For the past month or so, a single thought (other than Darwinism, that is) has kept creeping into my mind. I don't remember exactly the moment when this thought first came up.
It might have been while I was writing my previous blog post, during which I found, to my surprise, that The Intercollegiate Review was a journal that admitted only essays that advanced conservative thought. To my naive mind, thought -- the product of honest thinking and not of self-deception -- is neither of the left nor of the right; it just is, objective and transcendent, and while reasonable people can disagree on many things, they will, all of them, reach substantially the same conclusion if their reasoning is honest.
Or, it might have been as I was reading a Bloomberg View column by Peter Orszag, the illustrious former Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama Administration, attacking as a "mirage" the reputed savings from Medicaid reform through competitive bidding. "Demoralized" is the word I would use to describe my feelings when I read that article. It turns out that introducing more competition to health-care provision will result in higher, not lower, costs to the taxpayer. Fortunately, my feelings were rehabilitated when The Wall Street Journal posted a rebuttal shortly afterwards, saying that the alternative to competition is "coercion" and that for the sake of individual liberty and historical fealty, let us please try competition because those cost estimates are just that: estimates.
Or, it might have been while I was brushing my teeth, or shortly before actually doing so, when I usually look at myself in the mirror and practice a speech, this time in response to some provocative leftist rant. The Republicans are out to destroy the welfare state and leave poor people without the social safety net they have depended on for almost half a century, the Democrats say. Well I say: Medicare and Medicaid will be bankrupt within ten years if left as they are, and President Obama has responded only with demagoguery.
But people -- opinion-makers and leader-writers throughout cyberspace -- have kept on defending Obama. Where are "my people" anyway, the ones who would advance my argument and defend my position? We need to do our arguing fast and quick, yet people are missing!
And then it hit me: What if the brightest people, the most articulate people, the most respectable people are just not on my side? What if the ideas that I follow command respect only among people from the "other schools"? Does it mean that once you get into an Ivy League school, you automatically advocate leftist causes and lose your conservative bearings? Are my ideas simply ... bad?
A quick look at the most prominent conservative columnists today seems to indicate otherwise.
We can observe that while the conservatives don't have the summa cum laudes and Nobel Prizes in their camp (unless you count Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, but let's leave that for another day, because then you'll have to count Paul Samuelson in and go on and on and on interminably), only the New York Times columnist David Brooks escapes the Ivy League filter.
But moving along to the shaded rows, we see that the politicians (Elizabeth Warren is an aspiring politician) are different on each side. Where is Eureka College, anyway?
Perhaps this listing, which cannot be creditably called a "sample," is distorted by the presence of the Clintons of Yale University, but it is noteworthy that although G. W. Bush had degrees from Harvard and Yale (and was the first President with an MBA degree), he was often mocked for his intellectual ability, or lack thereof -- he was "the Decider," he said, not the thinker.
What this simplistic table tells us is that the liberals do not have a monopoly on high academic honors. True, it does not distinguish between the merely liberal from the Leftist agitators on stage during the 2012 Democratic National Convention. But it is clear that the politicians on the left have higher academic credentials than those on the right. What then?
Perhaps this trend of conservative intellectuals remaining in academia or journalism and liberal/socialist thinkers thriving in politics reflects the conservative taste for division of labour: the politicians do their work, the writers theirs, and the judges remain judges.
But the striking implication is that compromise is more possible with the politicians of the right than with those of the left. When politicians of the left advocate more empathy, they are not constrained by political realities. They have ideas, and then use politics to see those ideas realized and implemented. They are thinkers first, politicians second.
By contrast, the politicians of the right are politicians first, thinkers second. Anything that can advance a political goal will have primacy over policy prescriptions. But the obverse of this coin is that even if a policy is not entirely "conservative" in character, the rightist politicians can accept it if a substantial number of their constituencies will benefit from it.
This conclusion is ironic and perhaps unacceptable to those whose image of the Republican Party is molded by Sarah Palin's tea party. To counteract this image properly, one needs to write an academic thesis or a book, filled with examples and illustrated with charts. But just to avoid leaving readers hanging, allow me to generalize.
The Democrats want to increase spending on health care, on fiscal stimulus, on the automobile industry, and on a host of other things to stimulate economic activity. The Republicans want to decrease spending in order to contain government debt. On the surface, the Republicans are guided by their textbooks: The Road to Serfdom by Hayek, and Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand; the Democrats just want to reduce unemployment. So far, in the practicality contest, the Democrats run away with the prize.
But let us look at the constituencies that benefit from the competing policies. The Democrats' core voters are the minorities (but the Latinos will soon be the majority), gays and single people or childless couples in urban areas. Their lifestyle virtually demands empathy, and to them will flow, almost exclusively, the benefits of this Democratic orientation. On the other hand, the Republicans have their eye on the taxpayer and on their tax dollars ... in short, on everybody.
And from that word -- "everybody" -- stems our final conclusion. The Republicans are the managers; they govern, and when you govern you will see that you need to bear in mind the interests of as many groups of people as possible. None is broader than the category "taxpayer". Empathy is good, but who will pay for it?
Now: which group is more practical, the left or the right? Can't bad policy come from a good idea?
If there is one idea or theory that has kept me thinking these past few months, it is Darwinism. Today I shall write about it.
You see, a few years ago, I came across a book entitled Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx and Freud, by R. F. Baum. I found it in the Rizal Library at the Ateneo, and read it in a corner out of sheer curiosity. What I found there has burned in my mind for the past eight years.
In the book, the author lays out, in lucid words and elegant phrases, the thought that underlies each thinker's work, thereby defining each "ism" derived from that thinker's name: Darwinism, Marxism, Freudism.
After this summary and delineation, the author then shows, in rigorously argued logic, that each of these theories constitute a fundamental denigration of humanity, a rejection of human dignity, and a denial of what can properly be called "mind".
I cannot relate here what is written in that book because after borrowing it for a couple of weeks I was forced to return it, and I have never mustered enough energy and determination to buy a copy online. Suffice it to say that the book exists more in my memory than in my bookshelf.
And all the more alive for that. Every moment I spend thinking about books in general, every trip to the bookstore -- now with my little girl and my loving wife in tow -- reminds me of what I have read and reignites the joy of that experience.
There is a unique and irreplaceable delight in spending time with my wife and daughter, but that feeling and the distance of years have not dimmed the vividness of Baum's argument: that man is more than a host of repressed feelings, a worker trying to improve the means of production, an animal struggling to survive. Man has a mind of his own, and that distinction elevates him to dignity and truth.
There is this longing in me to read the book again, to find in his words the reassuring logic to counter the pervasive chaos of today's political and cultural conversation. This year is election year in the United States, and in the Philippines there has been no shortage of political controversy in the past seven years. But today I have a family to care for -- and that heightens my desire to strengthen my values through example and logical argument. Example I can show every day. But the logic?
I had to find that book. My search led me to this article in The Intercollegiate Review (Fall, 1975), entitled, "Coming to Grips with Darwin." The author is R. F. Baum.
It turns out that this article was the precursor to the book. It contained the ideas and arguments I had earlier found amplified and discussed in a more leisurely manner in Doctors of Modernity: I had found what I was looking for.
From that time on, I have wanted to say something about the article. I have wanted to apply its ideas and arguments to current issues. So far, I have been unsuccessful: I have not found the issue. But today, I have found the energy to force the issue.
And so, lacking anyone to respond to, I have decided to engage myself in the discussion. I have decided that, since no one has provoked me to discuss Darwinism, I shall just provoke myself.
The way I will go about it is through a question-and-answer format. I will imagine an interlocutor, say, in a panel interview on live TV, asking me about my views on Darwin. This is how the interview goes:
INTERVIEWER: This year marks the 130th year since the death of Charles Darwin and today we reflect on the impact that his work on evolutionary biology has had on human knowledge in general. He is important enough that his likeness is found on postage stamps and currencies, but what is the legacy of Charles Darwin?
Here in the studio, I am joined by TheEconomizer, whose credentials to appear on this program are entirely imaginary.
Welcome to the program.
TheEconomizer: Thank you.
I: So, I hear you don't believe in Darwin.
TE: If you really know what Darwin wrote, you wouldn't be so quick to idolize him.
I: Wait. You don't believe in evolution?
TE: Yes, of course, I believe in evolution! But whatever else may be said about evolution, or natural selection, or the origin of species, I will always believe that man is more than just an animal struggling to survive, that life is more than just survival. Man has a mind of his own, and that distinction elevates him to the realm of dignity and truth.
I: Hold on a minute. Darwin wrote about evolution and the origin of species -- in other words, about biology. What you've said seems far removed from science.
TE: Let us first be clear about what Darwin wrote and argued. I will let R. F. Baum in his article for The Intercollegiate Review, "Coming to Grips with Darwin", speak about it. He wrote: "Darwin provided, not the idea of evolution, nor even the basic concept of natural selection, but instead the idea that evolution occurred by means of that last ... 'The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection', as Darwin phrased his idea in his book's title, was Darwin's actual contribution."
I: So if that was the only thing that Darwin brought forward in argument, why has there been so much controversy over the past hundred and fifty years?
TE: It is because of the implications of his idea. Natural selection had earlier emerged as an empirical observation. Scientists had collected evidence that less useful traits in earlier organisms had been eliminated from later samples of the same species. Features and characteristics that hindered survival, or at least did not improve the chances of survival, of individual species were pruned or "outgrown" (quote, end quote). For instance, giraffes tended to pass on the genes for longer necks, not shorter necks, to their offspring.
Again according to Baum, "Darwin reasoned that in the consequent struggle for survival those individuals who were blessed with useful variations from their species' norms had the best chance to survive and reproduce. From this it seemed to him to follow that useful variations would accumulate, develop further over successive generations, and gradually result in new and biologically superior species."
Now let us allow Darwin himself to speak in his own words. In the conclusion to the first edition (p. 490), Darwin wrote, "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life ..."
Therefore, Darwin believed that the "higher animals", including of course, human beings, derived their existence from a "war of nature"; that is, a struggle for survival. Man owes his existence to the violent elimination of his competitors for the earth's scarce resources. That's why his idea was -- and still is -- controversial.
I: I don't understand. We all have to struggle to survive. Why is that a problem for you? Why is that controversial?
TE: To put it in current language, that is not the "be all and end all" of our existence. That is not all there is to life. Above all, we do not owe our existence to the struggle for existence. Otherwise, this means that I will only have life if I try to kill everyone else, since everyone else is a competitor for the earth's finite resources.
I: But surely Darwin allowed for exceptions? We fight not only for our own survival that of our families as well ... ?
TE: That would go against Darwin's theory, because defending those with unfavorable characteristics or traits would "contaminate" (quote, end quote, my words) the genes that are going to be passed on to the next generation. Remember that, if we follow Darwin's logic closely, we were not created by God or by anyone, for that matter. Rather, we are here because we are survivors of a "war of nature". We owe our existence to the struggle for survival, we devote all our efforts towards that struggle, and we do not tolerate anything that might threaten that survival. Any other consideration simply cannot be taken seriously.
I: But, surely, that misrepresents the Darwinian theory? After all, according to Robert Bannister, "Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature."
TE: It is hardly an unfair or inaccurate description of Darwinism. If humans as a species arose out of the struggle for existence, does that not include our human mind? This means that our minds, and our reasoning faculty, derive from brute force, from cunning, from the desire and struggle to survive. That in turn means that the only purpose of the mind is to improve our chances of survival.
To a large extent, that is true, but there can hardly be a more dangerous thing on earth than a mind solely dictated by the terms of survival. I don't know about you, but from my personal experience, my mind is free! Free to think about things that have nothing to do with survival. Free, indeed, to think of things that are inimical to survival, to the competition for resources. Such as: I would rather sleep on weekends rather than work and earn extra pay. Our mind transcends economic circumstance; in plain fact, our mind is not determined by economic interests, and that is why Darwinism is wrong.
I: But what about the fact that today the "modern evolutionary synthesis" asserts that "All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists," of which Darwin was unquestionably one. Doesn't this mean that the most updated scholarship supports and affirms Darwinism?
TE: Far from it. Saying that genetic mutation or genetic shuffling aids evolution is very, very far removed from saying that brute force, cunning, and survival in a "war of nature" give rise to new species. Moreover, it proves that it is not organisms themselves, by their very nature, and through natural selection, that gives rise to new species. Rather, it is mutation, which leads to and aids evolution.
I: Why? How is mutation different from natural selection? Indeed, how different is natural selection from evolution?
TE: First, let us explain evolution. Evolution, according to Wikipedia, is the change in the inherited biological characteristics of populations over successive generations. In one sense, it describes the relationship between species: homo sapiens evolved from homo erectus. But for this discussion, evolution is first and foremost the process through which new species arise. That is why early evolutionists, including Charles Darwin's one-time teacher, Adam Sedgwick, kept asking the question: how did evolution occur? What caused evolution?
This was Darwin's opening. He said, simply, that evolution was caused by natural selection: the pruning of unwanted physical characteristics, if done often and long enough, resulted in new species.
But let us remember this: before any natural selection takes place, individual traits are already varied. If we eliminated all variations and kept all individuals of the same species with exactly the same physical traits, natural selection would have nothing to select. Therefore, natural selection is a process that chooses among variations. The question is: how did the variations come about?
That is a question no selection theory can answer. Today, at most what can be said is that natural selection eliminates unwanted traits -- it eliminates, but does not create, new species.
I: But what about mutation?
TE: This is my final point. Mutations are the source of the variations that I have mentioned. And what is the source of mutations? Nobody can say. The origin of species is the origin of variations, according to Samuel Butler.
Darwinism, as well as Darwin, must stand or fall on the merits. The fact is its claims -- that species come into existence as a result of a "war of nature" and that organisms progress into better and higher forms -- are not supported by fact or logic.
I: All right, thank you for your views. Let me turn to a real biologist ...
