There is no to or for in evolution.
No physical properties of our natures, from our opposable thumbs to our mental processes (artifacts of electro-chemical processes) exist to serve some function, or for some purpose. That a particular bundle of physical properties is present today in our organism is simply an artifact of the negative selection of less adapted gene-bundles, and the accumulation better adapted gene-bundles, which are produced by randomly occurring mutations in our genes. The genes make imperfect copies of themselves as they reproduce by self-replication and/or the impacts of atomic level particles, such as photons, or other forms of electro-magnetic radiation, knock out bits of genetic code. Thus the offspring of one organism is no longer a mere replicant clone of their parents, each now having a different genetic makeup.
Where these new gene-bundles produce new physical properties which prove beneficial to the organism, as a whole, the organism will tend to survive and reproduce, thus reproducing these gene bundles. Such new gene-bundles will emerge randomly, and accumulate in their host organism over billions of years. Some particular genes will be reproduced despite the fact that they offer no advantages, as the physical manifestations of these particular genes do not produce enough of a negative effect on the organism to counter all of its more adaptive physical properties. Thus many genes are actually of no value, or are in fact a burden to the organism. But as long as long as the organism as a whole has enough other positive properties to offset this, the organism will survive and go on to reproduce its gene-bundles, despite the fact that the organism would be better off, often much better off, without many of the genes it inherits.
When thinking about genes and evolution, we must be careful not only to avoid the teleology of functionalism, but also to consider the process holistically. Thus we avoid seeking to ascribe a positive meaning to everything. We recognise that nothing in evolution was designed. Nothing in evolution was intended. No benefit was intended by nature. Nature does not have our interests at heart. The only thing that has our interests at heart is ourselves. Sentient creatures, animals, including us, are the only things with intentions and designs. A gene bundle will be reproduced despite it containing many genes that the organism would benefit from not having.
In the same way we could well do without many of our current inherited gene-bundles, and the instinctive responses, drives, motives, emotions, behaviors, and habits they produce. Religion is a product of human nature. It is a product of our desire to enslave others to our will, to treat others as means to our own ends, rather than as ends in themselves. Religion serves the interests of the beneficiary classes, and appeals to all who aspire to join those beneficiaries. Sadly this includes almost all of humanity. However the consequence is a slave society in which a few realise their dreams of heaven on earth, while the rest suffer in hell, or in their own ego-minds, in the waiting rooms of heaven, a.k.a purgatory, where they imagine they are doing their time, and earning their entry into the heaven that that tiny minority called the beneficiary classes inhabit.
Remember it is a mistake to think of every gene or property as existing because it is of benefit to the organism. This sort of thinking is a necessary artifact of the muddled way people think about evolution, and of functionalism and teleology in general.
Some thinkers merely want everything to serve some purpose, to thus indicate that it was intentionally designed for our benefit. Thus they construct a universe that cares about us. Religion of course personifies the universes care in this context as God/s.
Some thinkers are merely confused about how the process of evolution works. They see a bundle of adaptive, functional physical properties in the current organism. This suggests naturally that these must have been intended , either by some designer, or by the process of evolution itself, in some way. The benefits are the product of a benevolent universe, evolutionary process, or some designer (God etc). They are then forced to overlook the maladaptive properties, or to explain them away by imagining that they do in fact serve some positive purpose which we are simply unable, right now, to perceive. They will reasons that it is a question of perception and ignorance, rather than proof that the universe does not give a damn about our welfare, that it is indifferent to our experience of it.
The old gods were indifferent to our suffering, if you recall. It was only the new god, produced by Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, invented to serve their intentions, as one of their ‘noble’ lies, that had any concern for our wellbeing. They would have us believe that in this, the best of all possible worlds (thus at least acknowledging its imperfections), everything happens for a reason. For a good reason. Everything thus serves some positive purpose. Ultimately. And this purpose will be revealed one day to you, and in a moment of epiphany you will understand why your suffering was ultimately designed for your own good. And you will be grateful for having suffered it. Read Plato’ s Republic.
We can be grateful to Plato either for his arrogance and assumption that only members of the beneficiary classes or those aspiring to membership would ever read his books, or for deliberately and mischievously revealing their plans for us, to us, their slaves. Either way Plato has informed the slaves of their master’s intentions and designs in constructing ‘Religion’ . Religionare , remember, comes from the Latin, ‘to bind‘. Plato ‘advises’ the aristocracy to eliminate all the old gods, and to replace them with one god. This god was to be the source of everything good in the universe. And as he was to be all-powerful, it would be necessary to ‘spin’ any imperfections in the world he ‘created’ in a positive light. Otherwise this god would be unappealing, do to his lack of concern for our welfare, or his incompetence. Why worship a god who didn’t care about you, or who couldn’t actually do anything for you? Unless of course he was an angry volcano god who would ‘smite’ you if you didn’t. Anyway, the new god-makers were sure to cover all their bets. You would either worship a loving father, or fear a tyrannical and arbitrary one.
Other ancient Greeks such as Epicurus saw through the god-maker and ‘Religion’ maker’s plans, even before Plato outlined them in Republic. Epicurus, Democritus and their philosophical peers, all had a modern and accurate impression of reality, unbiased or prejudiced by wishful thinking or the dogma of Plato and all the cults, including the Catholic Church, which modeled themselves on Plato’s Republic.
And thus we find ourselves today, the inheritors of billions of years of hit and miss random mutation and negative selection, and a few thousand years of noble lies, teleology, functionalism, and ‘Religion’.
Most of us still want to imagine that the universe cares about our wellbeing, whether as Gaia or some God/s. We do NOT comprehend how evolution works. Most of us do not WANT to comprehend this. The rest simply have been constantly mislead by their teachers, books, and television presenters. You can’t blame these popular ‘scientists’ for failing to understand how evolution really works. Given all their best intentions, they have been deliberately duped by some, and have become the collateral damage of others, equally ignorant, no matter what their academic titles or nobel prizes.
You will have to read my TROONATNOOR books and bloggs to really comprehend how evolution works. And you will have to be willing to comprehend the reality. You will need to be willing to dispose of many of the comforting and satisfying beliefs you so treasure, and have become emotionally dependent upon. And if you are a member of the beneficiary classes, you will have to be willing to risk losing many of the benefits you enjoy as a result of these beliefs and misconceptions. You will at least have to be willing to risk losing your sense of ‘moral’ entitlement to those benefits, your ability to legitimate them, and to kid yourself that you are a good person, and that your enjoyment of the benefits is legitimate, earned, justified, and even in your own longer term self-interest. Once you become holistically enlightened you will find yourself in a world that is new for you, but which was always staring you right in the face. You will experience discomfort and unease, at first. You will question all your values and assumptions. You will have truly eaten of the forbidden fruit, forbidden to you by the priests.
Just pause for one moment and consider that after this first and only law, the second law of the god of ‘ Religion’ was to ‘go forth and multiply’. Think about why you would have a god make such an ineffably cruel commandment to Adam and Eve. Could anything ‘godly’ harbor such malice for his own ‘creation’, who through his own fault, have acted in ways that would ensure the suffering of all their offspring for eternity? Surely a loving god, even one that was simply not a complete and utter bastard, would not desire suffering? Why on earth would any reasonable, half-decent person want to inflict suffering on untold generations? The answer is so obvious once the veil is lifted. The priests, and the beneficiary classes they belong to and represent, are the ones who want their slaves to keep having more slaves, despite the clear knowledge that these offspring are doomed to suffer for at least their natural lives. It is the slave-owner who wants more slaves that has a god order the people to reproduce. And thus I need not explain the commandment ‘gainst self slaughter’ that Hamlet refers to. Slaves are the property of their owner. The owner cannot allow his capital to liquidate itself. He cannot allow his means to destroy themselves. If he did, he would be back to working his ‘estates’ himself, and all his land and territories would be reduced to the value of what he himself could produce from them. In other words all the land in the world would be of no value to him, as he could only profitably farm and cultivate a very small area of land. He could only fish so many fish himself. He could only hunt so many animals and collect so many fruits and nuts himself. Please, think about it. It is so obvious once it has been brought to your attention.
Now the actual target of this blogg is our impulses, desires, and instincts. Earlier in my books I explain how all our behavior can be reduced to a bundle of inherited instincts, impulses, and desires. A few nights ago I was further contemplating the nature of our behaviors, especially with regard to the more nasty ones which I find myself constantly the victim of. I am talking about those of other people, not my own desires, which of course we are all equally the victim of. I have always been the victim of other people’s impulse to ‘cut down the tall poppies’, or any that at least have the ambition to grow higher, in order to gain a holistic overview of the entire field!
An instinct can be reduced to an artifact of electro-chemical interactions in our brain. Thus the mind is an artifact of physical interactions, or the movements of atoms in space, if you like. Everything we think and feel happens in some part of our nervous system . All our perceptions are produced inside the brain, from inputs inputted by our senses. All our primary motives are hard-wired, and the interaction of these with our environment produces secondary motives, which derive from the interaction among the primary motives, and their interaction with the environment and the feedback that environment gives.
For example. Consider the impulse to steal. Good idea. You steal. But then others steal from you. Sucks. So you try first to find a way that you can steal from others, but they cannot steal from you. Good. Security guards. Fortresses. You go on raids and bring back your booty, keeping it safe inside your castle. The guys inside the castle are your guys. You have come to an understanding that you all have to respect each other’s property inside the walls of the castle, otherwise you would have nowhere to leave your booty once you had stolen it. You agree to limit your stealing, and rape, etc, to outside the walls. As your walled city grew, and became a state, and then a nation, you limited your theft and rape to people further and further away, and more and more different from you. Just so you wouldn’t accidentally steal from and rape the wrong people. This we call ‘Society’. If you stole from and raped people inside your own society, then the agreement you had to not steal from and rape each other would break down. You’d never get a good nights sleep.
So you invented ‘races‘, which took advantage of really obvious differences between people, such as skin color, or the shape of their eyes. This made it easy to identify who was in your own society, and whose rights you had to respect, to ensure reciprocation of respect for your own rights, and those who were not. This meant you could be protected by the ‘social contract’ tacitly entered into among members of your own society, and enforced by police and courts to every member’s advantage, while at the same time having access to a clearly identifiable group of ‘others’ from whom you could steal from, and rape. Thus we got first nationalities, and then when many nations enjoined into more global ‘social contracts’, we got races. It was O.K to rape and steal from other ‘races’, as they were morally inferior. God didn’t love them. Just us, the ‘chosen’ or ‘master’ ‘race’. Thus members of each nation, and then ‘race’, could rape and steal from each other, and have somewhere safe and ‘civilized’ to bring back the sex slaves and other booty to, where your right to the exclusive enjoyment of it would be protected by police and courts. Once you got it back to your own ‘society’ it was automatically your property.
This was great for all those who benefit from fear. The military. The ‘security’ forces. Police. You definitely had reason to fear ‘others’ not belonging to your nation or race. For they considered you as legitimate a target of rape and theft as you considered them to be. And so we developed all the industrial military complexes and security industry, including C.I.A’s, K.G.B’s, F.B.Is, massive ‘Big brother’ policing, all part of a hugely profitable ‘security’ industry. The slaves lived in fear, and were happy to pay for all of this, just so they could feel a bit safer. When the slaves were nominally freed, they continued to ‘voluntarily’ pay for all this.
Anyway, over time you find more sophisticated ways to steal, a.k.a feudal system and later capitalism, and still protect your ill-gotten booty a.k.a legal systems. Rape was harder. First you defined all your own tribe as taboo, defining all the others as legitimate victims, for your god had told you so. Anyway, as things became more complicated and the boundaries of tribes grew we sooner or later realised we couldn’t manage both rape and protection of our own sex objects from others, so we agreed that no-one would rape anyone, unless of course you were a Catholic priest or other powerful person who had immunity from the laws everyone else had to obey. But for the most part we deny our impulse to steal and rape, on purely selfish grounds, either that we don’t want ourselves or others we care about to be the next victim, or that we don’t want to end up in jail.
And socialization means that the unconscious has even internalised some taboos into its computations of short and longer term self-interest. It has noted the costs of some impulses. It has noted that some impulses conflict with others. It has computed longer term and immediate interests and desires. It has calculated hierarchies and priorities of desires and aversions. It considers things holistically. How can I make the most of the available opportunities to satisfy my desires while still maintaining my security and longer-term survival and prosperity.
We call this computation reason. It is purely cost-benefit analysis on a holistic scale. The unconscious allocates a mobile cathexis, so that today we feel displeasure even at the mere thought of acting upon some of our impulses. We find them distasteful and discomforting per se.
But thinking about the unconscious in terms of actively, deliberately allocating a mobile cathexis, so that we find some ideas and acts intrinsically and inherently pleasurable, and others dis-pleasurable, even painful, is less precise than what I will now try to elucidate.
Evolution is a passive process. It has no aims or objects. No to or for. No intentions. No designs. No interests in outcomes or processes. Of course an organism that did not have the impulse to survive and reproduce would become extinct in one generation. No such species will likely be present for us to observe, as they would become extinct in one generation. We would have to be there at their birth and death, to be able to witness their existence, as examples of how ‘hit and miss’ evolution is.
The only species we do get to observe do have an impulse to survive and reproduce.
However this is no necessary defining characteristic of organisms or of evolution. This impulse is no more natural or necessary than an impulse to eat your own head would be.
All impulses derive from some physical process produced ultimately by genes and D.N.A. D.N.A and gene will only be reproduced if it is part of a holistic bundle that is consistent with reproduction. Eating your own head, and having sex with shoes, for example, will not reproduce your organism, or the genes. Surely over billions of years organisms were born with precisely such impulses, and they didn’t reproduce. Thus this gene mutation is no longer among us. Or if it is, it is defined as some sort of abnormality, some aberration of evolution. However it is in fact typical of evolution. Evolution is a process of misses, with occasional hits. Most of evolutions outcomes were misses. Most of all the species that ever emerged from the process of evolution are extinct. Most would have gone extinct very quickly. One in a billion outcomes, organisms, of the process of evolution were likely to have survived long enough to reproduce. This is negative selection. It is cruel, unfair, indifferent to the suffering of the creatures it produces. It is a nasty and painful process. It is the opposite of eugenics. It s random. It produces billions of more misses than it does hits. It takes billions of years to accumulate the few ‘hits’ to produce what we can observe today. We observe the hits. And most of these ‘hits’ are mediocre compared to the few really ‘desirable’ outcomes of evolution. Eugenics seeks to reproduce only the most desirable of ‘hits’. But then there would be no inequality for the beneficiary classes to opportunistically exploit. So guess who tends to be the most violently opposed to eugenics? Not the ugly and stupid, seeking to defend their self-definition, and right to reproduce. They of course have an emotional reaction against the idea of eugenics, as it defines them as inferior. No, the real, organized, active resistance to eugenics has always come from those people who have, by pure good fortune, inherited the most superior genes themselves. They seek to preserve the benefits that accrue to those with such fortunate holistic inheritances. They wish to preserve inequality in their own narrow self-interest. They are loathe to give up their privileges and benefits that accrue to them based on their genetic inheritance. They want to remain members of a small minority. You can only opportunistically exploit inequality if it exists. If we were all born more or less equal, there would be no inequality to exploit. There could be no slaves and no masters. No beneficiaries and no exploited. Anyway, I explain all this in detail in my TROONATNOOR books.
Eating other people’s heads will be reproduced, to a point, as it doesn’t holistically prevent the host organism reproducing. It aids it in this. To a point.
But of course those of us who don’t want to have our heads eaten will question the judgment of the head-eaters. We will seek to over-ride their impulses. We will seek to manage them. We will want to regulate their behaviors. We will try to regulate their impulses too, through socialisation and education. We will try to convince them that head-eating, especially of people with heads like ours, is a bad thing. And if we cannot convince them of this, we will employ police and courts, legal systems and prisons, to impose our own good judgment of what is good for them in specific and in general, upon them, whether they agree to this imposition or not. In the same way we over-ride the judgments of people who believe it is safe from them to drink and drive, and safe for others for them to force them to consume the products of their nicotine addictions.
Of course we are loathe to over-ride other peoples judgments if they have the same power to over-ride ours. The social contract implicitly places us all on an equal footing re: the right to vote. And so we are careful about over-riding other’s judgments, for fear of them over-riding ours. We may not like them drink-driving or smoking in public, but we do not want Big Brother intervening in our lives, and over-riding our own judgments, for example, concerning our impulses to dissect living animals, to pump toxic waste into other peoples rivers, or to reproduce ourselves, maybe even to beat our wives and children. And so we tend not to support laws which would restrict others, for fear of experiencing similar restrictions one day. We are loathe to set precedents which might one day limit our own ‘freedoms’.
Eugenics, and veganism, then, are not opposed on the grounds that they are not good for society. They are resisted on the grounds that individuals do not want to have their own judgments and impulses in any way contradicted, let alone responsibly regulated. The prime determinant of our behaviors is at best holistically enlightened self-interest, but more commonly, narrow selfish interest defined by ignorance and deception. This deception is both internal denial and self-deception, and external deception on the part of others seeking to misinform us.
The beneficiaries of any system of relations have no motive to change it. They are at the top of the wheel of fortune, and do not want it to revolve any further, as that would only mean a decline in their own personal fortunes, privileges, powers, wealth, satisfactions and so on. Their motive in opposing Euthanasia, Eugenics, and so on, are purely personal. The interests of others rarely enters into anyones calculations at a level powerful enough to be a determinant, or at least a consistent one. Even parents are parents because they wanted to be parents. They did not have the interests of their not-yet-born children in mind when they reproduced. They were focused on the sensual delights of babies and little kids, and on illusions of living vicariously through their children, achieving their own (the parent’s) aims, using these children as the means to their (the parent’s) own ends.
Slavery will never be abolished if you appeal to democratic values, as the vast majority of the people who have the power to vote, and the intelligence to use it effectively, are the beneficiaries of slavery. The only reason we care if another has access to Euthanasia is in terms of our own self interests. Are they are means to our ends? A potential means to our ends? Do they provide a service or good we value? Do we benefit from their existence?
And if we don’t find any benefit from this particular person, and thus find ourselves indifferent to whether they live or die, would we be perhaps setting a dangerous precedent if we let them die peacefully when and how they chose? If we let one person have access to Euthanasia, someone who provides no current for future potential benefits for us, as a means to our ends, would be be risking opening the flood-gates to billions of people from whose existence we did benefit?
And worse, if we managed reproduction to reduce inequality, and to boost the overall level of health, intelligence, beauty, and talent, and ensured that each person was born with a desirable and reasonably equal holistic inheritance, there would be no inequality for us to exploit. Natural inequality is leveraged into social inequality, by natural processes. The beautiful and intelligent, healthy and talented, have a competitive advantage which they opportunistically exploit to accrue personal privileges and benefits. This is further leveraged by other components of the holistic inheritance, such as money, social connections, and so on.
And so when you hear people arguing against contradicting the judgments of people, don’t pay heed to their reasonsings and rhetoric. If you are against Euthanasia and Eugenics, and Veganism, then you are a beneficiary of slavery, or at least perceive that your interests are being promoted by slavery, pure and simple. You do not WANT an end to slavery, as you fear losing your relative position of superiority, which allows you to opportunistically accumulate benefits.
I will edit this later. I wanted to make that point about slavery. It has not yet been abolished, and probably never will be, as long as a powerful minority or democratic majority perceive that it is in their interests to maintain it. I am referring to the slavery of not owning your own life, and of the slavery of animals. And of the slavery of the not-yet-born who will become our children. None of these people have the right to chose. We withhold it from them. They do not own their own lives. They are all slaves. That is why we can legally kill unborn babies. Of course this is a new right. Until overpopulation became an issue, it was a criminal act. The slavers valued every not-yet-born slave as a form of capital, and thus they protected that capital like they would any other capital they owned, be it land or gold or a patent. But in the western developed world, with its welfare state (designed to ensure the welfare of the state, and not the slaves, mind you), and mechanisation, and baby-boom, and the nominal elimination of slavery per se, the unborn are no longer considered valuable capital. And so abortion has become legal. I prophecise that for similar reasons euthanasia, and even infanticide, will one day become just as legally accepted as abortion is today.
Keep in mind that most of us are slaves to others, while at the same time benefiting from the slavery of others. You, the reader, most probably find yourself fairly high up in the hierarchy of relative beneficiaries, as members of the Western Developed Welfare State world. We are slaves to a minority above us, but beneficiaries of a much larger majority below, consisting of third-world workers, the unemployed, and the exploited casual worker.
To bring the discussion full circle, we must now see how opportunism is an instinct. Enslaving others, obtrusively or unobtrusively, by force or other more subtle means, employing them as mere means to our own ends, is instinctive. It is just a bundle of nerve connections that have been reproduced as they did not, holistically, prevent enough humans surviving and reproducing to send the species extinct. In fact many will claim that the advance of this species derives from slavery per se, the exploitation and reproduction of inequality, the ever concentrating of power and privilege in ever fewer hands (proportionally to population size), and thus the ability to give the best random outputs of negative selection the best social conditions and opportunities in which to thrive. A small percent of the human population is thus given the ideal conditions to prosper in their own self-contained Edens, at the expense of the majority.
Is this a necessary pre-condition for the evolution of our species? Misery for the many and joy for the few?
Is it worth taking the chance that every next-life you will, statistically, most likely suffer a life of misery, just so that once or twice in a few thousand years you can enjoy a life of joy?
Dare to challenge your instincts and judgments. They are not perfect. They were not designed to serve your interests, with your wellbeing at heart. They are the consequence of billions of years of random mutation and negative selection. You exist despite many of them. So question each of them. They are not ‘the best possible of all impulses and desires, in this, the best of all possible worlds’. They are just one possible set of impulses in this, just one mere example of what a world could possibly look like. There are alternatives that could be superior. And we will probably experience Billions of billions of others that are inferior, before we get to experience the few superior ones, unless we take a more active role in our own evolution, and re-direct the process towards positive selection.
If you are a member of the beneficiary classes right now, consider how small one lifetime is compared to billions of years of next-lives. Do you really want to risk inheriting the lives most people endure today in so many next-lives, just to enjoy a few privileges this life, until one of the exploited slaves gets it into their head that you have no right to do so, and that they have nothing to lose by revolting against the system, even if it means dieing in the process?
Do you fear comprehending TROONATNOOR, because it might mean questioning your current values, and risking losing some of the benefits you currently enjoy? I mean the comforts of believing in false conceptualisations of evolution, in believing all things are for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds. I mean the comforts of believing you will be rewarded in next lives or after lives for enduring the hell of your current life? I mean the economic benefits of money, comforts, goods and services, things you would not enjoy in a fair world devoid of slavery, including the meat in your meals, the milk in your thick-shakes, and some status goods, and worthless cosmetics and pharmaceuticals which you have been duped into thinking are of value?
???? Are you against slavery? Really? Or are you for Slavery? Or do you imagine you do not have to decide, that you will let others decide, and take the moral responsibility for your passive consumption of their decisions, like some Dalai Lama imagining he can pass on his moral guilt, his bad karma, onto the butcher who slaughters the animals he will eat?
I prophecise that it is merely a matter of time, and billions of experiences of suffering and misery, before the beneficiary classes have access to means which are better than humans to satisfying their own ends. Then most humans will no longer represent valued means to the beneficiary classes. They will come to represent ‘pollution’ and ‘threats’. And only then will my Eden Protocols, in effect, be introduced. Not with the good intentions I have, but nonetheless with the same outcomes. Thus I often feel like the little cloud racing energetically and ambitiously across the sky. The big mass of dark clouds behind it, like the tide of history, will catch up with it sooner or later. And I wonder at all the effort, sacrifice, and suffering I have endured merely to have raced across the empty sky alone, to reach the point just a little earlier, in evolutionary time. And it is lonely at times. But more often I enjoy the solitude. The fresh air. The open skies. I am free to range here and there, while the dark masses of clouds plod along in their slow fortress-prison of gray. Sure, when they get here they might laugh at me for all the effort and sacrifice I endured to enjoy the open skies, to have gotten here earlier. I might laugh at myself even now. But remember, my actions are no less determined than theirs. I didn’t get offered the chance to chose any more than they did. And so they will experience the costs and benefits of their holistic inheritance as I enjoy and suffer mine.
May your next holistic inheritance be an optimal one. May the next experience engine you experience be a satisfying one.
Copyright Markus Heinrich Rehbach 2011 All Rights Reserved