A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation (Darwinism Today) [Hardcover]

It was thought not too many years ago that the architects (so to speak) of the modern world were Marx, Darwin, Einstein and Freud. Now that the postmodern era is upon us, a reevaluation has been made and Marxist ideas have been largely discredited. Einstein has suffered a correction (from quantum mechanics), Freud has been reclassified as literature, and it is only Darwin's reputation that has survived unsullied.

Furthermore during this period the right has taken Darwin as its own, believing that the competitive biological nature of human beings as revealed by evolutionary biology is what leads to the inequalities that exist in human societies while justifying the war of one against all, etc.

But what Peter Singer is crowing about (and is the occasion for this lengthy essay/short book) is that the "red in tooth and claw" (Tennyson) interpretation of biological evolution that prevailed throughout the modern era is now coming under fire. No longer can biological evolution be seen as simply the strong taking advantage of the weak (a notion understandably obnoxious to the left). The larger truth now emerging from biology is that cooperation plays an important role in being fit and has, especially for humans, great adaptive value. It is becoming clear that Richard Dawkins's idea of the "selfish gene" is only part of the understanding, and that natural selection operates on groups through the individual, leading to an understanding that one (more cooperative) tribe may be selected over another, and that it is through cooperation within the tribe that Darwinian fittest may be most strongly expressed.

Now this is an idea that the left can appreciate. Consequently Singer's enthusiasm. Marx is dead, long live Darwin!

My problem with this intellectual enterprise is one that Singer points to on page 38, namely that we cannot form an argument from what IS to what SHOULD BE. Singer opines that we can instead through an appreciation of evolution gain "a better understanding of what it may take to achieve the goals we seek."

Beginning on page 31 with his second chapter, Singer compares behaviors across societies. This allows him to note which practices are universal or nearly so and which are highly diverse. The conclusion is that the more universal the behavior, the more it is a product of our biological nature and not a construct of society. To the extent that this process is valid, the information gotten is valuable. This is indeed one of the tools of evolutionary psychology that some people on the Darwinian left would like to discredit. They fear that an emphasis on our genetic endowment will work against our ability to nurture positive values and behaviors. They want nurture trumping nature.

However, in my opinion, the entire argument is passé and invalid. It is now generally understood in biology that nature gives us a predisposition to certain behaviors that develop in concert with our environmental experience so that our behaviors are an intimate product of both our nature and our nurture and cannot in any way be separated. The old "nature vs. nurture" debate is now seen as based on a false dilemma.

Also, it should be appreciated that today's scientific understanding of human nature as derived from biology, genetics and kindred disciplines, is just that, today's understanding, and as such is tentative. Consequently any oughts, shoulds, etc. drawn from such an understanding--even if such a practice were logically valid--would also be of a provisional nature.

Having said all this, I want to note that Singer's argument is well presented and his prescription for a Darwinian left in Chapter 5 well worth reading. If adopted it would work toward relieving the left from its fear of what evolutionary psychology is discovering about human beings. As Steven Pinker (not exactly a leftist) cheerfully notes, "Singer challenges the conventional wisdom that a recognition of human nature is incompatible with progressive ideals..."

He does, and indeed Singer demonstrates that the discoveries of evolutionary biology can be completely compatible with the traditional values of the left. This is an important understanding, since evolutionary biology is not going to go away, nor are its discoveries. We must learn to live with who and what we are without necessarily condoning our less attractive tendencies or attempting to sweep them under the rug.

Bottom line: the opening chapter which concentrates too much on the well-known Marxist delusions and the Soviet doublethink might well be skipped. The meat of Singer's essay begins with Chapter 2, and works very well by itself.

"In the 20th century the dream of the perfectibility of humankind turned into the nightmares of Stalinist Russia," Singer writes. In the course of this pamphlet, Singer exhorts the Left to wake up.

Although Social Darwinism survives only as a straw man and despite the attachment of some American conservatives to creationism, a Darwinian view of human nature is perceived as more compatible with conservatism than socialism. According to research in evolutionary psychology, women are naturally suited to child-care and men have greater status-orientation; the theory of kin selection seems to reinforce faith in the family; while viewing humans as self-interested confirms the underlying assumptions of classical economics (see Darwinian Conservatism).

Peter Singer seeks to reclaim Darwin for the Left. Although he clarifies many misunderstandings regarding the political implications of evolutionary psychology and Darwinism, his attempt is not altogether successful.

Evolutionary Psychology, Ethics and Politics

Since David Hume, it has been an article of faith among many moral philosophers that one cannot derive values from facts - the so-called 'naturalistic fallacy'. Evolutionary psychologists have been among the keenest adherents of this principle, not least because it has provided them with a license to objectively investigate the evolutionary function of morally questionable behaviours, including infanticide, rape and infidelity, without being seen to condone them.

Singer accepts and reiterates this principle. However, if moral and political values cannot be derived from scientific facts, this begs the question of how they are to be arrived at. Singer's discussion implies that one's ultimate moral values must simply be taken on faith and there can be no ultimate justification for them. Instead, he takes the desirability Leftist political values as an a priori presumption.

The naturalistic fallacy has sometimes been misinterpreted to imply that scientific findings are irrelevant to politics. This is clearly mistaken. In particular, while Darwinism may not be able to prescribe which ultimate political objectives are desirable, Singer rightly observes that "an understanding of human nature in the light of evolutionary theory can help us to identify the means by which we can achieve... our social and political goals... as well as the possible costs and benefits of doing so". (See also Darwinism Applied: Evolutionary Paths to Social Goals.)

In addition to informing the means by which given social and political goals can be attained, an evolutionary understanding of human nature may also suggest that some political goals are unattainable (at least in the absence of a wholesale eugenic reengineering of human nature itself). In watering down the traditional utopian goals of the Left, Singer seems to implicitly concede as much.

Although evolutionary psychologists emphasise that altruism and even morality itself may represent an aspect of our evolved psychology, it also suggests that elements of selfishness and nepotism are innate and universal features of our psychology. In other words, we are innately predisposed to care more about ourselves and our families than unrelated third-parties.

This suggests the sort of egalitarian utopia envisaged by Marx and his followers (`from each according to his ability, to each according to their need' etc.) is unattainable for three main reasons:

1) Individuals inevitably strive to promote themselves and their kin above fellow citizens;

2) Only coercive state apparatus can prevent them so doing;

3) The individuals placed in control of this coercive apparatus themselves seek to promote the interests of themselves and their kin and will corruptly use this coercive apparatus to do so.

As Singer laments, "What egalitarian revolution has not been betrayed by its leaders?" Or, as HL Mencken commented, the "one undoubted effect [of revolutions] is simply to throw out one gang of thieves and put in another".

(While these reasons suggest that that egalitarian utopianism is unworkable and unattainable, humankind's innate selfishness also suggests that, even if it were achievable, it would be inefficient. This is because egalitarianism would remove the incentive of self-advancement that lies behind the production of goods and services which benefit everyone, not to mention of works of art and scientific advances.)

Animal Liberation

Singer argues our common evolutionary origin precludes a difference in kind between humans and animals (say, in the ability to suffer) sufficient to justify the different treatment accorded to each. "By knocking out the idea that we are a separate creation from the animals," he writes, "Darwinian thinking provided the basis for a revolution in our attitudes to non-human animals".

However, human-animal continuity cuts both ways. Anti-vivisectionists often contend that medical experiments conducted on non-human animals are worthless because treatments will frequently have different effects on humans to that which they exert on other species. Our evolutionary continuity with non-human species renders this argument implausible.

Moreover, if humans are subject to the same principles of natural selection as other species, this suggests, in some respects, not the elevation of non-human species to the status of humans, but rather the relegation of humans to that of animals. Like them, we are, in Richard Dawkins words, "survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes", there is no 'ghost in the machine' and free-will is an illusion.

Finally, acceptance of human nature, entails recognition of carnivory (or omnivory) as a part of this nature. Of course, the naturalistic fallacy, as usual, applies - although meat-eating is natural, this does not mean it is right. However, it does suggest vegetarianism is suboptimal in health terms. Moreover, given that Singer is an opponent of the view that there is a valid moral distinction between acts and omissions (see Writings on An Ethical Life xv-xvi), if he believes it is wrong for us to eat animals, does he also believe we should take positive steps to prevent lions from eating gazelles?

Reciprocity

Singer rightly observes that financial interest is not synonymous with Darwinian fitness. Indeed, in novel environments, the two may not even correlate (Vining 1986). Neither does wealth always lead to greater happiness. "Self-interest" Singer argues "is broader than economic self-interest".

In chapter 4 ("Competition or Cooperation?"), Singer argues that, although both competition and cooperation are natural to humans, it is possible to create a society that focuses more on cooperation and that this is more consistent with the values of the left. However, although it may be true that some societies foster altruism and cooperation more than ours, Singer is short on practical suggestions as to how a culture of altruism is to be fostered.

Changing the values of a culture is not easy. This is especially so for a liberal democratic government (let alone a solitary Australian moral philosopher!) - and Singer's condemnation of "the nightmares of Stalinist Russia" suggests that he would not defend the sort of totalitarian interference with human freedoms to which the Left has so often resorted in the past.

More fundamentally, Singer is wrong to see competition as in conflict with cooperation. Extreme altruism often occurs in the context extreme competition (e.g. acts of self-sacrifice by soldiers during war).

Moreover, trade - a form of cooperation - is as fundamental to capitalism as is competition. Far from disparaging cooperation, neo-liberal economists since Adam Smith have viewed voluntary exchange and economic specialization as central to capitalist prosperity.

It is therefore ironic that Matt Ridley, who, like Singer, seeks to draw political lessons from evolutionary psychology, also focuses on humans' innate capacity for cooperation (see The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation). However, in Ridley's hands, this trait provides a rationale, not for socialism, but rather for unregulated lassez faire free markets - because, according to Ridley, humans, as natural traders, produce efficient systems of exchange which central planning can only distort.

Whereas economic trade is motivated by self-interested calculation, Singer seems to envisage a form of reciprocity mediated by emotions such as compassion and guilt. However, these emotions have themselves evolved through the rational calculation of natural selection (Trivers 1971) and, while open to manipulation, especially in evolutionarily-novel societies, are limited in scope.

Eugenics

In response to the claim that welfare encourages the unemployed to have children and thereby promotes dysgenic fertility patterns (see Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations), Singer argues, "even if there were a genetic component to something as nebulous as unemployment, to say that these genes are 'deleterious' would involve value judgements that go way beyond what the science alone can tell us". Read more ›

As laudable an aim as Singer has, to reconcile Darwinian thinking and the left, he commits the same fallacy of equating natural processes with social processes that the right has so often been criticised for.

This is highlighted in his use of the Prisoner's Dilemma and the work of Axelrod to show that there will always be cheaters in a system of cooperation. Now as an evolutionary game the Prisoner's Dilemma will indeed always evolve cheaters to exploit suckers but in the social world we are not talking about evolution at all but behaviour. Will there always be people who become cheaters if there are suckers to exploit? That is an open question of human nature unrelated to evolution as the time frame doesn't allow any effect on reproduction to become apparant (if, indeed, humans are still evolving in a classical Darwinian way).

In his rejection of Marxist and sociological ideas of society being the primary determinant in human social behaviour Singer throws out the baby with the bath water. Human nature is certainly not a tabla rasa but nor is it 100% genetically predetermined, we have to be careful not to push the emphasis too far the other way.

There is no doubting that evoutionary processes have lead to the development of mankind and the human brain. However much of our morality and social rules are embodied in our brain through our interactions with the social world rather than being purely predetermined genetically.