In this and the next three posts I shall explore some theoretical arguments about partnership.
In the very earliest written documents and the verbal traditions before them, the powerful have sought to justify their violence. Any argument will do to justify their violence.
Some people blame Darwin for this although I don’t think it was entirely his fault. I understand the term “survival of the fittest” did not appear in the first edition of “On The Origins of the Species”. Whenever it appeared, people misinterpreted these words and used them in two ways that have had unfortunate consequences.
The problem is we understand the word “fittest” in two ways, the healthiest or the one who fits best. Darwin meant the latter, most people seem to think he meant the former. Foxes kill rabbits. The mistake is to think this makes foxes fitter than rabbits. Actually they kill weaker rabbits who can’t run away as fast as stronger rabbits. The mistake would be to think faster rabbits are fitter. Look at this way, if rabbits evolved machine guns and could kill every fox, this would not make them fitter. Indeed the rabbit population would die out as well as the foxes.
The problem is our fixation with conflict or competition blinds us to seeing what is actually going on. Foxes and rabbits are part of a much bigger system. That system also includes grass. Rabbits eat grass. What happens to the grass when the rabbit population increases?
Consequences of Misunderstanding Evolution
This basic misunderstanding has led in two unfortunate directions.
First and obviously: fascism. The idea that the gene pool can be manipulated to breed a better population underlies much far right rhetoric. By being strong, we are told, we can solve all our problems.
One reaction to this on the left was creationism. By thinking Darwinism glorified violence, many Christians reacted by rejecting Darwinism. The 1925 Scopes trial in the States was not conducted by modern fundamentalists. Many had a left perspective and believed Darwinism justified violence.
Creationism evolved during the 1950s into a covert movement called creation science, claiming to be a science and not based upon theology.
When we approach partnership as a topic, we need to understand the entrenched views of many that partnership is somehow not natural. Ultimately human nature will win out and our competitive animal nature will show its real claws.
Obviously this can happen; there are plenty of stories of betrayals but betrayals work because there is trust. In a world without trust it is impossible to betray.
Fitness implies collaboration, innovation and problem solving. Animals and plants do not evolve in splendid isolation. It is actually ecosystems that evolve. Nothing can survive without collaboration.
Next time I will discuss some of the consequences of the competitive world view, and after that I shall look at alternatives to it in real life and online.
