The postulation of a primary social organism with an identity defined for a population of social animals at the genetic level, independent of the identity of the individual, and with respect to which the individual is an incidental secondary sub-unit is a much more radical and novel conception of the social entity or order in biological evolutionary thought than will be appreciated at first consideration.
A social organismal identity defined (genetically) independent of the genetic identity of the individual and with respect to which the identity of the individual is secondary at the genetic level of its definition suggests a top-down goal oriented architectural order of the genetic information in the evolution of the individual organism with respect to the social order.
We pause to define our terms: A top-down goal oriented synthetic process begins with a "plan" or "blue print" consisting of the "big picture," and then proceeds with fixing the subunits incidental to the overall "plan."
The special significance of our observation of a widespread pattern of "altruistic" behavioral tendencies in male social animals arises from the fact that the entire monumental edifice of the bottom-up model of Darwinian evolutionary thought rests on the single notion that animals, particularly male animals, struggle primarily for bio-genetic reproductive success(the paradigmatic Darwinian "struggle for survival"). The longstanding mass of ethological data indicating a widespread pattern of "altruistic" behavioral tendencies, especially in male social animals must be swept under the carpet for it undermines the entire foundational structure of modern biological evolutionary thought in the speculations of Darwin in his "Origin of Species" (Darwin's Theory of Evolution rests on the central pillar of a notion of struggle for survival among individuals for scarce resource and specifically in the competition among males for sexual access to females).
The mass of ethological data indicating the primacy of the dominance drive over the sex drive, especially in male social animals, arose mostly from the Twentieth Century work of ethologists and were therefore largely unknown to Darwin.
The dominance drive is the only biological drive, as far as we know, which drives the male social animal regularly to "suicidal" behavior. But so strong is the hold of the paradigm of the primacy of the sex drive in male animals that Steven Pinker would state: "...females compete for food; males compete for females," yet observe a few paragraphs later, in his book "How the Mind Works," that the dominance drive, independent of "competition for females" leads young men regularly to senseless "suicidal" behavior.
The young male who dies in a duel to avenge his honor might be mistaken to have died in a Darwinian sexual reproductive struggle to "pass on his genes to the next generation" if competition with another male for access to a lady was the cause of his death. But what of the male(borrowing Pinker's example) who dies in a dwell to avenge his honor over a "trivial" insult in an argument over who gets to use the pools table? What has sexual reproductive success of the male to do with the widespread cultures of "male honor." We all are familiar with the cross-cultural notion that the "real man" is one who would sooner lose everything(including his genetic heritage of millions of years) than live without "honor.": "losing face," status, prestige in the ranks of his colleagues. The subject of contention for "honor" might be a female through whom he may "pass on his genes," or space at pools table on which he had only meant to shoot a billiard ball. It makes no difference to the highly socialized male.
Why do young men live recklessly: duel, commit crimes, "surf the roof of tram cars and elevators," ride fast and dangerously, do dangerous sports of all sorts, drugs...? To pass on their genes to the next generation?
NO!
Rather, to look "cool" in the eyes of their colleagues, gain respect, secure status, prestige. Young males(as Pinker notes), in the global culture of male "arete," discount their future steeply, reckoning generally on a short life, yet make no commensurate efforts at breeding sons while their lives last. Why? Because "honor," is what "real men" live, fight and die for, not possession of the female or sexual reproductive prosperity.
The human cultural ideal of masculine "arete" are the altruistic virtues of the military order which thumbs its nose at death; and the profession of soldiering is the masculine profession par excellence. The military adventurist lifestyle of men like Alexander the Great (who died at thirty in a drunken brawl) is not the profession for those who are anxious to "pass on their genes" to posterity.
The cross-cultural amok phenomenon stares Darwinism in the face: the male who having "lost face" ends the pain of living without honor not in an orgy of reproductive sex but in a coldly calculated and premeditated suicidal orgy of mass death.
The writer JohnThomas Didymus is the author of "Confessions of God: The Gospel According to St. JohnThomas Didymus."( http://www.resurrectionconspiracy.com/ ) If you have found this article interesting please read the article: ALTRUISM, KIN SELECTION AND WAR on his blog: http://johnthomasdidymus.blogspot.com/2010/09/altruism-kin-selection-and-war.html
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น