Two-Faced, Part 2

OK, part 2 is com­ing sooner than I thought.

I really like Elyson’s recent post on dual­ity and Alpha Phi Omega ver­sus Darwinism.

To quote Card’s Empire (yet again) -

The great break­through in human evo­lu­tion, the one that made civ­i­liza­tion pos­si­ble, was the dis­cov­ery that two alpha males could form intense bonds of ur-​brotherhood instead of the nor­mal pat­tern of fight­ing until one is dead or dri­ven away. It is the story of Gil­gamesh and Enkidu — a man will plunge into hell for his friend. Thus the male DNA is tricked into sac­ri­fic­ing itself to the ben­e­fit of unre­lated DNA; story tri­umphs over instinct; the monog­a­mous civ­i­tas tri­umphs over the patri­ar­chal tribe. Instead of one alpha male repro­duc­ing his supe­rior genes over and over again, a far higher pro­por­tion of males repro­duce, even though some die in war. All because human males learned how to trick them­selves into lov­ing each other to the point of sui­ci­dal madness.”

Syn­the­siz­ing those two, I’d have to say, yes, soci­ety and civ­i­liza­tion are con­trary to Darwin’s The­ory of Evo­lu­tion. If every­one lived by sur­vival of the fittest, man would kill his neigh­bors and rape their wives. There is no pos­i­tive value in one man help­ing another. But there is nor­ma­tive value. And by def­i­n­i­tion, norms are a cre­ation of society.

Alpha Phi Omega is shin­ing exam­ple of civ­i­liza­tion and human­ity. We ded­i­cate our time and energy to the ser­vice of oth­ers. (The only exam­ple I can think of bet­ter than us is indeed the mil­i­tary, who are will­ing make the ulti­mate sac­ri­fice — their lives — to human­ity.) I want to remind every­one that Alpha Phi Omega has been this shin­ing exam­ple for over eighty years! Our chap­ter alone has been pro­vid­ing ser­vice oth­ers for over fifty-​five of those years. Yes, recent events are a dark spot on our record, but it but a speck of dust against the sun-​like bril­liance of our organization.

With that said, I hope that the hate-​mail, shit-​talking, and other types of per­sonal attacks stop on both sides of the issue, and that we can pick our­selves up and move on as a chapter.

(And yes, I am two-​faced for post­ing this right after my other one.)

Tags: , , ,

{ 5 comments to read ... please submit one more! }

  1. I don’t think you could have framed the Will Oh sit­u­a­tion any bet­ter. I know that a lot of emo­tions were stirred dur­ing this, but it’s always impor­tant to view it from a ratio­nale POV, and I really think all this finger-​pointing and hate­mon­ger­ing is almost as dis­s­a­point­ing as Will’s actions.

    How­ever, I do have to dis­agree with you about Dar­win. You can view nat­ural selec­tion on an indi­vid­ual level, or on a species level. Many species sur­vive ONLY because they form a func­tional soci­ety (bees being a very stun­ning exam­ple). I think that mankind has gone far because it’s abil­ity to form com­mu­nity and accu­mu­lated knowl­edge has far exceeded any other species to date. I don’t know that there is a “trascen­dance” of nat­ural selec­tion going on, if any­thing this rel­a­tively new­found peace on earth has led to extremely high growth and sur­vival rates.

  2. Bees and other colony-​based insects cer­tainly do have a form of soci­ety in my opin­ion, but it’s roughly the equiv­a­lent of the hunter-​gatherer vil­lages of our ances­tors. If they were bet­ter able to manip­u­late their envi­ron­ment, I think we’d def­i­nitely be given a run for our money as “most advanced.”

    As far as tran­scen­dence, I think human­ity has def­i­nitely tran­scended nat­ural selec­tion. We have such con­trol over our envi­ron­ment that it’s now impos­si­ble to say that any human died because they were “unfit.” The high growth and sur­vival rates you men­tion are due to sac­ri­fices made by sol­diers, doc­tors, and sci­en­tists so that peo­ple com­pletely unre­lated to them have bet­ter lives.

  3. Right, I agree. Part of being able to manip­u­late our envi­ron­ment is that we can act on a scale that allows per­ma­nent, long-​scale com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Ancient civ­i­liza­tions were able to record find­ings for future gen­er­a­tions, and nowa­days we can com­mu­ni­cate world­wise because of our abil­ity to mold objects into tools of com­mu­ni­ca­tions. You have to real­ize that humans also have a 10000 year knowl­edge advan­tage that only gets steeper every year at the rate we’re going. Bees would have to go very far to catch up.

    Human­ity has tran­scended nat­ural selec­tion in the tra­di­tional sense. Peo­ple still fall vic­tim to more fit “prey” such as AIDS, tsunamis, mete­ors, and Galac­tus. A cock­roach might sur­vive all four, but under the cur­rent con­di­tions on Earth, humans thrive.

    One might say that the abil­ity to com­mu­ni­cate is actu­ally a genet­i­cally fit trait even within a purely phys­i­cal con­text. Com­mu­ni­ca­tion can pre­vent war­fare, and inter­nal war­fare is cer­tainly an unfit trait. Imag­ine this: If there was a species of cat which for some unknown rea­son con­stantly bit off it’s own limbs every 5 years or so, it’d be pretty unfit. If a new cat evolved with a gene that enabled it to say, Hey.. maybe I should stop eat­ing my own leg, this new cat mutant would prob­a­bly live longer and have more off­spring, who in turn would live longer and have more offspring.

    By get­ting rid of our “unfit” trait of inter­nal war­fare, we rid our­selves of unnec­ces­sary casu­al­ties, and allow the fur­ther­ment of com­mu­ni­ca­tion and sci­en­tific advances needed to com­bat any future obstacles.

  4. This is all fine and dandy, but I think you for­get that every length of peace in human his­tory is fol­lowed by con­quest. As soon as we lay down our arms, the com­mies are mov­ing in. And oh yes, I mean China and Korea. You can’t trust them com­mies. :em04:

  5. The “tran­scen­dance” that I’m talk­ing about is the psy­cho­log­i­cal attrib­utes of Dar­win­ism to man, one could argue that we are self­ish by nature and to tran­scend sur­vival of the fittest one must become self-​less and care for others.

    Dar­win­ism maybe fine and all, but who cares for the weak, if the fit sur­vives? any­ways… this shit has been a long time ago, but I like the thoughts that helped gen­er­ate this post.

{ 0 Pingbacks/Trackbacks }

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>