Religion in America
The conservatives and neo-conservatives are rushing to establish a connection
between “God and Country”. While there have always been some who tried to do
this, there is a more intense desire, it seems, to “prove” that this country was
based on Christian principles, in spite of the statement of John Adams
that:
“As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on
the Christian religion–as it has itself no character of enmity against the law,
religion, or tranquility of Musselmen…”
There is yet the argument that somehow this government is directly founded on
Christian principles. Madison, however, saw that in Christianity or in any
religion, trying to govern by the “truth of God” was near impossible. As he
wrote in “The Federalist”:
“When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own
language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by
the cloudy medium through which it is communicated”.
The problem lay in translation and interpretation, as Jefferson commented in
a letter to a friend:
“Differences in opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects
perform the office of censor morum over each other”.
It is not that the founders especially believed in Christianity, or in any
other religion, as a direct authority for government, but that they saw religion
as an agent by which power could be equally divided in the name of conscience.
This need to maintain a “balance of power” among factions in government became
recognized as the “Madisonian problem” as Madison agonized over in “Federalist
#10′:
“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular
states, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other
states: a religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of
the confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it,
must secure the national councils against any danger from that source: a rage
for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property,
or for any other improper or wicked project”.
We can conclude that Madison certainly never intended for any religion to
represent the elimination of property rights. In fact, we can see from both
Madison and Jefferson that both men intended that no “national council” could
ever seek to overturn the property rights of people in the several states.
The “separation of church and state” which many claim is represented in the
First Amendment, designed, according to Madison’s statement, to maintain
property rights and discourage national power to override those rights. Both
Madison and Jefferson were less involved with the ‘truth” of religion that with
its ability to confound and separate people to the point they could not create
“conflagrations” of power by using “paper money, abolition of debts, and for an
equal division of property”, all of which we seem to have developed a taste for
in recent times, not to mention the outright use of “paper money” with no
Constitutional authorization.
The founders understood quite well that no person, especially themselves, had
the knowledge or authority to speak for God, but they also intended that the
government could, in no fashion, interfere with the free exercise of religion,
not because they wished the government to be subject to God, but because they
knew that no man could ever prove himself to be a representative of God.
As Madison wrote in the famous “Memorial And Remonstrance”:
“The religion then, of every man, must be left to the conviction and
conscience of every man: and it is the right of every man to exercise it as
these may dictate”.
While men may be subject to God, the state could never, in any sense, speak
for God. None of the statements above show that the founders, in any way,
intended for the state to claim power over any person’s conscience. They
understood quite clearly that no belief in God could ever be reduced to
state-endorsed rules.
While the right to worship God was permitted, it was intended as a
counter-measure to the power of the state, but never to be subject to controls
other than those chosen by the people themselves as individuals. More than the
state, and less than the God in which they believed. Mankind, in the eyes of the
founders, consisted of more than rules and laws. Mankind was made in the image
of something which he could not define, but had the right to seek and
desire.
Why Do We Need To Believe?
I recently saw a show on PBS titled “Prohibition”. I’ve always had some
interest in this era of history, with the crime and violence resulting from the
attempt of the people to do “good”. What I did not know was that Prohibitionists
helped usher in the Sixteenth Amendment, allowing the federal government to
directly tax people, and avoid tax dependence on alcohol sales. I also did not
realize that Prohibitionists encouraged hatred of Germans in WW1 so that German
breweries such as Pabst and Schlitz could be demonized as evil on two fronts,
being part of the German enemy, and producing alcohol that weakened the resolve
and courage of “true” Americans.
If there is such a thing as ‘the purity trap” and societies behave in such a
way as to suggest there is, then why do we focus on a system of laws and rules
that are impossible to keep, venerate them, offer praise and sacrifice to them,
and then regularly violate them?
Human society appears to live in contradiction to itself.
Western religion, mainly Christianity and Judaism, has focused on that very
fact, the inability to live by the very standards we set as “absolute” or
“perfect”, and then we declare it as a necessity to be “forgiven” so that we can
avoid the eternal punishment that comes from trying to do what we cannot do in
the first place!
This looks like a game where the dice are loaded, the dealer has stacked the
deck, and there is no way to win but to surrender to the inevitable. Why make
the rules at all if we know we can’t live up to them?
The main reason I see in terms of evolutionary significance, is that we need
to know that there are basic standards that apply, and we must be aware that we
aren’t perfect in the obedience to those standards. Why is this useful from an
evolutionary perspective?
Because we have the ability, by looking at the desired standards, to know
whether we are maintaining those standards both as individuals and as a group.
This is basically why we have the Ten Commandments as a venerated set of rules,
and why we originally held the US Constitution as the venerated set of rules by
which individuals could remain free.
In an evolutionary sense, therefore, we have a way of looking at ourselves
while not being dependent on how others view us. This,
very idea, in itself, creates detachment from the group, because once we begin
actually looking at specific standards, we have the ability to decide for
ourselves, how those standards apply to us personally. Instead of
following basic patterns of imitations provided by evolution in the form of
“mirror neurons”, we can look at a detached code of conduct apart from those who
seek to control us by their own standards. There is instantly a new, definable
reality apart from simply copying others.
If, for example, the law says ‘thou shalt not kill’, and I have killed no
one, I do not need anyone else to judge whether or not I have killed anyone. In
each of the Ten Commandments, whether they come from a supernatural entity or
not, these laws give us the right and the power to say “prove I did this”. That
is, we can maintain innocence by forcing others to demonstrate
publicly that we have done anyone harm.
Whatever the law, or however strict it may be, once it becomes a law for all
to see and understand, then all are responsible to see that it is upheld in the
strictest possible form. In this sense, there are a few of the Ten Commandments
that we can declare we have not violated in some sense. Most of us do not steal,
most do not kill, most do not bear false witness or lie, most try to honor our
parents, etc. As for the first two commandments, this may get a bit tricky,
since in trying to define God in some human form, we tend to violate the second
commandment.
As a result, we get caught in the “purity trap”, by which we try to perfectly
identify ourselves with God, and see ourselves collectively as a group, being
the agents of God. We know what happens when groups of people see themselves as
agents of God. The Spanish Inquisition would be one example. The Roman Catholic
Church would be an example of itself, along with the protestant churches that
literally killed neighbors in the search for perfect obedience to God.
Prohibition, like many laws being passed now, are not based on actions in
which any citizen can bring charges, but on acts in which no one is
harmed, yet an individual can be punished by the state itself, acting as accuser
and prosecutor.
Prohibition is the first example. Should any person be punished for simply
taking a drink,(or taking a drug) even if he or she has harmed no one? Can the
state itself act as witness, prosecutor, and judge of such an offense?
The original understanding from the biblical perspective is that everybody
“sins”, everybody breaks the law in some way, so we should not rush to condemn
the actions of another, especially when the other has done no harm to us. That
is known as the presumption of innocence, and corresponds to Isaiah 54:17, and
Isaiah 50:8.
That is, if the group begins to believe it acts collectively in the interests
of “God”, then the group itself has chosen representatives to be a witness,
prosecutor, and a judge. But Isaiah 50:8 specifically declares that
the accused is allowed to challenge the accuser, under protection of
God. This would mean that the state, as accuser, is acting as both
protector and accuser, with its own interest being the guide in any decision.
This means that the state has gone beyond the power to respect one’s
right to believe in God, and has also declared itself AS God, on behalf of the
people.
The people, seeking to protect society from itself, now sees itself as the
humble servants of God, doing “right” for the betterment of society. As Eric
Hoffer points out in “The True Believer”:
“The truth is that the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and
arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the
salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness. who
is destined to inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven…he who is not of his
faith is evil: he who will not listen shall perish”.
This is where the “purity trap” absolves us of individual responsibility. We
can secretly support it, while publicly saying, “What can I do? It’s the will of
the people.”
I recently had a judge tell me this when I challenged the seat belt law, on
clearly stated principles decided by the Supreme Court. In the interest of
protection, he told me, “Your Constitutional rights now take second
place to the compelling interest of the state”. He further
explained to me that he “had no choice” but to decide as the legislature and
higher courts told him. Apparently he had never read Jeremiah 5:26-31. Nor had
he read Isaiah 29:21.
It is also apparent that the officer who gave me the ticket had not read
Exodus 23:1-2. By the creation of laws, by acting as prosecutor,
witness, and judge, the laws themselves are violated! They are violated because
they are there for us to know, understand, and apply in our own
interest. This is what the Pharisees in Jesus’ day did, and why he
accused them of “shutting up the Kingdom of God to men” in Matthew 23:13.
When the state itself becomes both witness and prosecutor, the accused has no
right to challenge the accuser, since he is held accountable ONLY to the state.
As Hoffer explains:
“Even when men league themselves mightily together to promote tolerance and
peace on earth, they are likely to be violently intolerable toward those not of
a like mind….When we renounce the self and become part of a compact whole, we
not only renounce personal advantage, but are also rid of personal
responsibility…The hatred and cruelty which have their source in selfishness are
ineffectual things compared with the venom and ruthlessness born of
selflessness.”
The great evolutionary step of law was that every person, man or woman, can
claim equality before the law, and have the right to face his or her accusers,
and challenge them to prove the validity of their accusations.
Anyone
who tells you that the law is to be controlled collectively for your own good,
that you have no right to think and act in your own interests as long as you
harm no other, is a liar.
The Purity Trap - Why Religion is Bad.
In 1974, just before I left the WCG, I picked up a book called “EarthWalk” by
Philip Slater. I had never had such an eye opening experience before that time.
“EarthWalk” was one of the most profound books I’ve ever read.
Recently, I was reading from his blog, http://philipslater.wordpress.com and
discovered the essay on the trap of purity. It is related to much we have
discovered when we left the CoGs. A part of that is quoted below:
“But all cultures have safety valves that help release the tensions
created by this twisting of our genetic makeup. Cultures survive only when
they’re impure–when they accumulate inconsistencies and contradictions like
lichen on a rock.
Medieval Europe, for example, had a Feast of
Fools, during which nobles and peasants exchanged roles, priests were the butt
of practical jokes, and all the usual taboos and rules of deference to one’s
superiors were abolished for a day. Similarly, the Japanese have a tradition
that anything said while drunk must have no repercussions in their daily lives.
Since people are more complex than any system of ideas, these contradictions and
inconsistencies are necessary for a culture to survive. As Mumford put
it:
‘This tendency toward laxity, corruption, and disorder is the
only thing that enables a system to escape self-asphyxiation.’ Some early
Christian leaders, like Paul, portrayed celibacy as the highest good. But if
this principle had been enforced for everyone the Catholic Church would have
disappeared like the Shakers, who never reproduced themselves. Mumford
attributes the longevity of the Catholic Church to its ability to absorb
contradictory traditions:
“It is not the purity of Roman Catholic
doctrine that has kept that Church alive and enabled it to flourish even in a
scientific age but just the opposite.”
It survived, he says, because
of the many ideas and practices ‘seeping in from other systems of thought and
other cultures,’ especially that of the Greeks, and later, of science. Not to
mention the pagan elements (Santa Claus, Christmas trees, Easter eggs)
incorporated into the Christian religion as it swept through Europe.”
Slater’s description above opens up the idea that cultures cannot survive by
being totally “pure”. By focusing exclusively on perfect obedience to a set of
rules or laws, they eventually go extinct from lack of adaptation. Slater brings
out a parallel to this idea in “EarthWalk”:
“There is a cybernetic law
that states that the more probable a message is, the less information it
provides. The information contained in a message, for example, decreases with
its repetition”.
What we see, then, is a comparison between the
“probability” of a message, and the “purity” of a message. By emphasizing the
purity of a message, that is, the “truth” of an unchanging nature, we increase
its probability, but we reduce the information it contains for useful adaptation
to the world around us. If any “message(Catholicism, Mormonism, any ‘ism’)” is
repeated to the point that we cannot accept variation, we will lose our ability
to adapt to necessary change.
If you compare this to my last essay regarding
genes and the “Cambrian Explosion”, you will notice a parallel between the
action of genes and the need for “purity” in any social system.
What Richard
Dawkins calls the “genetic replicative algorithm” is an action by which genes
perfectly copy themselves from generation to generation by controlling as much
of their environment as possible, to avoid change. That is, the genes select a
process of “purity” to ensure that no alterations occur in their replicative
process. If the “memes” of a culture are extensions of the genes, then we can
easily see the evolutionary connection between a culture seeking “purity” and
the gene pool seeking to avoid change and thus control its replicative
environment.
What we see in both the culture or religion, and the process of
genetic replication, is that “information”, that which lacks predictability, is
a threat to both genes and cultures. This means that cultures, as extension of
the genes, will seek to minimize choice, or options that threaten the
reproductive integrity of the culture.
What is immediately realized
from this is that religion is a process developed naturally in evolution, and,
while it serves purposes of survival in environments with little change, it
threatens the life of species in environments with what economist/futurist
Robert Theobald called the “Rapids of Change”.
Religion, as
generally recognized, is nothing more than a cultural evolutionary strategy to
reduce stress within a culture by reducing its options. The more “purity”
maintained in a culture, the less uncertainty it experiences, and therefore less
stress.
Slater has shown a link between genetic replication and the strategy
by which cultures avoid uncertainty, by pointing out the basic law of
information theory. The more probable a message, the less information it
contains. The more “religious” a person is, therefore, the more adept he or she
becomes at strategies that avoid constant change. This suggests that religion is
merely a useful evolutionary strategy. Once we become aligned with a “universal
truth”, we are inclined to seek out those who agree with that truth.
“Purity” can only succeed if it proselytizes. Slater continues
below:
“Cultural systems force living things into boxes. Inconsistencies create
air-holes that allow these living things to breathe. Every cultural system must
have contradictions in order for its participants to remain human, because
human beings are inconsistent and have contradictory needs. We’re active and
passive, organized and impulsive, aggressive and gentle, cooperative and
competitive. Yet every cultural system tends to suppress some part of that
complex humanity.
So when a culture changes, it eases the process
if parts of the older tradition survive, even when–especially when–they
contradict the values of the new one. Vestiges of the joyful celebrations of
life and nature that characterized pagan cultures softened the impact of the
death-oriented, otherworldly Christianity that was imposed on Europeans during
the Dark Ages. Easter eggs, a pagan fertility symbol, helped Christians feel
that there might, after all, be something to be said for life here on
earth.
Healthy cultures are packrat's. They don’t throw away
anything. They keep odds and ends of customs that contradict their dominant
values.”
Slater has again pointed out another parallel of cultures and genes. Once a
culture is “informed” with inconsistencies and aberrations, it isolates them
often by putting them in jail, placing them in therapy, putting them in mental
institutions, or ways that isolate the aberration, but maintains the
“information” provided by the aberration or inconsistency. Organisms have this
same tendency by incorporating what used to be called “junk DNA”, which, as Dr
Sharon Moalem points out, are actually former viral DNA, which the organism uses
for future reference. This DNA provides a kind of “database” which the organism
can use in many ways, from “jumping genes” that randomly populate newly formed
brains, allowing greater individuality, to reference of the viral DNA to create
defenses against new viral infections.
In that same sense, cultures act as
“packrat's”, storing inconsistencies and aberrations as a “database” to study and
identify the nature of each behavior, just as the immune system “tags’ and
identifies each new viral invader and neutralizes it in the body.
Slater then
makes comparisons to more modern cultures:
“Communist bureaucracies could not have functioned at all without the
system of official bribery carried over from Czarist days, and capitalists who
are most dogmatic about free markets are the first to seek government subsidies
and try to control prices through collusion. Ceremonious Brits adore making fun
of pomposity, and materialistic Americans are addicted to sentimental movies
proclaiming that the best things in life are free. In 1635 the intensely
utilitarian Dutch went mad over tulips–the most useless of plants–paying
astronomical sums for a single bloom and almost destroying their economy. And
while the early 1950's were notoriously obsessed with planning for future
success, the most popular song was “Che Sera, Sera.”
When an old
cultural system begins to give way to a new one its inconsistencies come under
attack. There is an increase in fundamentalism–a call for ideological purity.
These are seen as attempts to shore up the old system, but they actually weaken
it further.”
In Jewish history, the Jews were faced with this same problem. They were
allegedly commanded to obey the laws of God perfectly, and avoid the “leavening”
of other nations. That is, they were not to be “informed” by the inconsistencies
and paganism which other nations offered. How could the Jews successfully live
among other cultures if they were not permitted to conquer and control those
cultures? If they truly had the covenant with God at Sinai, why wouldn’t
God have led them to victory over all other cultures, so they could enforce
their truth on the world?
The reason, assuming there was a God who did so, is stated above. Had
Israel been successful and enforced “God’s law” all over the earth, the very
purity by which Israel was forced to live would actually destroy the
evolutionary ability to adapt and grow with their environment! Israel’s
“success” could not have depended on the conquest of other nations and a world
ruling kingdom, since that very success would have doomed them to eventual
extinction!
The Jews, therefore, offered an interesting solution: while
maintaining the “purity” of their holy text, the Torah, they began to record a
system of rules and laws(Mishna, Gemora, and Talmud) which allowed them to adapt
to the cultures and societies around them, even incorporating various ideas from
those cultures, while maintaining the “purity” of the Torah only by giving it
“lip service”, the very thing which Jesus had allegedly condemned in his
ministry. “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men(Mark 7:7)”.
In genetic systems, there are the “germ
cells” which maintain the “purity” of sexual reproduction. These cells are not
altered by viruses. The basic information necessary for sexual reproduction is
passed on, and the organism maintains its identity in a species. The somatic
cells, however, are influenced by viruses, and can be altered by the
“information” provided by viral DNA. The Jews had maintained the “germ cell”
purity of the Torah, but had created an adaptive “somatic cell” system composed
of the Talmud, which allowed them to adapt to the “cultural DNA” of other
civilizations.
Christianity and Islam followed much the same model, by
creating a “DNA” of print, allowed by Gutenberg’s printing press, which passed
on the basic replicative information of the “germ cell”, while allowing for the
constant speciation and splintering of interpretation of various religions,
until we have thousands of religions that provide for constant adaptability in
the West today.
The main difference, however, is that individuals can read
either Bible or Koran for themselves, creating even more individualist diversity
for competition and adaptation among systems. Notice what Slater proposes as a
result of this “informing” process:
“The Protestant Reformation in Europe was an attempt to ‘purify’ the
Catholic Church of its contradictions and compromises with paganism. It sought
to suppress the cult of the Virgin Mary and reestablish the supremacy of the
Father–to make Christianity a more perfectly patriarchal religion and
de-sacralize ‘Mother’ Nature.
The result of this new purity was to
weaken popular commitment to Christianity altogether. Atheism and secular
humanism grew rapidly, and European churches never again held the sway over
public life they’d once had.
The power of kings, which in medieval
times was limited by the nobles and hedged about by custom, reached a peak under
the reign of France’s Louis XIV, who detached the nobles from their land base
and brought them to Versailles. As continued by Louis XV and Louis XVI, it was
the purest form of monarchy that ever existed in Western Europe, and for that
very reason was the beginning of the end.
Centralized power achieved
an even purer form in the 20th century dictator. The dictator had no limitations
at all–no concerns about legitimacy, no traditional obligations attached to the
role, no restrictions based on custom. The dictator was authoritarian power at
its absolute purest, and hence an unmistakable symptom of its decadence. Nazi
Germany’s Third Reich–the purest and most perfect expression of Control Culture
that ever existed–lasted only twelve years. And today the former Axis powers are
three of the most vital democracies in the world.
The purest forms
of a social system always appear as it decays. Often, when a system is ailing,
its believers try to strip away its contradictions, leaving a system that is
more pure, more rigid, and hence more fragile. Mao Zedong couldn’t tolerate the
“laxity, corruption, and disorder” in Chinese communism. By launching the
Cultural Revolution–trying to strip away all traditional values and
entrepreneurism–he smothered the system and opened the door to capitalistic and
democratic reforms.
In a viable culture, customs, ideas, and myths
may fall into disuse, but they’re never thrown out. Cleaning out the cultural
attic means junking the counterpoise that keeps the whole structure from getting
too one-sided and collapsing.
The ‘purification’ efforts of
fundamentalist ideologues are symptomatic of terminal illness. Radical leftists
in the past have often crippled themselves through the same egoistic devotion to
ideological purity, preferring to go down with the ship singing “nearer to the
left than thee” rather than share a lifeboat with conservatives and compromising
liberals.
Mumford’s “laxity, corruption, and disorder” is an ironic
phrase, but it’s the way contradictions are viewed by ideologues. Purists
believe they’re trying to ‘revive’ or ‘revitalize’ a system when they call for a
return to ‘basic values’ or ‘fundamental principles’, but since it’s the
“laxity, corruption, and disorder” that protect a system from self-asphyxiation,
they’re in effect smothering it. They’re more committed to the idea of the
system than the compromised reality. They’re not only willing to go down with
the ship, they’re willing to sink it to prove their devotion.
Slater has correctly analyzed the problem, but the “neo-conservatives”
and the evangelicals are trying desperately to “return” to a purity which the
United States never possessed, nor was it born of such ideas. The “original
intent” of the founders was basic to the paradigm examined above: for those who
chose, the Bible could be used as the “germ cell” of future security, but the
nation grew and prospered on its “laxity and disorder”.
Cambrian Explosion–Evidence For God?
The creationists think they found evidence for God in the Cambrian Explosion.
Because distinct species “suddenly” appear adapted to their environmental niche,
creationists argue that surely an “outside” hand organized this life.
The Cambrian Explosion is defined from Wikipedia:
The Cambrian explosion
or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid (over a period of many millions
of years) appearance, around 530 million years ago, of most major phyla, as
demonstrated in the fossil record,[1][2] accompanied by major diversification of
other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3]
Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of
individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the
following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an
order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate
of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble
today’s.[5]
This sudden origin of life resembling today’s over a rapid period has been
used by creationists as “evidence” of God. In fact, there is no such evidence,
and studies in science are proving more to be so.
In fact, new evidence strongly suggests that this quick formation of species
actually come from needs of our immune system, resulting in sexual reproduction
as a means of “screening” random genetic mutations.
The idea of sex as resulting from needs of the immune system is called the
“Red Queen’s Hypothesis” as stated in this Wikipedia entry:
One of the most widely accepted theories to explain the persistence of sex is
that it is maintained to assist sexual individuals in resisting
parasites, also known as the Red Queen’s Hypothesis.[5][10][11]
“When an environment changes, previously neutral or deleterious alleles can
become favorable. If the environment changed sufficiently rapidly (i.e. between
generations), these changes in the environment can make sex advantageous for the
individual. Such rapid changes in environment are caused by the
co-evolution between hosts and parasites.”
“Hosts” and “parasites” are explained simply enough. For example, my body,
“me”, becomes a host for a “parasite” such as a virus or bacteria, which, over
time, actually becomes part of “me.” Continued in Wikipedia, below:
“Imagine,
for example that there is one gene in parasites with two alleles p and P
conferring two types of parasitic ability, and one gene in hosts with two
alleles h and H, conferring two types of parasite resistance, such that
parasites with allele p can attach themselves to hosts with the allele h, and P
to H. Such a situation will lead to cyclic changes in allele frequency – as p
increases in frequency, h will be disfavored.”
Selection of one system over another, simply by matching pairs of alleles in
a genetic system. A majority of one type will gradually select over another
type, creating “patterns” that lead to developed species over time. Back to
Wikipedia:
“In reality, there will be several genes involved in the relationship between
hosts and parasites. In an asexual population of hosts, offspring will only have
the different parasitic resistance if a mutation arises. In a sexual
population of hosts, however, offspring will have a new combination of parasitic
resistance alleles.”
A combination of genes as in sexual reproduction grants more diversity, but
this very diversity actually allows for more protection in our immune system. A
mutation of a “parasite’ such as a virus or bacteria is limited in the damage it
can do, because sexual reproduction causes variations within the gene pool of a
species. A mutated virus may enter our bodies, but the genetic differences
created by sexual reproduction limits the damage done to us as a
species.
Quit simply, over time, this constant battle and interchange among
host and parasites, creates a selection process, in which a “survival strategy”
emerges that limits the effects of random genetic mutations of viral or
bacterial infection. Back to Wikipedia:
“In other words, like Lewis Carroll’s
Red Queen, sexual hosts are continually adapting in order to stay ahead of their
parasites.
Evidence for this explanation for the evolution of sex is provided by
comparison of the rate of molecular evolution of genes for kinases and
immunoglobulins in the immune system with genes coding other proteins. The genes
coding for immune system proteins evolve considerably faster.[12][13]
…. It was found that clones that were plentiful at the beginning of the study
became more susceptible to parasites over time. As parasite infections
increased, the once plentiful clones dwindled dramatically in number. Some
clonal types disappeared entirely. Meanwhile, sexual snail populations remained
much more stable over time.[14][15]
In 2011, researchers used the microscopic roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans as
a host and the pathogenic bacteria Serratia marcescens to generate a
host-parasite coevolutionary system in a controlled environment, allowing them
to conduct more than 70 evolution experiments testing the Red Queen Hypothesis.
They genetically manipulated the mating system of C. elegans, causing
populations to mate either sexually, by self-fertilization, or a mixture of both
within the same population. Then they exposed those populations to the S.
marcescens parasite. It was found that the self-fertilizing populations of C.
elegans were rapidly driven extinct by the co-evolving parasites while sex
allowed populations to keep pace with their parasites, a result consistent with
the Red Queen Hypothesis.[16][17]
Critics of the Red Queen hypothesis question whether the constantly-changing
environment of hosts and parasites is sufficiently common to explain the
evolution of sex.”
In other words, sexual reproduction caused a genetic diversity from
generation to generation, but acted to stabilize the species over time,
both limiting random change and protecting against excessive damage from random
mutation.
In fact, the very exchange of viral information over time
caused each organism to select certain genetic information over other
information, with constant competition cancelling out factors that didn’t
contribute to survival.
Exchanging DNA at a more rapid pace, gradually developed “strategies” that
combined to create an overall survival strategy that sought to screen out
destructive viral and bacterial agents. Over time, this process of reproduction
became sexual reproduction, because genetic information could be passed on and
controlled within a species by the male “informing” the egg of the female. The
pattern remained generally the same, except now sperm acted as the informing
agent, entering the egg, whereas before, a virus entered the cells of less
organized bodies, and began replicating itself in order to survive. These
replicating processes, over time, became a coordinated “survival strategy’ that
worked within a species, with competition among sperm acting in similar fashion
to a virus competing to enter a cell.
As you see in the quote from Wikipedia above, cloned systems gradually became
extinct, while sexually producing systems maintained stability in their
generations. In fact, it is that stability that gradually allowed for sexual
selection over cloning.
It is this process in which the male, battling or
competing for reproductive rights, is able to “inform” the female with the best
genetic “information” as a result of that competition. Competition, instead of
providing for evolution, actually guarded against evolutionary change, or at
least guarded against randomized evolutionary change.
While we may look for a
“mind” or “higher power’ as a regulator in this regard, the simple fact is that
all the various DNA strands combining in a multi-celled organism would each
select for information consistent with its own goals of survival. The process of
life, and its complexity, does not require the maintenance and regulation of
“God.”
Sexual reproduction emerged simply as a need for providing a defense against
random genetic invasion. Scientists today know that the “germ” cells, those
cells that are reproduced through transmission of sexual genetic traits, are not
directly affected by viral infection. Germ cells are those cells that pass on
information to your children. These, of course, are composed of egg and sperm
cells. Another form of cells, however, are known as somatic cells, and the
information in somatic cells are never passed on to germ cells. Mutations that
occur in the somatic cell cannot be passed on to the germ cells.
This suggests that the germ cells, directly associated with genetic
inheritance through sex, “screen” unnecessary changes from the environment.
Females, as the “receiver” of genetic information from men, naturally develop
“screening” mechanisms that allow for specific selection of values and cultural
traits that tend to forge security among cultures. Socially, this screening
process among females has tended to control social arrangements.
From this evolves a selection of related traits in which we progress from
religion as a means of securing our collective selves against death, to
governments that secure us collectively against threats on earth, and to greater
protection of ourselves as members of the group.
Just as rapid exchange of viruses and bacteria was gradually isolated into an
immune system over time, so did the social process of animals become locked into
protective strategies based on sexual reproduction, such as mating rituals among
different species, even species that show very little difference visually to the
human eye, which will develop very specific “signals” by which a species selects
a proper mate. This allowed each species to adapt strictly to its environment,
and to develop resistant genes to external change.
Humans, of course, began to alter this strict behavior when they began
traveling extensively and encountering diseases which resulted from viruses and
bacteria in foreign climates. In time, rites of passage began to develop, after
the models of ritual mating behavior, generally that included fire, as it was
discovered fire destroyed the ‘demons” that made the people sick. Food that was
cooked with fire destroyed microbes that were harmful, which allowed for a less
responsive immune system over time, and ritual behaviors developed that
protected groups of humans over time.
What becomes more and more apparent over time, is that all of these
basic drives result from the immune system. Sexual reproduction, geared
to ritual mating protections, rites of passage, and even religion, over time,
served to “immunize” us to the final confrontation of our own death. In many
cases, this form of “immunizing” actually was a kind of “numbing” from those
aspects of life that were too shocking to face constantly. Religion gradually
allowed us to think that the trials and tribulations of this life are nothing
compared to what is waiting for us “on the other side.”
Over time, and with exposure to many different religions, it became
increasingly complicated to select one that allowed us to ritualize our
behaviors and avoid the stress and “overchoice” that culture and technology
gradually imposed. Men who weren’t easily convinced by religion needed
government, and government began to replace the need of security, the “numbing”
immunity that religion could no longer provide.
Marshall McLuhan, the “media guru”, pointed out that the communications
medium, whatever it may be, alphabetic text, printing press, radio, TV , etc, is
a form of “numbing” of those parts of us that are directly affected by the
medium, similar to local anesthesia. The more easily we communicate common
feelings and assumptions among ourselves, the more we are “numbed” to the
differences that exist among us. Shared “meanings” communicated within our
groups, reduced stress within the group by reducing the choices that would have
been imposed on us as individuals.
Processes by which early groups formed alliances was also a form of “numbing”
by combining social/sexual relations within the tribe, further restricting the
genetic interference that would alter collective security. from mating rituals
among animals, we developed rites of passage for puberty aged children.
From this, we gradually found ways of “numbing’ our self identity into
false-family relations, such as “children of God”, “brotherhood of man”, terms
which suggested genetic relations, but were merely conceptions representing such
extensions of self. As such, we began looking for more abstract ways of
combining collective “immunity” to the point, as Slater writes, that we
discovered the “machine-like response”, organizing ourselves in such a way when
faced with threat that sacrifice of individuals for the “greater good” allowed
us to defeat those cultures less prepared in such mechanical fashion.
In this instance, natural selection became biased toward mechanical processes
of organization that led to empires with god-kings and processes of organization
that denied individual freedom of choice.
It may be that our deepest dilemmas today are between the immunity of the
individual “self” and the collective “self” acting to preserve the “greatest
good”. I believe that has always been the underlying argument in civilizations,
tracing our decision-making processes to extensions of our immune system. This
would also fit with Bruce Lipton’s “Biology of Belief”, and the emergent
discoveries in epigenetics.
Government “immunizes’ us against the threat of growing old and having no
means of survival, and this can also turn into a war-like “civilizing” influence
over other nations, as we see in the US today, with invasions of Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Libya.
The more that individuals are empowered by communications media, however, the
greater the threat of revolt against the evolutionary trends toward
centralization. Each person becomes a “whole” rather than a mere “cell” in the
body, or “cog in the machine”. This empowerment of individuals actually
“re-sensitizes” us to events on a more personal level.
As such, we look for ways to “immunize’ our self against the swallowing up of
collectivist ideologies. “Terrorism” is merely the war of evolving
communications technology. Each individual begins to exercise power that s/he
could only dream of at one time, and could only act collectively to achieve. We
are more and more empowered to act as individuals, and this will be the central
focus of emergent systems.
This empowerment of the individual against both church and state, however,
forces us to develop new relations that transcend geographical isolation, and
even local communities. Internet transactions allow us to participate
“piecemeal” in many different groups, even as many different persons. The
individual of the past becomes a complex set of relationships, and can even
pretend to be of the opposite sex, pose as a much younger or older person, and
is less and less restricted to the necessary identity imposed by both church and
state.
From the biological system that gradually centralized us as living bodies
over time, telecommunications now permits us to ‘de-centralize” our very
personalities in ways that we never before imagined, and whether you are atheist
or religious, “God” will undergo many new definitions.