Paper
Evolution Science and Ethics in the Third Millennium: Challenges and Choices for Humankind
Published Jul 17, 2020 · R. Richards
Politics & Life Sciences
4
Citations
0
Influential Citations
Abstract
In this lengthy (538 pages) and ambitious book, the authors argue for a “universal morality” based on the “phylogenetic enhancement” of the “hominisation process” and the “furtherance” of the “modernisation process” (their spellings). The foundation of this universal morality is to be in evolution science, which provides the resources to address the mismatch between evolved human tendencies and modern environments. This universal morality, according to the authors, would replace traditional theistic moral systems, which are poorly adapted to modern environments, and secular moral systems, which are too fragmented and short-sighted. The authors begin with some background on the development of evolution science, identifying four stages. The first stage is the Darwinian Revolution, beginning with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On theOrigin of Species and introducing natural selection as an explanatory resource. The second stage is theModern Evolutionary Synthesis of genetics and natural selection and the extension of this synthesis to epigenetics, niche construction, multilevel selection, and more. The third stage is the Molecular-Genetic Revolution, which is supposed to provide a “deeper and more profound” understanding of morality. The final stage is the Second-Darwinian Revolution, with the development of biological theories of altruism, sex relations, and sociality in general through the mechanisms of inclusive fitness, kin selection, reciprocity, group selection, and game theory. If this universal morality is supposed to enhance the “hominisation process” and“further” the “modernisation process,” we need to know what these processes are. According to the authors, the “hominisation” process is the sixto seven-million-year development of the hominin lineage, culminating in modern Homo sapiens sapiens, which involves an increase in brain size and capacity and changes in nutrition (cooking especially), complex social life, cooperative breeding, language, and biocultural evolution. The “modernisation” process is largely the product of cultural change, which has resulted in novel environments with technological change, nonkin-based social networks, large communities of strangers, the development of science, market economies, industrial modes of economic production, and the introduction of Enlightenment values and normative frameworks. These two processes, according to the authors, have resulted in an enhanced quality of life with new challenges, even as old challenges remain. First, we now live and interact in environments that are very different from the environments in which we evolved. In effect, our modern environments are mismatched with our genetically based adaptive tendencies. This generates challenges at the individual level: senescence and aging, sexual relations, sexual equality, prevention of maladaptive traits, competitive tendencies versus cooperative, antisocial behavior, psychopathology, and more. There are also social challenges: kinship and family relations, nepotism, social status hierarchies, equity and social inclusion, race and ethnicity, in-group/out-group tendencies, ideological pluralism, and relations between states. And, there are challenges based on intergenerational relations: population growth and birth control, demographic transitions, and the carrying capacity of the Earth. These are challenges, according to the authors, that traditional religion-basedmorality is ill suited to address. They show this by sketching out a biological account of religion and religiosity that treats them as genetically based and adaptive to an environment characterized by ignorance and suffering. Traditional religions functioned by offering explanations of things we do not understand and helping us cope with these problems. Traditional religions function in other ways as well. They promote social cohesion, support systems of social dominance, provide health guidance, and regulate sex and reproduction. But these functions are not adaptive in modern environments, where they instead produce in-group/ out-group conflict and conflict with the explanatory accounts of modern science. According to the authors, the modern “secular ideologies” are problematic as well. Each has something to recommend it, but each is also flawed in some way. Capitalism, for instance, produces great wealth, but it is not well adapted to our ecological needs. Socialism and Marxism counter some of the worst side effects of capitalism, but they seem indifferent tomerit and confuse equity doi: 10.1017/pls.2019.26 Correspondence:RichardA.Richards,University ofAlabama,Department of Philosophy, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 35487. Email: rrichard@ua.edu Book Reviews
A universal morality based on evolution science can address the mismatch between evolved human tendencies and modern environments, enhancing human quality of life and addressing social challenges.
Full text analysis coming soon...