The terms, conditions and reality of biological evolution have been misunderstood (even amongst those who accept them) in the larger community. There is a widely held perversion of the truth that insists that change is entirely random and that the solitary unit of evolution (and thus of life) is the individual organism or worse yet the “group”. Genetic and biological research has shown, on the contrary, that the individual gene is the unit of life, and therefore what is “selected” when we speak of natural selection. Success in evolution only applies to the individual gene, the humans or other animals that carry them around and disperse them via disease or procreation are merely “survival machines” for these genes. Acts of subconscious altruism (I’ll speak of well-planned actions later) can be interpreted as moves to extend one’s genes into the future (i.e. protecting the offspring) or protecting the solidarity of a group which, in turn, protects oneself (“You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”). Social insects are a special case of this, as the entire civilization tends to act as one survival machine.
The history of life is simplified (ohh, what a task) by imagining a chaotic, dynamic world in which, initially, short, replicating strips of organic chemicals competed for dominance (of course they didn’t really compete at this point, due to random mutation some were merely better suited for the environment and thus thrived). Eventually (read: billions of years) these replicators found themselves deeply embedded within larger, multi-celled organisms uniquely obsessed with survival and proliferation. Serving as the primary architect for an essentially automated process (living, from the gene’s perspective is quite simple: create an organism with a brain that is well-suited to life, kick back and cheer yourself on to immortality), the gene gets the primary benefit of all biological marvels by actually existing beyond the death of the organism. You have genes in you that have existed, unchanged, back down your ancestral change until well before vertebrae came to be.
The presupposition that all biological phenomenon can be explained by this drive is open to scrutiny, and I’m willing to accept the challenge of any anomaly to disprove or discredit it. It’s not my theory, of course, but is well-explained in Richard Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene (a must read for those interested in evolutionary biology, and in fact the originator of the term “survival machine” as well as many others), and many other works. I don’t profess expertise, but I am of the belief that every biological event is dictated by this axiom. This also requires a predominately nature-based approach to personality, dangerous ground to tread in a world where homosexuals are supposedly forced into “perversion” by other homosexuals, children become violent maniacs as a result of television programming and the mere mention of narcotics is enough to catapult an otherwise sane individual into drug-fueled madness .
Cultural behaviors (that is seemingly extragenetic acts perpetuated by memory, literature, parenting, etc but also undoubtedly effected by genetics) are perhaps the trickiest AND most interesting aspect to attempt an explanation. But here goes:
Religion:
Our genes (quite powerful and complex relative to the gene’s of other survival machines), have a difficult survival machine to maintain. Human beings seem to be curious and intelligent to a fault, skillfully manipulating their environments and other organisms within it to, ostensibly, benefit themselves. In the formation of such a cunning survival machine the gene likely runs into problems keeping the mental state of their bot balanced.
With an eye towards further speculation, I would claim that the “religious gene” (or the tendency to create this extragenetic effect) exists primarily to keep the survival machine sated and at peace. It allows us to accept answers so we can devote more time to procreation then philosophical investigation.
Art
Once again the survival machine must be kept in balance, a difficult proposition with an organism as complex as a human being. We get bored easily, we also have complex emotions (crucial in developing relationships, forming alliances, etc in the interest of immortalizing our genes). Art likely originated to serve several functions: ease boredom (those good at easing the boredom of others are favored and quite likely to propagate, the entertainer is a favorable genetic disposition), manage emotions (those capable of keeping their emotions in check can devote time to procreation) and work out complex thoughts for oneself and others.
The list goes on, and the above cases are meant to serve as examples rather than the subject.
The difficulty comes when we attempt to give this life meaning.
What is the impact of understanding that you as an individual are virtually irrelevant? Merely a short stop for your genetic overlord before you are discarded in favor of your offspring. A bleak outlook to be sure, and one perhaps the existentialist would find some solace in.
