Defective Design—Part 1

Evolution has been a disputed theory, ever since Darwin so eloquently described it, over 150 years ago. Most of the controversy and resistance to the concept of evolution has been led by adherents of Christian fundamentalism. The core cause of that Christian opposition has stemmed from the fact that evolution presents an explanation that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible's Book of Genesis—that the world was created by the monotheistic God as a perfect and final design… that is, by an “Intelligent Design."

I won't go into a justification of the theory of evolution here—it has been verified countless times by strong scientific evidence. But I wish to address one specific fallacy of the intelligent design idea that I believe adds to undermining it... the fact that there are several examples in nature of not intelligent design but, in fact, defective design. The operation of the human body is an excellent example. If, as Christianity declares, humans are made in the image of God, then shouldn't we humans represent the epitome of intelligent design? In fact, however, our bodies exhibit several defective behaviors, of which I will describe two.

Before launching into these flaws, I want to make it clear that evolution has no plan. There is no goal or end product of evolution. One can easily come to feel that the beauty, elegance, and balance of the natural world was brought about by a super-intelligent, guiding hand. How could our world be so wonderful, without that intentional design? Evolutionary science has irrefutably demonstrated what the actual process is—one that slowly builds, step-by-step, on a series of in-the-moment choices. It just happens on its own. 

Here is how it goes: mutations—in the form of genetic variations—constantly occur and are then passed on to the next generation. Those new variations then find themselves in competition with preexisting forms. The winner survives and procreates, sending its genes into the future. The loser will not get a chance to procreate and will go extinct. Thus a minutely-improved version comes into being. Very soon there will be another tiny mutation—favorable or not—and if favorable, it will add its tiny, improved modification to the organism.  Gradually, this is how all the millions of species on planet Earth came to be in their current form... beautiful and elegant. And all creatures will continue to evolve—slowly but inexorably bringing about new and varied life forms.

One key aspect of how this process works, however, is that there is no backing up—there is no chance to correct any potentially flawed changes that are made along the way… flaws that at the time are of no consequence. At each tiny step of the process a winner is declared, as the fittest critter survives and multiplies. The winner need not be perfect; just a minuscule bit better than the last.

So sometimes a mutation occurs, and because it is a momentary improvement, it gets built into an organism. It may later prove to have not been the best long-term change, but that less-than-perfect initial change is now a permanent aspect of the organism, which must be dealt with as best it can. Now let me describe those two flaws of the human organism that got built in that I mentioned above. Because they cannot be removed, we have to deal with their defective behaviors.

Two examples of human defective design, next time…

Fly on a bean plant

Is this fly trying to find the bean's brain? Click to enlarge.
 

Bean Brains

I have written several times about how science is progressively breaking down what once were considered to be insurmountable barriers between humans and other species. From manual skills to cognition, we are increasingly recognizing that other critters have capabilities that we once claimed were exclusively ours. A few examples are (1) the creation and use of sophisticated tools, (2) the ability to show intention and to plan ahead, (3) the use of complex communication, and (4) the capacity to perceive what might be going on in the mind of another critter.

Many people want to grant some of these powers to only our fellow primates the great apes, but dogs, elephants, and porpoises—among others—also exhibit them. In fact, science is extending some of these capabilities down to insects... and even bacteria! But surely, some skeptics would say, we must stop short of plants. At best they might possess some rudimentary form of nervous system, but are they able to communicate, let alone display intent? Come on! Well, trees can communicate quite sophisticatedly and their roots even suggest some kind of simple cognition—as the tree acquires knowledge and uses it to its advantage.

OK, so some fascinating experiments have been done with noble trees, but surely everyday garden vegetables can't do any of this, right? Wrong. Recent experiments by Canadian and Italian researchers suggest that bean plants may exhibit signs of sentience... or even intent! Their test was to see if the tendrils of bean plants randomly sweep their vicinity and blindly latch on to a stake to crawl up, or instead may intently seek and locate stakes.

They placed a bunch of baby bean pots—some with a nearby stake, and others with no available stakes. Those plants near a stake measurably sent out their tendrils—non-randomly—in quite a controlled and predictable manner, while their stakeless companions' tendrils floundered randomly around. It appeared to be, according to the scientists, as if it were an anticipatory, goal-directed process on the part of the tendrils.

These experiments certainly did not unambiguously demonstrate the existence of bean brains, but something fascinating was happening. Time to once again reconsider those mental barriers we erect between ourselves and the rest of life. Might a bean enjoy watching TV?

Autocratic Inclinations

[Note to the reader. I usually do not venture into the political arena, since it is so volatile and one's opinion will often change, in the light of later reflection. Current events in the US, however, have reached such a fever pitch that I feel almost compelled to post this article. It came to me a few months ago, when I was pondering the fact that Donald Trump's administration has often been referred to as Nazi-like. That seemed to me to be a rather strong accusation, until I read a book that described Adolph Hitler's personal attributes and saw how they so closely paralleled Trump's qualities. So I offer this analysis--and its greater length--as something different from my usual postings.]

I just read a recent (2018) book by Tom Phillips, who is an English historian, journalist, and humor writer. He is a student of anthropology, history, and philosophy. His book is both a serious and a farcical comment on the human condition, which is well displayed in its title—Humans: A Brief History of How We Fucked It All Up.

If you take a realistic look at the behavior we humans have exhibited, over the last several millennia, you either are forced to descend into a state of deep depression, or salvage your sanity by chuckling at the irony and absurdity of it all. It's easy to respond to the chaotic and unhinged nature of society's behaviors with a feeling that things are terribly wrong, due to the fact that humans have become a species that is fouling its beautiful nest.

In order to maintain some semblance of hope or optimism in the face of what we're doing to ourselves and our world, it can help to fall back to a perspective of viewing it as a ludicrous situation, rather than letting it bring on a deep depression. That is what Phillips does in his book: turn to humor in order to avoid a feeling of doom; so he shows us how we can step back and anthropologically regard humans as just another experiment in the evolution of life on this planet. Maybe Homo sapiens will prevail in the long run... maybe not.

Phillips's book spans a wide range of the follies of human behavior. It is both a penetrating analysis of the foolhardy annals of the human species, as well as a light-hearted (to keep the reader from crying into his beer) description of our perennially bad behavior. He repeatedly demonstrates our human inclination to fuck things up, despite the fact that we regard ourselves as the most intelligent critter on the planet. The book causes me repeatedly to shake my head at our inanity, while alternately and spontaneously guffawing at our buffoonery, as he astutely portrays it.

In a chapter titled “People Power,” Phillips reviews how humans have managed to screw up governing their societies, not withstanding the many attempts at creating a just or democratic governance model. Despite the general belief that democracy creates a healthy society, leaders and governments have time after time found ways to undermine government “by the people, of the people, and for the people,” and thus fend off true democracy.

In his presentation of the many foolish rulers over the eons, one of the more wretched examples he describes is Adolph Hitler. Phillips ably makes the point that, although we tend to regard the “Nazi regime as ruthlessly efficient,” Hitler himself was an “incompetent, lazy egomaniac and his government was an absolute clown show.”

I found his analysis surprising, because most of us look back on the Third Reich as a monstrous regime that instituted a horrible genocidal slaughter and came frighteningly close to subjugating Europe. We do not realize that Hitler and the Nazi government in fact was “an absolute clown show.”

So what convinced me that Phillips had a valid line of reasoning? Well, besides the many examples of Hitler’s absurdities that he convincingly describes, it struck me that many of the unhinged attributes of Hitler that he recounted are frighteningly mirrored in Donald Trump! That's a pretty strong, if not contentious claim for me to make, so let me list Phillips’s several bizarre characteristics of Hitler and let the reader decide if they feel that Donald Trump emulates them.

Let's begin with Phillips's charge that Hitler was an egomaniac. Adolph constantly monitored what the newspapers had to say about him. He disparaged those who criticized him and praised and encouraged those those who lauded him. He described himself as the “greatest actor in Europe,” and claimed “I believe my life is the greatest novel in world history.” Whenever he had the chance, he would launch into lengthy rambling speeches. In claiming he would “make America great again,” Trump obviously views himself as a great actor who will bring about personal and national glory.

Phillips described Hitler as having a “poor work ethic”—in fact he was downright lazy. While in Berlin, he'd sleep until 11 am. To escape the responsibilities of governing, he'd frequently retreat to his private refuge in the mountains, where he'd stay in his room until 2 pm, spend most of his time on walks, and watching movies into the wee hours. He hated to read, and would make major decisions without viewing the documents his aides had prepared. Trump has spent an inordinate amount of time on his golf courses and makes knee-jerk, gut decisions, without reading the briefings prepared for him.

Hitler, according to Phillips, had an unbalanced mind—he was irrational, quixotic, and undependable. He was disinclined to follow the advice of experts. Instead, he would latch onto and promote the fallacious statements made by misguided figureheads whom he learned about. Trump's inclination in the face of the coronavirus has been to devalue the advice of esteemed pandemic experts and promote the ingestion of bleach or other preposterous potions that gained a following on social media.

Phillips describes Hitler as “having an uncanny instinct for political rhetoric that would gain mass appeal...” He was skilled at whipping up the emotions of a crowd, as they forgot the reality of the struggles of daily life, and what had produced them. He had the extraordinary aptitude for prompting the German people to blame scapegoats for their difficulties—Jews, gays, and any races other than those of Aryan heritage. Trump has a knack for appealing to the base instincts of the fearful and reactionary crowd who see their Caucasian dominance in America dwindling—without explicitly appealing to racism, although his rhetoric clearly targets people of color, as well as Muslims.

Hitler procrastinated on decisions. He was insecure in his lack of knowledge on major issues and readily lashed out at those who tried to inform him. Relying on his gut feelings, he'd leave close allies in the dark about his plans. When his schemes went awry, he'd divert the blame for the fiascos onto others, but falsely claim credit for anything he deemed successful, regardless of who accomplished it. Trump has repeatedly confounded and alienated allies—either foreign states or American colleagues—by his illogical decisions. He does not hesitate to assert credit for an achievement that often exists only in his mind.

According to Phillips, Hitler gloried in power. It fed his monumental ego. He loved to command and lord over his lackeys. He kept them constantly guessing. They were never able to feel secure in their position, knowing that any one of them could be the next to be banished. He forced his team into a desperate game of  infighting—as they either tried to win his approval or avoid his attention. He debased those who managed to stick around into acting as obsequious pawns. He hated being laughed at, yet enjoyed mocking those he targeted and disliked. Similarly, Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men and -women who flatter him and are able to deny the reality of his dysfunctional administration. His underlings have formed a revolving door of subordinates who at first appear to be loyal subjects, but soon are booted out (“You're fired!”) when they don't manage to please him or be unfailingly loyal. Trump mirrors Hitler in disparaging those who dare to oppose him, via his endless Tweets, as he attacks them with mocking nicknames.

Hitler was deceitful. He had no compunction about lying. As of this writing the Washington Post has documented about 30,000 lies that Trump has voiced. Both of these men seemed to have a proclivity for stating falsehoods, as if they truly believed them.

Finally, Hitler was a blatant racist. He created what must be the world's most evil massacre, as the Nazis exterminated some six million Jews—along with many Gypsies, gays, and others. He was the world's premier fascist—defined in the dictionary as an “authoritarian who establishes a nationalist, right-wing government.” Trump's racism is not nearly as brazen, but he has targeted and abused people of color—including Muslims, Latinos, and Blacks; causing much death and suffering. Is he fascist? Well, the reader can decide, given the dictionary definition of “an authoritarian who creates a nationalistic right-wing government.”

Both Hitler and Trump were/are experts at manipulating the system. Both were underestimated early on in their careers and belittled by pundits and opposing politicians. Both were/are populists who deceived the masses by presenting themselves as the one (the only one) who would “drain the swamp” and improve the lives of the masses. Each promised to return their country to its former greatness and make their lives pleasurable. Hitler led Germans to an ignominious defeat and made them the target of hatred, around the world. Trump seems bent on transforming the US from an often-admired country into the world's pariah, as he has bullied his way around the world and alienated most former allies.

A tendency has been to view despotic rulers like Hitler (and for some people, even Trump) as some kind of anti-Christ who somehow came to power and became evil incarnate. It is as if this tyrant appeared from the ether and seized power and reigned with an iron fist over an otherwise decent and wholesome society. All the wickedness is usually attributed to that single, power-hungry guy, who hijacked an otherwise capable and honorable system. Get rid of him and we're back to the good old days.

I disagree. Rather than conceiving of humans as pawns of an evil force, who are innocently duped, we all are complicit in a Hitler (or a Trump) coming to power. Trump is not the cause of the problem, but the product of a process that had been evolving for years. Furthermore, it is ironic that both of them emerged from what was considered to be a democratic form of government. Both of them cleverly took advantage of a system that was functioning rather unsuccessfully, before they came along.

Germany's Weimar Republic was a democratic form of government that existed from the termination of WWI in 1918, until the Nazis assumed power in 1933. It had been 15 years of gradual deterioration in the country, caused by numerous problems—primarily due to reparations imposed by the victorious allies and the financial collapse of the world's Great Depression.

The US in 2016 was facing nothing as formidable as Germany was in the 1920s and 30s, yet the US government had degenerated significantly from its earlier form of a functional democracy. Congress had degenerated into a polarized and essentially paralyzed body. The super rich had basically seized power—creating more of an oligarchy than a democracy. The influence of the Electoral College often unfairly awarded the presidential prize to the person who received fewer popular votes. Extreme gerrymandering of Congressional districts distorted the voting process to prevent fair elections. Voter suppression had prevented large numbers of people from being able to exercise their legal enfranchisement rights. 

So the situation of a dysfunctional government in Germany in the 1930s and the US in the early 21^st century opened the door for a charismatic person to convince and deceive enough citizens that their populist rhetoric would promise a better future—in fact, to make the country “great again.” Thus an irrational, lazy, racist, deceitful, and incompetent potentate came to power and proceeded to bring about much suffering and chaos. But do we condemn those two tyrants, or do we blame ourselves for allowing democracy to degenerate to the extent that they were able to assume power? Who is responsible for a poorly-run democracy, if it is defined as a “government in which the people hold the ruling power?”

Daemon Directions

The word “daemon” has a fascinating history. Its origin is in ancient Greek civilization, where it defined a divine and/or supernatural being, who resided in a realm somewhere between humans and the gods. A daemon was often consulted, with the expectation it would provide guidance that would steer one's actions in an appropriate direction. It became perceived as an inner spirit or voice that could be regarded roughly as similar to one's conscience.

A prominent citizen of ancient Greece who claimed that his behavior was influenced by his inner daemon was Socrates (5^th century BCE). His daemon, however, was unique, in that it only spoke to him by warning him what not to do. In this sense, his daemon was strictly a negative teacher, since it never told him what to do.

Socrates claimed that this inner voice had been crucial to his perceptions and behavior, because it steered him away from making mistakes, but left open what he should do in a given situation. That choice was up to him. Thus, he was free to do what appeared to him to be positive action. For example, in a given situation, he might have several options to select. Which one is wisest to choose? Since his daemon steered him away from unwise behavior, it left him open to various potentially wise choices—but they would be his, not some godlike choice. Socrates felt that this “negative” daemon gave him the freedom to pursue wisdom on his own, and thus to benefit and grow from the process.

I find this possibility very promising, because I believe at any moment we each have an abundance of alternative actions we may choose from. In each case we select one, hoping it is a good choice, but we rarely have the opportunity to pause and consider what other options we might have had and what might have transpired, if we'd selected a different one. We just move on. If, however, I had the confidence that some inner voice had urged me to avoid stupid or harmful choices, I could move forward with some confidence that the choice I did make was at least not foolish. Thus, I’d be much freer to explore more positive alternatives… on my own. Thus, I can learn and grow on my own. 

A basic concept of existentialism is that each of us is a free and responsible agent, and that we can determine our own development and growth through acts of our will. If we had Socrates' negative daemon guiding us, we would be given that ability to develop and grow, because we would be making our choices as a free agent, and thus could benefit from what we accomplish on our own. If instead we had an inner voice that commanded us—that always chose for us—we’d be more like an obedient automaton, who just followed orders and rarely had the opportunity to think and grow.

Hannah Arendt's main conclusion from the trial of Adolph Eichmann (who was tried for Nazi war crimes for running a concentration camp that exterminated countless Jews) was that he was not really an evil person—he simply complied with the Holocaust, without pausing to think about what he was doing. He was an unreflective automaton. Thus, non-thinking, she maintained, can lead to one taking immoral actions and can be more harmful than evil.

Socrates' actions, which he claimed were influenced by his daemon, became a threat to the civic order in ancient Athens, since Athenians had constructed a belief system that was cozy and comfortable for most of them. Their society conformed to the established doctrine of the gods controlling and making choices for everyone—punishing them if they disobeyed and rewarding them if they complied. Athenians at that time had a built a society that did not require them to think all that much; just behave and follow orders. Socrates—guided by his daemon—challenged that dogma and exposed it as false. He menaced their belief system. They put him on trial and sentenced him to die.

Socrates was a prophet—not in the sense of predicting future events—but by speaking truth as an inspired teacher; motivated by that inner daemon. Prophets speak truth to power, and since those in power often act untruthfully, prophets are frequently unpopular with rulers. Throughout history prophets have met their demise because they spoke up. Besides Socrates, others who come to mind are Jesus and Martin Luther King, Jr. Many Jewish biblical prophets were either killed or banished.

So I try to cultivate my own daemon—with the objective of having it steer me from stupid choices. To me that means pretty much the same thing as encouraging a moral conscience that warns me away from immoral conduct, while leaving open to me various positive alternatives which I can pause to examine, before selecting one. That scrutinizing process can help me become more aware of the various other possibilities open to me at any given moment; to choose carefully, and take more responsibility for my behavior. The ancient Greek philosophers still have relevance today.