RAZD writes:
(4) long term success - in evolutionary terms - is ensuring the continued survival and breeding of your lineage, ensuring that your hereditary traits remain part of the population.
I sense some problems with this description. To begin with, given that evolution is the interaction between (usually random) mutation and (usually externally driven) selection, how can the individuals of one generation possibly select behaviors that will ensure the indefinite continuation of their particular traits, against the potential challenges of mutations and environmental forces that are as yet unseen and unknowable?
Of course, if it is sufficient that
some subset of your (presumably desirable) traits simply remain
part of a population, which happens to also include traits (due to mutation and/or mixture) that you never had, then it would be easier to frame a logical basis for moral behavior. But then, where/how does one draw the line for deciding "long term success": How many traits need to survive, and which ones? If all of the "relevant" traits that came directly from you via inheritance were to be replaced by traits from other sources, would you have failed despite continuation of your lineage? Even if the replacement traits turn out to be not that different from your originals? (Apologies if these hypotheticals are nonsensical -- I'm not well educated in the detailed mechanics of genetic inheritance.)
But apart from that, the "definition" provided seems too limited in scope for the notion of "long term success" as I would view that term. Or perhaps it's simply a matter of not following through and presenting the necessary entailments, which might go something like this;
In order to ensure continued survival,
all of the following factors come into play:
- Ability to exert control over the environment, to ensure the continuation of conditions that enhance the likelihood of survival for you and your offspring
- Ability to comprehend the limitations of your control over the environment, so that you anticipate situations where needs for survival may not be met, and pursue alternate behaviors in preparation for threatening changes -- and also so that you avoid exerting control in ways that lead to irreversible failure
- Ability to understand how your own lineage is dependent for its survival on other lineages, species, phyla, etc, meaning that your own long-term survival is intrinsically bound to the long-term survival of all others.
I think the last item there is the crucial point -- the irrefutably and inescapably logical basis for moral behavior. There are still more steps to be filled in, to cover questions of the form "Why would I need X in order to assure long-term survival?" (where X could be any other living thing: mold, mosquitos, manatees; scorpions, snakes, seals; cannibals, criminals, cripples; ...)
Regardless of our tendency to view these "others" with either enmity or sympathy, the relevance of their contributions to our survival will seem tenuous, at best, to many people. But I think strong arguments can be made (and have been made) that the growth of morality exists in expanding the scope of "included with the self", to encompass more of what had previously been considered "excluded as other".
We could take the view that the basic premise of current evolutionary theory -- that all life on Earth is descended from a common origin -- should properly be interpreted to mean that our own goal of "long-term success" encompasses all life on the planet, despite the fact that in many cases, certain sub-branches of the whole geneological tree (including various distinct groups of humans) are in direct conflict with other sub-branches, due to competition for common resources, etc. This would lead to one more entailment of long-term success:
- Ability to understand conflict as a natural component of life within the given environment, to discern as fully as possible and without bias, how the possible outcomes of a given conflict will affect long-term success viewed in the largest possible scope of that term, and to actively support the outcome that maximizes the likelihood of success for all current forms of life (or at least, for all living things directly involved in the conflict).
This sort of perspective does not end debates about the justifiability of killing people (self-defense, death penalty, abortion to save the mother's life, wars for independence / liberation / whatever), though it does place a heavier burden on those who would kill, to establish adequate cause, and prove how the result would be an overall benefit.
We could probably envision a few rare scenarios where that sort of consideration would lead to a conclusion like "all members of X must be killed", (where X may be a viral or bacterial strain, or some insect or animal species ravaging a specific location) but one of the lessons taught to us repeatedly by observing evolution is that increasing diversity is both inevitable and successful, whereas decreasing diversity goes against the general trend and can increase risks to overall success.
With regard to human groups (based on lineage, language, religion or whatever), one need only communicate with two or more individual members of a given group to realize that any assertion about "all members" of that group (whether or not it's intended to justify destruction of the group) will turn out to be untrue for some (or even most) members of the group.
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2
