FROM "THE LAW OF THE STRONGER" TO THE LAW OF "GOOD IS STRONGER"[1]
(By Ramón D. Marín)
As a consequence of the breach between rich and poor, our species has forked into two kinds of human beings: some rich, beautiful, and intelligent; the others poor, ugly, and not so intelligent, it seems. This was briefly the piece of news that reverberated in my ears, with some indignation, some years ago. It means that the splendorous beauties that fill the heart, soul, and senses of the poor, week, dazzleable members of the so called virile sex are sculptures created by the hand, (seemingly masterful) of private property[2][3]. By these accounts, even the confirmed bachelor must be thankful because at least one of his senses is getting the benefits of such an extraordinary achievement.
What has happened with evolution can best be told by science, but let us try for a moment to gather the information that we have (weather a little or a lot) about the matter of evolution, concentrate deeply, add, subtract, divide, multiply and throw our best guess.
If the problem of private property were to continue for the sufficient amount of time, the forking of the human species would accentuate more overtime, actually originating 2 different species of human beings that would probably be called the "richsapiens" and the "neanderpoor"[4]:
The "richsapiens" more beautiful, richer, and more intelligent each time.
The "neanderpoor" each time uglier, poorer and less intelligent (than the "richsapiens").
Absence of genetic flow[5] between the ones and the others due to social and sexual selection.
This trend getting stronger and perpetuating itself as a consequence of the social-economical barriers.
We would most likely not have to talk about the disappearance of some and prevailing of the others as it happened about between 28,000 and 35,000 years ago[6][7][8] (some believe they fused, but none of the two factions seems to have irrefutable proof yet) because our cultural evolution would certainly ensure some level of respect for the rights of the less lucky ones. But were it not the case, (like it were any news) we, the poor "neanderpoor," would be the hypothetical disappearing ones because the fittest... money, power, intelligence...
But luckily things will not go that far because, being evolution a process that takes so long, there are great probabilities that we should find a solution to the problem of wealth concentration, the breach between rich and poor, and private property before it can generate 2 different species of human beings. However, evolution will continue its course[9].
"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into longpast geological ages, that we see only that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were."[10]
Given the fact that the problem at stake is going to be resolved on time[11] (so that peace prevails and no entanglements of big proportions happen that could put at risk the survival of the human species) the leveling role of the state would then be democratizing[12] to a certain extent, the access to the possibilities of transmission of the genes to the next generation.
What would the consequences of this democratization be?
Let us consider the struggle for survival from one of its angles: getting the daily sustenance. Before the democratization (a lapse of millions of years), there would be more options to provide for yourself and your family by being violent/aggressive/rude for reasons such as[13][14]:
There is a relationship between being violent/aggressive/rude and the capacity to perform in a world in which we have to compete frantically for the sustenance[15].
When individuals have better performance at getting the sustenance, that characteristic is transmitted and their descendants have better probabilities of surviving and perpetuating it.
The individual that is less violent/aggressive/rude has disadvantages when competing for the sustenance for him and his family.
The individual that is less violent/aggressive/rude has disadvantages when competing for the opposite sex; therefore, less possibilities of having descendants, and he transmits those disadvantages to his descendants.
"In some primates, for example, the domineering get more delousing than the less domineering, or they have priority over the available food or over the females in rut. The hierarchies can be linear triangular or even quadrilateral, when alliances are formed that dominate others jointly, as it has been observed with African baboons."[16]
In this period, the law of the stronger/more violent/more aggressive/ruder makes a huge difference; because it determines which individuals have access to material goods and, for the above-mentioned reasons, better probabilities of providing the sustenance for himself and his family, greater probabilities of surviving and better probabilities of passing on his genes[17].
"The archeological register shows that during 99% of our history (over 4 million years) man lived in small groups, no bigger than 50 individuals, was nomadic and lived as a hunter of animal preys and a gatherer of vegetable food. It also indicates that sedentariness is a recent phenomenon (from about 12,000 years ago) in the history of our species, and that urbanism is a recent phenomenon (from about 7,000 years ago). The human patterns of aggression, affection, and reaction to stress, as well as the structure of the family and social life were shaped in that long period elapsed before sedentariness appeared."[18]
But after the democratization (which will happen at some point in the future), the roles would switch around due to the fact that the sustenance issue would be solved. It would not be necessary any more to be violent/aggressive/rude in order to have better probabilities of providing, surviving, and pass the genes on. What would make a difference in this next period would be the lifespan: Assuming that the violent one would have, on the average, a shorter lifetime and, therefore, less probabilities of transmitting his genes; theoretically, the peaceful/calm/benign would be better positioned than we were when we had to fight fiercely to obtain the sustenance. The violent traits would then have fewer probabilities to be transmitted, they would start receding little by little, and in the very long term we would be seeing a planet populated by more peaceful/calm/benign human beings.
"Can we doubt that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection..."[19]
As for the impact of sexual selection: after the democratization of the obtainment of the sustenance, and then, theoretically, the economic factor and the role of the anti-values in the process of approaching the opposite sex have less importance, will human beings feel attracted to mates (considered) good[20]... or mates (considered) bad (by general standards)? I dont dare to throw an opinion on this one; because, what if I put my foot in my mouth? Id rather slip up by saying that, sometimes, it seems like the bad ones didnt have bad reputation unless they have been convicted of horrendous crimes But its clear that when those who commit awful crimes have money
It might not be possible to predict exactly how the question of sexual selection is going to be conformed after the democratization, but what we should really do is raise a prayer to heaven so the good ones have more requests than the bad ones in order that the inhabitants of the future can live in a world that gets to be an instrument of God and the Forces of Good, more and more each time.
"Several speakers quoted the Native American saying, 'We have not inherited the Earth from our ancestors, but have borrowed it from our children.'"[21]
That, then, is how the branching trend that is already obvious enough would get stopped; and in that way also the law of the stronger would be replaced by the law of Good is stronger than evil. This latter would triumph because the problem of evil would be deeply impacted positively by factors like: the possible end of the use of money (being replaced by another exchange system), the end of the chapter of the wild struggle for survival, the possible end of the era of working for a pay, the elimination of the breach between rich and poor, the solution to the problem of private property, etc. All these phenomena combined would gradually reduce the need to grab the anti-values in all occurrences of daily life, such as: obtaining the sustenance, approaching the opposite sex, valuating human beings, politics, etc.
The above (plus the prevalence of the peaceful/calm/benign characters over those violent/aggressive/rude ones in the heart of the human beings) would be bringing us closer to what could be called the preponderance of Good over evil We can even expect that economic factors should bring about a cultural evolution and this latter should cause a swift evolution of the human heart, so we do not have to wait millions of years for biological evolution[22] to take place.
"Paleontologist Donald Johanson in his book Blueprints solving the mystery of evolution sees man, as belonging to a species whose emotional evolution is way behind in relation to his cultural and technical evolution, so that his emotional maturity is still to be achieved, keeping still alive his ancestral, primitive instincts in him, without the moderating influence of an emotional control that equilibrates his frightening technical capacity.
As an evolution being, that has not completely overcome his cavern impulses of aggression, territoriality, antagonism, emulation, hatred, and envy, modern man takes a good many of his most trascendental decisions, using his intelligence less than his passionateness..."[23]
The values and anti-values in the heart of the human beings vary from culture to culture, from person to person; they have been configured throughout millions of years of evolution, throughout centuries of existence of the different cultures, and throughout years of education in the bosom of a family. They fulfilled and continue to fulfill critical functions in our daily lives, especially in the survival of the species. The past is different from the present and from the future, that is why values and anti-values will get configured according to the needs of a constantly transforming world: prejudicial traits will tend to disappear and beneficial ones will carry on.
"In social animals it [Natural selection] will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the whole community; if the community profits by the selected change."[24]
What would the future of values and anti-values be when the aforementioned events take place?
"Doing the right thing, practically and morally, is so important for survival that these tendencies must be rapidly acquired, and that can only happen if children are biologically disposed to imitate behavior and learn the underlying rules of that behavior directly, by observation, and without formal instruction or the receipt of rewards and penalties."[25]
And what would be the future of humanity if problems like that of private property, overpopulation, climate change, the breach between rich and poor, etc. were not resolved on time?
