3 Valuations
Since religion, humanism and evolution all have survival in common, some consequences of the theory will be discussed in this chapter. We will look at some valuations in connection with survival. But even though mathematical theorems are true within the realm of mathematics, their application to reality and the premises may always be questioned.
3.1 Human dignity and survival value
It is hardly possible to prove (scientifically) that all humans have equal dignity; it is merely an agreement based on emotions and a religious or human view among a sufficiently large number of individuals. There are also many other values. For instance, if we ask an employee, the answer will probably be that we have different market values, and a biologist may say that we have different survival values etcetera. I prefer to ignore the former, because the latter has a higher priority, because if we do not survive, we may forget about all values.
According to adopted classical biology, characters and genes are said to have positive survival value if they increase the fitness of the individual (i. e. the probability that the individual will survive, see definitions 4.6 and 5.1) and negative value if they decrease it.
But in this case, it may be of interest to investigate the survival value of the individual and this may obviously depend on the definition of the value. The first value that comes to our mind is perhaps the fitness of the individual. Already in this case a problem arises. This probability is difficult to estimate for most individuals. Perhaps it would be necessary to generate thousands of clones of the individual and to estimate the share of parents to new individuals, but this is hardly a feasible method.
There are other possible definitions. Considering that evolution strives to solve a very complex collective survival problem (the simultaneous maximization of mean fitness and genetic disorder), whose degree of difficulty widely exceeds the mental ability of man, we may ask the following question: To what extent may every individual contribute to the solution of the collective survival problem?
The answer is that all individuals contribute equally. In order to see this, let us first look at a shocking intellectual experiment showing that this survival value depends only on the distribution of parameters in a large population and not on the possible excellence of certain individuals. In fact, the fitness of the individual has little relevance in the solution of the collective problem.
For example, assume that parameters are always uniformly distributed over a many-dimensional interval that may be moved around according to some rules of genetic variation (a uniform distribution is constant over some region in parameter space). This is an utopian situation, but in an intellectual experiment almost everything is possible.
The figure 3.1 shows a uniform distribution over a rectangle adapted for maximum mean fitness over a region of acceptability. The optimality follows from the fact that the thick edges have equal length to the left and right and to the top and bottom. Because if the rectangle is slightly moved in some arbitrary direction, the surface attained on one side is lost on the other side. Thus, the hitting probability of the uniform distribution on the region of acceptability is maximal.
Suppose that the small circle inside the rectangle does not belong to the region of acceptability. Then, because the distribution is uniform, it follows that this circle may be moved around inside the rectangle without violating the optimality. This means that all individuals having parameter values falling inside the rectangle have no effect whatsoever on the solution of the problem.
Figure 3.1.
In other words, the only individuals that have any survival value in this sense are those whose parameter values fall exactly on the edges; all other individuals are useless. This means that in order to maximize the mean fitness of the uniform distribution, using the condition of optimality that the mean values of parameters in the population will remain unchanged from parents to offspring (cp. section 4.4.1), the distribution has to be changed to a distribution along the edges, which contradicts the original task. And according to the proof of the theorem of normal adaptation (sections 4.4.1 and 5.2), all distributions that deviate from normal have to be changed. The normal distribution is the only distribution by which the problem may be exactly solved without any changes, at least from a theoretical point of view. And in this case all individuals have equal survival value.
In practice, however, the problem can never be exactly solved, because the number of individuals is always limited giving rise to a statistical uncertainty. And because of the tremendous complexity of the process in many dimensions, when the real distribution of parameters is not known, it will be extremely difficult to evaluate different individuals with respect to their survival value.
An alternative possible definition is the inverse of the distance to a higher peak in the genetic landscape. It may be that a fairly homogeneous population occupies some peak in the landscape. In order to find higher peaks, the genetic disorder has to be increased by evolution according to the second law of thermodynamics, i. e. it has to go down in valleys in all possible directions looking for higher peaks on the other side. So if peaks represent superior individuals and valleys inferior ones, it may be that some inferior individual in some valley is nearer to some higher peak than the most superior individual in the population. Because of the tremendous complexity of the genetic landscape, it will be practically impossible to decide who is nearer to a higher peak. Thus, we may as well presume that all individuals have equal survival value.
3.2 Free will
According to Dawkins we are survival machines driven by our genes. Therefore a relevant question is if a machine can have a free will or not; a question that is left open. According to our theory the second law of thermodynamics is seemingly in control of our lives more than we are willing to admit. Dependent on the corresponding landscapes, it determines the outcomes on both the genetic and mental level and is responsible for both biological and cultural diversity.
From a basis of knowledge conveyed by parents, teachers, researchers and friends, our brain creates new knowledge by small changes in the existing basis. With all respect to the enormous impact of the transistor, the step from radio receiver tube to transistor must not be very wide in the brains of the inventors (Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain, 1948). They had a huge basis of physical knowledge at their disposal. On the other hand, had the transistor been invented contemporary to Jesus, the step would have been enormous.
Another example of a cultural small step process is the development of melodies for the European Song Contest. Songs, instrumentations and harmonies that differ too much from the dominating pattern will not survive.
According to Martin Luther (the founder of protestantism) we have no free will because God is omnipotent and does not play dice. I think he was right in the sense that there can’t be any freedom of choice in a deterministic system. As I see it, the only way to have some freedom of choice, imagination and creativity is to include some random uncertainty into the system. Since our nervous system is a physical system totally ruled by the omnipotent laws of nature including the entropy law, which solely is about chance, probability and disorder, this is a credible possibility.
But, would such a system have a will? This model of the brain does not leave much room for any free will other than an illusive one. It seems more likely that our conscious mind is completely dependent on the physical activity of the nerve cells, while the contrary will not hold. This activity, in turn, depends entirely on the laws of nature. This will hold even though the cell activity and the conscious mind constitute a coherent quantum unit as suggested by Zohar. This makes the brain more like a system of interconnected continuously rolling adaptive dices, with an immense number of possible outcomes, which may be bad, neutral or good. This gives us an enormous freedom but hardly any will. But an illusive will may originate from the ability of the process always striving towards a maximum or a goal. Besides, the random process may exhibit both imagination and creativity. It prefers higher peaks prior to lower, or better alternatives prior to worse; an approach also preferable by human beings (Zohar), and therefore - even if we know that we have no free will - we will continue to improve on ourselves and the society in a creative manner.
3.3 Conflict and reconciliation
Many severe conflicts are going on around the world and violence seems to be the most frequently used method to solve the conflicts, by the rule “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. This is indubitably a primitive method built-in in our genes, because it is important to maintain or even improve on the preserves.
The teachings of Jesus, however, are more sophisticated: Matt. 5:44, “but I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Matt. 5:25, “agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him.” Matt. 5:39, “but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” This more sophisticated attitude may also exist in our genes (because of the maximization of mean fitness), but must otherwise be learnt, preferably in childhood.
Now, according to the theory, every conflict is generated by some evolutionary processes, which no man can be responsible for. So, if the adversary is not responsible, why should we take revenge?
It may be that the adversary thinks that we have done something very wrong, thus inducing an attack of terror. Instead of taking revenge, we may convince the adversary that none of us are responsible, because all conflicts are generated by evolution - a random process ruled by the laws of nature including the entropy law. Then, if the adversary is willing to accept this argument, we may work out some suitable compromise. If not, we have to defend ourselves, in which case violence may be inevitable, unfortunately. But, we still take no revenge, because we know that the adversary is not responsible. This is at least to some extent, in agreement with the teachings of Jesus. But of course, in certain cases, this may be an extremely difficult step to take.
The same type of arguments are also applicable to other areas such as for instance criminality, which hardly promotes the survival or the competitiveness of society, but may be seen as a part of a natural variability in a population. And of course, society must protect itself against harmful individuals; a protection that may also be seen as punishment.