The attempts to escape from Darwinism's dilemma all fall into one or other of three types. These can be usefully labelled "the Cave Man way out," "the Hard Man," and "the Soft Man." All three types are hardy perennials, and have been with us, in one version or another, ever since Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859.What I call the Cave Man way out is this: you admit that human life is not now what it would be if Darwin's theory were true, but also insist that it used to be like that.
In the olden days (the story goes), human populations always did press relentlessly on their supply of food, and thereby brought about constant competition for survival among the too-numerous competitors, and hence natural selection of those organisms which were best fitted to succeed in the struggle for life. But our species (the story goes on) escaped long ago from the brutal regime of natural selection. We developed a thousand forms of attachment, loyalty, cooperation, and unforced subordination, every one of them quite incompatible with a constant and merciless competition to survive. We have now had for a very long time, at least locally, religions, moralities, laws or customs, respect for life and property, rules of inheritance, specialized social orders, distinctions of rank, and standing provisions for external defense, internal police, education, and health. Even at out lowest ebb we still have ties of blood, and ties of marriage: two things which are quite as incompatible with a universal competition to survive as are, for example, a medical profession, a priesthood, or a state.
But the Cave Man part of it is also utterly incredible in itself. It may be possible, for all I know, that a population of pines or cod should exist with no cooperative as distinct from competitive relations among its members. But no tribe of humans could possibly exist on those terms. Such a tribe could not even raise a second generation: the helplessness of the human young is too extreme and prolonged. So if you ever read a report (as one sometimes does) of the existence of an on-going tribe of just this kind, you should confidently conclude that the reporter is mistaken or lying or both.
Even if such a tribe could somehow continue in existence, it is extremely difficult to imagine how our species, as we now know it to be, could ever have graduated from so very hard a school. We need to remember how severe the rule of natural selection is, and what it means to say that a species is subject to it. It means, among other things, that of all the rabbits, flies, cod, pines, etc., that are born, the enormous majority must suffer early death; and it means no less of our species. How could we have escaped from this set up, supposing we once were in it? Please don't say that a god came down, and pointed out to Darwinian Cave Men a better way, or that the Cave Men themselves got together and adopted a Social Contract (with a Department of Family Planning). Either of those explanations is logically possible, of course, but they are just too improbably to be worth talking about. Yet some explanation, of the same order of improbability, seems to be required, if we once allow ourselves to believe that though we are not subject now to natural selection, we used to be.
The Cave Man way out, despite its absurdity, is easily the most popular of the three ways of trying to get out of Darwinism's dilemma. It has been progressively permeating popular thought for nearly one hundred and fifty years. By now it is enshrined in a thousand cartoons and comic-strips, and it is as immovable as Christmas. But we should not infer from this that it lacks high scientific authorities in its favor. Quite the contrary, Cave man has been all along, and still is, the preferred way out of Darwinism's dilemma among the learned, as well as among the vulgar.
- David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales.
Outstanding personal page you’ve put together, Ethan.
Check out mine.
1. Group hunting by Harris hawks (I had a family of them on my property in Chile - beautiful animals). Predatory birds are solitary hunters, right? Not the Harris hawk - it hunts in packs, with some corraling the prey and others making the kill-dive. And the kill is then shared by all.
2. Lions. Unlike the other great cats, they hunt as a team, and share the spoils with the entire family. And it is the females that do the hunting. The males, on the other hand, provide protection for the pride, that is their role.
3. Orca (killer whales). They also hunt as packs, taking turns diving deep under herring balls, bundling the herring with their expelled air (a bubble curtain), and letting others take passes through the herring to eat. They will also all turn to defend calves, and even will stay with a dead calf to mourn.
How are any of these behaviors anything BUT cooperation and a form of societal structure? In each case, individuals will put the needs and desires of other individuals first - cooperation means that sometimes you give up what you want, and you wait your turn.
if behavior like that exists in animals, then why not in people?
Your whole incomprehensible screed is based on this fine bit of question begging. There is no so-called dilemma. Second, the "olden days" you cite, are not so old, since those same conditions can be observed in substantial parts of Africa, South America and the middle east.
And this fine bit of nonsense Even at out lowest ebb we still have ties of blood, and ties of marriage: two things which are quite as incompatible with a universal competition to survive
But the aetiology of many species includes just those sorts of social evolution that enhance the survival of the species. Your fallacious and unexamined underlying assumption is that the only kind of competition allowable under evolution is mano a mano fight to the death between individuals. But that is nowhere stated at all, and the evolution of social cooperation is an intimately connect, highly fruitful and important field of investigation.
One even sees this kind of cooperation in what is probably the most brutally competitive of mammals, lions. Male lions frequently band together (commonly in pairs and very rarely trios) to hold territory and maintain breeding rights.