like hospitals and seatbelts. If you consider culture within the definition of evolution though, then we would still fit under natural selection in some sense.
And these ideas apply to animals too really. Many species will help other animals in their population when they're sick or injured or young or if it gives them a mutual benefit as well. These populations may end up with a better chance of surviving then those who don't.
It's just a way of looking at evolution that I hadn't thought of before, but one that makes a lot of sense in some ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment