Expeditious Evolution

From the very beginnings of life on Planet Earth to today, evolution has gradually brought about change and adaptation. As environmental conditions have altered, bringing about new climates, life forms have soon followed suit—the luckier variations altering to thrive in the new situation, while the less fortunate ones died out. This elegant process has caused relentless and progressive adaptation on the part of plants and animals—with the result that, at any given moment in time, the mix of living species is fairly well balanced.

There have been, however, numerous occasions when the environment changed so dramatically and rapidly that many species could not adapt quickly enough, so they became extinct. There have been half a dozen or so catastrophic events that caused some 70-95% of plant and animal species to disappear, but life soon adjusted and began to flourish again, as new species came into existence.

We are now in the midst of the latest major environmental change. It is being designated as the Anthropocene Age transformation—whereby the planet is rapidly heating. This change is being brought about by humans. And the rate is hundreds and thousands of times faster than in any comparable change in the past! That faster pace will likely see the extinction of far more species than in the past.

And yet there is already evidence that some animals are currently altering their physiology, in attempts to adapt to the warmer conditions. Some of these critters have slowly evolved (over millions of years) to find ways to radiate excess body heat. Birds' beaks help them cool, because their bills are not covered with insulating feathers. Similarly, some furry animals have evolved hairless ears, tails, and legs, in order to shed excess heat.

Current scientific research is showing that some bird species are adapting to hotter climates by growing larger beaks—to radiate heat better. Some mammals are growing longer ears or less hair on their legs. Some bats have had their wing size increase. This is evolution in action, and is rather heartening. But there may well be more to the story that is less heartening. Might these recent changes negatively impact other bodily needs, such as the ability to avoid predators or attract sexual partners? Might the changes be better at dissipating heat, but worse off for other needs?

Most importantly, the Anthropocene climate change is occurring at breakneck speed—over dozens of years, rather than thousands. That is too fast for some species to respond. Unable to change in time, they face the prospect of disappearing. Time will tell, as they say.

Immortal Ants

I have written a few times about the intelligence and sophistication of ant colonies. They offer an exemplary model of what may be described as emergent cognitive qualities, in that the ant collective exhibits far greater acumen than any single ant possesses. Thus, while an individual ant is a simple critter with very little conscious capabilities, the whole colony exhibits highly developed behavior that almost seems to demonstrate an elevated level of cognizance… in fact, a kind of intelligence.

The result is that an ant colony is centered around the life of its queen, who may live for as long as 30 years. During that reign the group acts as a superorganism—an entity that exhibits capabilities far beyond any one individual’s potential, which expires only when the queen reaches the end of her existence; when the colony finally threatens to collapse.

There is one species of ant, however, that displays a kind of immortality. Their colonies do not cease when a 30-year-old queen finally dies, but find a way for a daughter ant to assume the queen's role, allowing the community to carry on.

This exceptional ant species is named the Indian Jumping Ant... and it's indigenous to India—not the Americas. For this species of ant, the queen will, at some point, actually die; but rather than have the colony collapse with Her Royal Highness, a group of “chosen” workers—all sisters—compete to assume her throne. This process begins by their ovaries expanding, while their brains shrink. A successful queen need not be at all smart, as she is reverently cared for and fed, while her main duties are to churn out eggs.

After the queen dies, half a dozen or so of the chosen sisters find their ovaries swelling to some five times their unproductive size, as their brains shrink some 20-25%. Since a brain is an energy hog, this allows more energy to be sent to egg production. Eventually one candidate queen triumphs and becomes the new queen—creating what is essentially an ongoing immortal colony.

What is even more extraordinary is that the losing queen candidates find their ovaries shrinking, as their brains once again grow.  The individual brain may be primitive, but the collective cognition emerges as very intelligent. Wouldn't it be nice if human brains—once relieved of the requirement of procreation, could expand and become wiser?

Ameliorating Evolution—Part 2

Many religions have offered messages that are useful for our predicament, such as the counsel to love, be peaceful, and nurture compassion for others. The encouragement to adopt a healthy diet and overcome tribalism (as described in the previous post) is often not in the purview of religion, however, so we must look elsewhere.

Science can help. Certainly, the message that overindulging in some foods has been brought to us by science. Evolutionary psychology—a science—has helped us to understand these behaviors. And even common sense can go a long way to help us change. Aren't many of these behaviors obviously problematic? Does it make sense to binge on junk food? Shouldn't I care about the suffering of people in war-torn regions or the dire poverty that exists most everywhere?

Eastern philosophy can also offer help—such as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I use the world “philosophy” to describe these traditions, because I view them not so much as religions—which consist of belief in a super being and of faith and worship of that being—but as philosophies, which seek an understanding of fundamental reality, so as to guide our behavior appropriately.

An integral part of the Chinese traditions of Confucianism and Taoism is that we can change our behavior by cultivating and understanding our deeper nature. We are not captives of any essential or permanent quality of who we are, but instead we are flexible, malleable beings who can modify our behavior for the better. There is no basic, inherent, specific self that we are destined to be. Life is not about digging down to that core self and then behaving in consonance with its seemingly enduring nature. To do so is to trap ourselves into behaving in a manner that locks us into a distinct, fixed identity. 

Instead, these Chinese philosophies encourage us to view our true self as a range of many possibilities, some of which we can cultivate to become far more than we ever dreamed. This potential to become a fully realized being can definitely free us from the inherited fetters of psychological evolution, such as destructive hedonic behaviors, unnecessary fears, aggression, and insular thinking.

Another particularly relevant tradition for countering our unhelpful—if not dangerous—evolutionary behaviors is Buddhism. A core message of Buddhism is very compatible with the message of evolutionary psychology. This is the central point of a recent book by Robert Wright: Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment. Wright is a visiting professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York.

Using the insights of modern psychology and neuroscience, Wright shows that Buddhist meditative practice can transform us into moral and happy beings, who can leave behind our inherited, unhelpful evolutionary behaviors, such as fear, anger, anxiety, distrust, and hatred. Through meditation we can arrive at a far better understanding of reality, as well as our true nature. We can come to see that our responses that are habituated by society and that cause us and those around us pain, can be changed to actions that promote health, happiness, and peace.

As just one example, an intensive Buddhist meditation practice can help us realize that the boundary between our being and others is not a fixed, tribal partition, but a permeable zone that we can learn to extend indefinitely outward, to eventually encompass the entire universe. We can grow and change. The possibilities are unlimited.

What I've tried to describe here is that, while biological evolution has brought about an incredibly complex and wondrous world, our cultural evolution has in some ways gotten too far ahead of us. Our bodies and minds—forged a few million years ago in the cauldron of genetic progress—are struggling to cope with cultural realities that they are not often capable of. Humans are suffering from a widespread case of cognitive dissonance—wherein our thoughts, beliefs, and responses are often inconsistent with the world we live in. We need to get serious about fundamentally changing and bringing our feelings and emotions up to date. This will require much more than simply forging laws or tweaking our behavior.

          

Ameliorating Evolution—Part 1

The process of evolution is overwhelmingly driven by organisms being impelled to procreate in order to send their genes into the future. It's directly linked to an organism's stalwart drive to survive... to triumph over death; at least until procreation has occurred. For example, many insects, upon successfully mating and forming eggs for the following generation, succumb to death. Their job of passing their genes down the line is finished... they can expire. We humans like to last a little longer.

Over and over again, animal behaviors can be explained by that deeply inherited drive to send genes into the future... including us. There are a couple of fascinating byproducts of this genetic drive: (1) the process doesn't “care” if we are comfortable or happy about it—if the cost of successful procreation is a little pain, so be it, and (2) some behaviors—especially for us humans—that once made sense from an evolutionary standpoint, no longer are relevant. An argument can be made that in today’s environment we need to improve them.

Once example of the second case is our propensity to eat high-calorie foods. Many millennia ago, when our deep ancestors struggled to get enough nourishment, it made evolutionary sense to locate and consume fruits with high-energy sugar. In today's world, sugars and fats are readily available—causing widespread obesity and health problems.

A second example of outdated behavior is the evolutionarily-created, fast-acting amygdala in our brain. Multiple threats in our hunter-gatherers' lives lurked everywhere—from poisonous snakes to ferocious, carnivorous beasts. They needed that hair-trigger amygdala to make them hyper-alert to danger and to immediately activate leg muscles to flee. Today, humans are the planet's dominant species. We have relentlessly eradicated many of our previous predatory enemies. Half of us now live in cities, where many ancient dangers are banished (other than other predatory humans), so our fight-or-flight urges are no longer as crucial. Yet we often overreact to things that startle us.

A third example of outdated behavior is our propensity to be tribal—our tendency to form closed groups, wherein we feel closely connected to others within the group, while feeling hostile to those of an outside group. This again was important in ancient bands that called for strong interdependence among the members of one's tribe, in order to survive. When a tight-knit group of hunter-gatherers encountered another band, they were likely to view them as alien—and not even human. This urge today causes us not to be much concerned about the welfare of people outside our immediate group, which, in a globally-connected society, can make us feel indifferent to the suffering of distant people; as well as animals. The current patriotic fervor sweeping the world is a particularly troublesome behavior of this kind.

These three examples of evolutionarily-caused ancient responses that no longer are necessary are illustrations of how cultural evolution moves at a far faster pace than does biological evolution. While the latter typically occurs across millions of years, cultural evolution acts over centuries and even decades. Thus, we carry around a hunter-gatherer's mental and emotional behaviors in a world where cultural demands have greatly changed. We no longer need many of those outdated behaviors. They can even be dangerous.

So what can we do to ameliorate those archaic responses and react in a more appropriate manner? A first step is what I have described above: to recognize that our behaviors can be problematic and want to do something about them. Unfortunately, many people accept poor food habits and tribalism as inevitable, or practice these behaviors without even noticing the dangers. A second step is to listen to the message from evolutionary psychologists who just in the last couple of decades have described the problem and thus pointed toward solutions... the most important one being education. Yes, we seem to be hard-wired by evolution to commit these actions, but through education and some persistent work, we can counter evolution's unhelpful urges.

More on our cultural evolutionary problems next time…

Defective Design—Part 2

The human body's most troublesome defect is the “design” of our spine. We humans have evolved from ancient primates that moved around on all four legs, with the spine in a horizontal position. The spine evolved to protect the body's organs and support their weight—being slung below and suspended from the backbone. All four-footed animals today still demonstrate the efficacy of that horizontal spine. It works very well.

A few million years ago our hominid ancestors began to stand upright on two legs. It gave them a few advantages over their horizontal cousins—such as to be able to spot predators farther away and carry items in their forearms. So they prevailed and their horizontal cousins disappeared. We have remained upright ever since. Although we were successful, that horizontally-evolved spine didn't do so well in a vertical position. All the weight of our internal organs, as well as our upper spine, now burdens the lower vertebrae and causes perennial backaches. It's a rather defective structure—but there's no going back for a redesign.

As my second example, two tubes run parallel down the throat of most all animals. One—the trachea or windpipe—funnels air to and from the lungs. The second tube—the esophagus—transports food into the stomach. The esophagus for horizontal, four-footed critters lies below the trachea. Thus food—being heavier than air—naturally drops down from the mouth to the esophagus and wends its way to the tummy. 

Here is yet another problem brought about by our decision to stand erect. In our vertical orientation, we must be very careful to control our glottis (the entryway to our trachea and lungs), so that we don't inhale our food into the lungs. Furthermore, the subsequent development of our voice mechanism added to the complexity and confounded the problem. As a result, we are very prone to choking, and sometimes require someone to perform a Heimlich maneuver on us, lest we choke to death.

I will stop with these two defects at this point, but there are several other shortcomings of the human physiology that demonstrate faulty design—such as goose bumps, hiccups, and an overactive amygdala.  Once they performed useful functions that today are either not needed or are problematic. (For example, we need the amygdala for some functions, but the hyper fear that it causes often gets us into trouble.) The human body—like that of all critters and plants—is a marvel, but it ain't perfect. Any competent biologist could do a better job, with today’s knowledge.

 

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…

Change Blindness—Part 1

The 19^th century saw a major shift in how humans viewed their planet and our place on it. That shift stemmed from the many scientific discoveries that were rapidly occurring at the time, as Western science began to blossom. Prior to this time, science and religion were mostly in harmony; with a few exceptions such as Galileo, when the Roman Catholic Church found him guilty of the heresy that proclaimed a helio-centric universe (rather than Earth-centered) and confined him to house arrest. 

The majority of scientists in those times held beliefs that did not conflict with the churches' teachings, since the view of most people was that the world indeed had been created by God, as the Bible describes. What's more, that world was perfect and unchanging. Most scientists—many of whom were also clergy—were convinced that the world would continue to be very much as it was at the time.

Human understanding of the cosmos then was quite limited—especially as to its age. Some had suspicions that Earth was maybe a few million years old, but nothing like over four billion years old. They also had no idea that the planet had settled into a benevolent climate in the last 12,000 years or so, and had often been inhospitable, prior to that time. Humans had had but the tiniest slice of the historical record to interpret the world's nature, with no understanding of how historically unrepresentative that slice was.

Then Charles Darwin published his bombshell treatise on evolution and natural selection in 1859. His book shook both the scientific and religious communities, by starkly refuting both of their belief systems. Darwin showed that nature was not immutable, but had been in a state of metamorphosis for a long time—and was continuing to transform. He demonstrated that all life, as well as the climate, had once been very different from what they saw in the mid-1800s. 

Completely aside from the fact that many people's belief in God was challenged by these statements of Darwin, it was the evidence of nature's mutability that rattled many believers. How could God's creation not be perfect and changeless? Was God not perfect? Some even questioned, did God exist? The church fathers (and they were exclusively men) felt threatened. They dug in their heels and ferociously defended their erroneous beliefs. They set up an opposition that continues today among religious fundamentalists.

It should be emphasized that most religious leaders today have accepted the theory of evolution and its implications for change. Furthermore, science's understanding of the natural world now is far greater than in Darwin's time. We now are very confident of the age of the Earth and its past geological eras.

Yet today we are once again experiencing another battle between science and a powerful group that puts doubts in the minds of the populace; this time it’s made up of industrial and corporate moguls, political leaders, and fundamentalist religious clerics. 

Contemporary science has offered irrefutable evidence that Earth's climate is once again experiencing another change—definitely one for the worse. Our climate is becoming dangerously warmer and will become periodically more menacing. Why are so many people complacent or in denial of the truth? We no longer can hide behind the ignorance of 19^th century knowledge. We know it's coming, and yet we dither. 

More change blindness next time…

Playing 'Possum

We recently had some kind of critter invade the garden in the night and gnaw off tomato seedlings and other vulnerable young vegetables. We struggled with protecting the delicate plants, as we tried to figure out who was the culprit. We at first suspected rabbits, but after several failed attempts at intercepting and identifying the perpetrator, we bought a live trap. The very next morning I entered the garden to greet a very unhappy opposum staring at me from his cage. I drove him up the road a few miles and released him into the woods.

That incident led me to do some investigation into the Virginia opossum, hoping that I could figure a way of discouraging these critters from invading the garden in the future. We have been growing vegetables for over three decades now and this is the first time opossums have raided us. We've dealt with voles, rabbits, countless insects, and deer, but the opossum was a new threat.

The local opossum (Didelphis virginiana) is North America's sole marsupial—which is a type of mammal that lacks a placenta. Like kangaroos, the opossum gives birth to tiny fetal-like creatures, who scramble into mom's pouch, where they spend their first few months of life. The opossum looks like a rat with a very long, pointed head. It's about the size of a domestic cat, but its brain is only one-third of the size of a cat's brain. (Now, that's really dumb! I've written on this blog a few times about how the cognitive capability of the household cat is quite inferior to a dog.)

The opossum is a nocturnal creature, rambling around in the night for its food. Its nose is extremely sensitive, which compensates for its poor eyesight. It is truly an omnivore, as it will dine on grains, snakes, mice, chipmunks, human garbage, insects (ants, ticks, flies, spiders, etc.), as well as tender vegetables. That last item spurred this blog.

Most Americans are familiar with the term “playing 'possum,” which refers to the animal's habit of suddenly falling down and playing “dead” when it's threatened. It does a remarkable job of looking dead. Its eyes are open, its tongue flops out, its heart rate halves, its breathing rate drops by a third, and it oozes a foul-smelling liquid from glands near its anus that reeks of death. It can lie lifeless for up to six hours.

The opossum is a hairy critter (rat-looking, as I said) with a hairless tail that looks eerily like a snake. It has more teeth than any other similar mammal. What's especially unique is that it has an opposable thumb on all four feet; making them look uncannily like human hands. It's a very bizarre little critter!

Another fascinating fact about the opossum is how it came to North America. Millions of years ago North America was inhabited only by placental mammals, while South America's mammals were predominantly marsupial. About three million years ago the Isthmus of Panama arose as sea levels dropped, connecting the two continents. Some marsupials migrated north; some placental northern mammals headed south, through Panama.

Thereafter, similarly-behaving species (one kind marsupial, the other mammal) came into competition, and when they did, the placentals almost always had the advantage. As a result, many marsupials in South America went extinct, giving way there to their placental competitors. In North America, all marsupials went extinct, except for the intrepid opossum. Maybe its ability to play dead so effectively helped it to persevere?

I find it fascinating that we humans evolved from placental mammals—primates—who resemble the opossum. It makes me wonder what if the marsupials had been more fit than placental mammals, and they had won the evolutionary competition? Would the world's most intelligent critter today be a marsupial with opposable thumbs? It's a reminder that, if we could roll back the clock a few million years and replay evolution, today's mix of species would be very different. The fact that humans came out (so far, anyway) as the dominant species was not preordained.

Altruistic Exchange

Social psychologists describe a very nice quality that we humans possess—something that is planted deep in our psyche; something that has been bred into us by evolution: a natural inclination to reciprocate kind behavior when it is shown to us. If someone does something nice to us, we feel an urge to return the favor.

However, there's another, negative side of the coin: when someone mistreats us we often have an equally natural inclination to reciprocate with like mistreatment. Revenge is a deep instinct of ours. Indeed, much of human history is replete with violence, as humans often strike back, in retaliation. Although that is an important topic on its own, I will focus here on the positive side of the coin: our returning favor for favor.

It makes sense that we feel a yearning to return kindness with kindness, when we consider it from an evolutionary perspective. When our deep ancestors reciprocated the altruistic behaviors of community members, it pulled the community together. The clan became stronger and more cooperative. It strengthened the group, so that they survived better than clans who didn't cooperate. The noncooperative group went extinct, while the altruistic group thrived.

So altruistic exchange strengthens our connections to one another. And thanks to evolution, it's literally in our genes. We are thankful for it and enjoy its benefits. That said, there's a bit of a problematic side to friendly reciprocity: it opens us up to being scammed. Salespeople have known this and have cleverly used it for ages. If, as a salesman, you offer someone a token favor, you've earned a little leverage to get them to cooperate with you. Thus, the reciprocity tendency can be used to manipulate people and sell them stuff they'd otherwise not want.

Salespeople are often extremely solicitous before they sell you their product. They are your best friend; they have all the time in the world to be with you; and they're apt to gift you with little mementos. Once you respond and buy, however, attempts to reach the formerly friendly salesperson—if you have a question or a complaint—very often go unanswered.

As another example, we may get “free” offers from salespeople to enjoy a gratuitous meal, in exchange for the “opportunity” to purchase a time-share condominium in some idyllic location. Watch out! After the free meal, you will be forced to endure a coercive session, where you will be expected to return the favor of a meal by buying your very own condo.

But to return to my starting point: we are genetically programmed to reciprocate, when someone does us a favor. It's nice to be able to respond in kind. There are, however, times when we can't return the kindness to the individual who benefited us. What do we do then? How do we deal with the propensity to respond kindly, when we can't? Many people say that the right thing to do is to pass it on to others. That's an honorable thing to do. The “Pay it Forward” movement arose years ago to do just that. The reciprocity of kindness to others can spread around, to the benefit of everyone.

So which side of the coin predominates in society—returning kindness or revenge? That's an argument that I don't wish to wade into here. I'd just like to recognize and celebrate the fact that altruistic exchanges are inherent in us and that we all can benefit from this natural positive urge.

Evolution and Fitness

One of the basic pillars of the theory of evolution is the fact that every species gives birth to far more offspring than the planet can sustain. This fact sets up a perpetual competition for survival among species. Those creatures who are the most fit survive in a given situation and pass their genes into the future. Those less fit die out, or never get a chance to procreate. It's that simple.

A key part of this scenario is the fact that tiny mutations randomly occur, each time a newborn comes into the world. The DNA of every species is duplicated at birth with an amazingly high degree of accuracy, but because there are millions upon millions of DNA copies to be made, tiny copying errors will inevitably creep in.

Those errors are precisely the source of tiny variations between otherwise identical offspring. Thus, one baby within a family will slightly be different from another. One sparrow born in Georgia will be a wee bit genetically different from one born in Florida, or even within the same locale in Georgia.

These slight differences rarely have any import, but should the environment—or other external conditions shift ever so slightly, one critter may fare better than another. The Georgia sparrow, for example, may have a slightly more yellow color. That yellower sparrow may be less visible to new predators—who, say, have migrated there due to climate change—who don't see yellow as well. Thus the yellow birds will live to have babies, who will also have the yellower gene. The result: yellower sparrows win the competition for survival.

This is basically how life has evolved on Earth. Every time environmental conditions have shifted, some critters—just by luck—are more fit in the new environment, and they successfully send their modified genes into the future. This amazing process is what has allowed life on our planet to adapt to changing conditions, and then to evolve new life forms to thrive in new conditions. This process would not happen without an overabundance of babies born to each species (otherwise every baby would prosper and never face the prospect of an early death). There would be no competition between their minuscule differences, to see which one wins.

One way to appreciate this magnificent process is to ponder what might happen if life on Earth had settled into some kind of happy stasis, where no competition occurred. What if the number of babies born was exactly what was needed to sustain each species? Wouldn't that be much more peaceful? If that were the case, there would be far less competition, no survival of the fittest, no dog-eat-dog world. Every critter would find its happy place; the lion could even lie down with the lamb.

But what would such a world be like? For one, evolution would simply not occur. Every critter would be content, would be secure, and would be very comfortable. No changes. Everything would become static and unvarying. This might sound nice, but what would happen if a small perturbation in the environment happened to occur? All those placid critters would suddenly be faced with challenges for which they are totally unprepared. There would be massive extinctions. Life, that would long have ago settled into a kind of inactivity, would now be unable to respond. Most creatures would go instinct!

So we might well celebrate what appears to be a brutish form of competition in nature, where too many babies are born and most of them die or get eaten. It may appear to be cold-hearted and devoid of any gentleness, but it has kept life vital, robust, and progressive, for several billion years. Let us be thankful for nature's wisdom.

Cultivating Curiosity—Part 2

We all possess some degree of curiosity. The key is to respond appropriately to those inquisitive feelings we get. Many people waddle through life half asleep—their minds dull and disinterested. When opportunities or novelties come along, they can be too preoccupied or dull witted to even notice them. So paying attention is crucial. As I wrote earlier, children—who have so much to learn—are naturally curious; evolution has built that into them. As we age, however, some of us lose that childlike sense of awe. We can become complacent and bored; we tell ourselves that there's nothing really new out there.

Unfortunately, modern society seeks thrills, more than learning. We seek quick, facile answers to life's quandaries; rather than taking the time to probe deeper. People are encouraged to grab hold of facts, rather than truly understanding things. As a wise person once said, “Facts are not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom.”

Are some of us more curious than others? Sure, but is it because our genetic makeup determines our level of curiosity, or can we cultivate it? I'm convinced that we can develop our curiosity, largely because it is an emotion, rather than an instinct. Instincts cause us to behave in unconscious and fixed patterns. Emotions, however, can be changed and developed. They are flexible and can be built upon.

I did some research, consulting various essays and books on psychology and philosophy, about ways to cultivate one's curiosity. I came up with a list of eight practices that can help to strengthen one's curious nature:

1. Ask questions. Admit your ignorance and your need to learn. Acknowledging your ignorance is the best way to dispel it.
2. Don't take things for granted. Remain skeptical about what you hear or read, and then check it out. Be open to surprise and the possibility of being wrong; it's a great way to learn.
3. Don't label anything as boring or not worthy of your effort to understand. To do so just closes doors to insight and understanding.
4. Don't judge things too quickly. Keep an open mind. Have the humility to admit that you are limited and that you have a need to pause and learn. This opens the door to change and growth.
5. Read a wide range of things. Challenge yourself with new and different and unfamiliar material. Let it open your mind.
6. Gradually increase the complexity of what you do. Don't settle for facile or easy answers.
7. Seek excellence in what you do. Don't settle for shoddy or inferior behavior.
8. Pay attention; concentrate on each task at hand. Be ready to notice and pick up on anything and everything that comes along. Be mindful.

That's a great list to cultivate one's curiosity. I believe that by acting upon some of these items, we can regain that natural sense of inquisitiveness that children have. We can feel more alive and excited. Yes, unlike the doomed curious cat, curiosity is healthy for us.

Cultivating Curiosity—Part 1

I believe that curiosity is one of the most valuable attributes that we can have. And I do not mean in the sense of the old saw, “Curiosity killed the cat.” That saying tends to give curiosity a bad name, which might cause some people to be a little leery about being inquisitive. I think, however, that this quotation has actually been used as a warning to keep one's nose out of other people's business, to avoid prying into others' private matters. No, I see curiosity as a healthy attribute. Here's why.

But first, what exactly is curiosity? The dictionary definition is: “a strong desire to know or learn something.” Interestingly, its root meaning is to be careful. Well, maybe if that cat had been a little more careful, its curiosity would not have brought about its demise. So I'll stick with this definition, which describes curiosity as one's desire to learn. Kids are naturally curious, because their main function in life is to learn. Many people who seek to expand their knowledge do so by responding to their curiosity... sort of like kids do.

Returning to children: they are naturally drawn to novelty. When something new comes into their lives and they are curious about it; they have an innate tendency to wonder about it. Many animals also exhibit curiosity when they encounter something new. If it doesn't appear to be dangerous, they will check it out.

In fact, evolution has favored curiosity. Animals who have a general instinct for curiosity do better—they are more fit and thus are more likely to survive—than those who are complacent. Yes, there are dangers in the world, and it pays to be cautious, but critters who are curious usually do fare better. Their curiosity drives them to explore new things and experiences.

For example, one of the most successful species of bird is the house sparrow. Its natural bent for curiosity has enabled it to expand into new territory and learn new habits. As a result, the house sparrow is a very adaptable creature; it has spread its territory to the point that it now inhabits most every corner of the globe.

And there is no more adaptable creature on the planet than Homo sapiens. Our curiosity—like the house sparrow—has led us to spread across the Earth, inhabiting just about every environment there is. Evolution built curiosity into us, by favoring those of our ancestors who were most curious; they were better at learning new skills. When the environment changed, those with better skills could better adapt. Those who were dull or disinterested were more likely to perish when hard times came, because they had become stuck in their ways.

So curiosity is an advantageous quality to have. Those who are curious have an urge to learn, to seek answers to puzzles. They want to know why, even when there may be no immediate practical advantage to knowing. When we respond to that mental itch to understand—due to “idle” curiosity—we often find that it leads us to creative insights we never even knew existed. Our lives become richer for it. People who feel they have a very satisfying or exciting career are often those who are naturally curious and whose job allows them to explore their interests.

More on curiosity next time...

Capitalism and Evolution: Alike? (Part 2)

Last time we looked at a few similarities between evolution and capitalism that are regarded by some people as evidence that capitalism is the best economic way to go. But there are some key differences between them that we might also consider, to be more thorough in our examination. One big difference is how waste is handled. Nature recycles. One species' detritus becomes another's valuable resource. Decaying dead bodies are sustenance for many kinds of critters—even excrement is valued. Capitalist economies, however, create garbage that no creature wants. Moreover, it's often very toxic. Exhausted electronic devices become hazardous trash. Abandoned industrial sites pollute the environment.

Another difference is that capitalism is usually a zero-sum game: somebody wins only when somebody loses. This is a necessary result of economic competition for finite resources. Since capitalism does not recycle much at all, the resources it uses are limited. In contrast, nature often plays a nonzero-sum game, if, for no other reason than that it recycles. One species' waste, if it does well, provides even more resources for other species. They both do well.

Cooperation can also often be found buried deeply within nature's competitive process. Two complementary species, who, at first glance are seemingly in competition, can find themselves mutually beneficial to one another in the long run. A lean-and-mean corporation, however, is rarely concerned with anything beyond its immediate sphere of influence.

The various kinds of interactions between nature's many species also leads to another significant difference between evolution and capitalism: Evolution breeds diversity. A rich and healthy ecosystem is populated by a wide variety of interconnected species. Mother Nature tends to seek a sustainable balance in an ecosystem that finds a large number of plants and animals working together in a complex, symbiotic manner. As capitalism grows, however, the number of players dwindles. Monopolies emerge and grow ever larger—think Walmart or Microsoft. Since a monopoly can afford to be abusive (it has few effective checks and balances), it tends to care little for anything other than its quarterly economic bottom line.

It's interesting that scientists have come to see evolution as a “blind” process. That is, it has no intent, no design, and yet it has brought about a beautiful, complex, and effective process that has done extremely well for billions of years. In contrast, capitalism is very intentional and has a narrow and specific goal: maximization of profit. It works well in the short term (creating that quarterly profit), but often is not sustainable over the long run. Otherwise, would we pollute the planet as we do, or be causing the climate change we are? Greed—an inevitable part of capitalism—does not seem to play much of a role in evolution's game.

So, yes, capitalism and evolution do share some qualities... competition being the obvious one. “Survival of the fittest” plays a role in each system. It's useful to note, however, that Darwin, in presenting his elegant theory, never used the term “survival of the fittest.” He was really interested in the “natural selection” process of evolution, and realized that it is the cornerstone of nature's elegant and sustainable way. He also saw that nature's competition eventually even brought about cooperation.

And that factor of sustainability is crucial: evolution has worked beautifully for a few billion years now. Capitalism is an upstart that's been around for only a couple of hundred years. How much longer will it last?

Capitalism and Evolution: Alike? (Part 1)

Charles Darwin realized over 150 years ago that competition is the driving force behind evolution: similar species compete for limited resources and will duke it out until the “fittest” begins to dominate, while the less-fit may eventually become extinct. The process usually occurs when one species is better able to adapt to a particular environmental niche than another. The more-adaptable species will be more successful at reproduction and its offspring will dominate.

Most people in the business world see a similar situation playing out in a capitalist economy: competition between organizations or corporations winnows out the less-well functioning ones, leaving the successful ones to dominate. Similar to critters, corporations also compete for limited resources, with the “fittest” surviving, while the less-fit ones die off (or are bought up... a form of consumption?). In each case the argument is often made: leave the market or the natural world alone; this allows the competitive process to create an efficient and well-oiled world. The markets and nature will become well-tuned and balanced, if we don't mess with them. Just look at how splendidly nature has evolved! Capitalism, it is argued, is simply using the same principles as nature to become the most successful economic system, to the benefit of all.

So both nature and the marketplace operate in an atmosphere of competition, wherein limited resources promote rivalry. Here's another similarity: from time to time there is a variation introduced into the situation by one of the competitors—maybe a new marketing idea in a corporation or a genetic mutation in a plant or animal. If the idea or mutation is more suitable to the existing environment, those who posses it will do better. The modified corporation or critter can more effectively fill a niche. A similar situation occurs if the environment should change and one corporation or species is better able to adapt to that change.

I think we might take a closer look at the comparison between capitalism and evolution, however. How similar are they, really? Is the argument that capitalism is best—because it resembles evolution—a good argument? The resemblances described above may indeed seem to provide for some people a good argument to conclude that capitalism is the best economic system; and it indeed is the dominant one today. Mother Nature has done very well for billions of years with evolution, so maybe humans have come upon a similarly excellent system to govern their economy? There are a few significant differences to consider, however, before concluding that capitalism is so ideal. Let's look at some of them next time...

Snake Sightings

Have you ever wondered why we humans are so spooked by the sight of a snake? Countless examples exist of how we fear and abhor serpents. Precious few people see a snake and do not feel an adrenalin rush and an urge either to whop it or to flee. You don't have to teach a kid to fear snakes—the dread comes naturally; it's deep in our DNA. For Christians and Jews, the origin of our exile from an edenic existence was caused by the scheming snake.

If you consider where we humans evolved (Africa), dangerous snakes were everywhere—cobras, vipers, and other such vermin. It's not surprising that our deep ancestors evolved fear of and ways to avoid snakes. A healthy fear, accompanied with an ability to quickly jump back served them well. They passed those jumping genes on to us.

Some recent research provides another genetic advantage that we humans have, and we apparently have snakes to thank for it: acute vision. Since snakes were such a threat to our ancestors, serpents literally helped us evolve the excellent eyesight that we have. We are endowed with forward-facing eyes, so our depth perception is superb... we can quickly tell just how far away that viper is. Our visual acuity surpasses most all other mammals. We possess first-rate color vision, so we can spot that camouflaged snake in the grass. My, what great eyes we have! The better to see you, Mr. Snake.

Snakes are not easy to detect. Their color often allows them to blend into their surroundings and they can appear to be a stick or a twining vine. It's quite possible that some early hominid species which might have otherwise evolved into something like humans, instead became extinct, because their limited visual acuity gave the advantage to those poisonous snakes.

Our extremely ancient ancestors—small, lemur-like creatures who lived among the dinosaurs—didn't need superb eyesight, because they were nocturnal critters. They didn't hang out in the daytime, because the dinosaurs ruled the day; so they survived by slinking around after dark. They also didn't bump into many snakes, who slept the night away.

As mammals came into the light—once the dinosaurs became extinct—they needed more acute vision, to avoid those creepy serpents. Some of them developed superb eyesight and passed the ability on down the line to us. So the next time you are repulsed by the sight of a snake, realize that it's an instinct you inherited from long ago, but also be thankful that your keen eyesight (which also lets you spot a gorgeous bird, on a limb off in the woods) may also be a gift from that loathsome snake in the grass.

Capacity for Cooperation—Part 2

Why will a soldier sacrifice himself for his buddies? Why have countless martyrs given up their lives for the cause? Similar situations exist in the animal world. The selfish-gene theory cannot account for this phenomenon, so the proponents of this theory tend either to ignore this situation or disagree that it has any relevance.

An alternative to the selfish-gene theory of evolution has recently been gaining adherents. This view sees cooperation as being at the foundation of evolution, not the selfish gene. This camp perceives the survival of the species to be more dependent on the group surviving, than the individual. After all, what good does it do for an individual, if all other members of its group dies off? He can’t send his genes into the future in that case. When the group is fit and healthy, however, everyone is better off. What’s more to the point, the group thrives when its members cooperate.

This is the crux of the current battle in biology—and it's a raging battle, too. Emotions are high and strong; tempers have flared. Those who favor the selfish gene theory have dominated the scene for a couple of decades now. So they have a lot at stake—many of them have based their careers on this assumption. The upstarts who favor cooperation are taking a lot of flak. Many people look upon scientists as cool headed, dispassionate dudes, who let the facts decide. But new and opposing facts are always—and often inconveniently—arising, and heads have gotten rather hot, in the current debate.

I'm biased towards the cooperation side of the argument. I've written before in this blog about how some biologists believe cooperation has been a positive factor in evolution. (See “Higher Cooperation,” 1/13/10 and “Be No Competition,” 10/2/10.) This topic is a very complex one. I don't think it can be boiled down to a simplistic explanation such as the selfish gene theory, that sees us all driven as automatons to respond in a competitive manner, as if we are helpless.

It was an incredible accomplishment for Darwin to parse out the complex process of evolution. Scientists are still trying to figure out the details, and they'll be arguing for some time yet.

Since we humans are a species that tends to be very competitive, we aren’t inclined to look upon cooperation as important (especially in a capitalistic environment). I believe, however, that cooperation is an instinct that we and other creatures settled upon long ago as an effective way to further the species. Yes, I'd like to see my genes flow into the future, and I certainly feel that inner drive to do so, but I also know that my success as an individual depends very much on the health of my local community. I benefit when the group is strong and it provides me safety, food, and a good place to live. If the group does well, I do well. It makes sense, therefore, that I should do what I can to help my group do well. I will place a high priority in doing so...maybe even to the extent of sacrificing myself for it.