Our series on evolutionary psychology continues with the basic ‘nuts and bolts’ of natural selection and its impact upon speciation, survival and behaviour (flight, hiding, sexual attraction etc). This necessarily brief overview sets the scene for the rather more complex work on evolved psychology to come. These selection pressures have been the drivers that led our species to become fully human and to develop the enigmatic set of behaviours and attitudes we call ‘human nature’.
The acronym ‘EEA’ stands for the ‘Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation/Adaptiveness’, otherwise known as the ‘Evolutionary Environment’ or the ‘Ancestral Environment’. Originally coined by John Bowlby it has come to mean the conditions in which a species adapts because of strong naturally selective pressures. (Schore 2012)
Badcock (2000) estimates that for around 99% of its existence the human species lived in small groups of hunter gatherers. The bulk of human adaptation took place during the pleistocene (beginning around 1.8 million years ago) and continuing until around 12,000 years ago (10,000 BCE). The first human (homo) species arrived on the scene around 2.5 million years ago. Our adaptation during that time, whilst well-suited to primitive societies, isn’t always helpful in the modern world of the last 10,000 years or so.
The figure of 10,000 years isn’t arbitrary by the way. That’s the time when humans first began to form larger societies – a change that our evolved psychology still seems to struggle with. We know that middle-eastern cities such as Jericho were founded around 7,000 years ago and that other cities such as Ur were founded sometime earlier.
The fact is humans didn’t evolve to live in large towns and cities with national identities and we certainly didn’t adapt through the ages to spend our lives surrounded by strangers. But why not? To answer this we need to consider a few fundamental points:
Evolution is slow;
Evolution occurs on ‘islands’;
Evolution isn’t concerned with individual comfort unless it aids procreation.
Evolution is slow
Although 10,000 years seems like an almost unimaginably long time for humans it’s actually a very short period in evolutionary terms. The process of evolution by natural selection, even in ideal conditions takes millions of years. For example a recent article estimates that the most recent common ancestor linking all the great apes lived some 18/9 million years ago.
The process relies more on numbers of generations than years passed & we’re really only talking about around 2000 generations over that time. So one answer to the question ‘why not’ is simply that our species hasn’t had enough time to evolve past hunter-gatherer societies.
Evolution occurs on ‘islands’
Evolution by means of natural selection happens most rapidly when survival pressures are most prevalent and life is so hard that new adaptations create genuine procreative advantages. It’s also important that any new adaptation isn’t ‘swamped’ by too much competition as it (and the human being that carries it) competes for survival/procreative advantage. In short natural selection works best when life is short and the breeding population is small. Otherwise genetic changes get lost before they can establish a foothold.
This is what we mean by ‘islands’. An evolutionary island doesn’t need to be surrounded by water but it should be isolated. This isolation could be the result of a natural barrier (a desert or mountain range, for example) or just the result of a small population, rarely coming into contact with other human groups. In these circumstances small, adaptive genetic variations can take hold and thrive. In large, modern, industrial societies adaptive mutations (for example keener eyesight) have much less impact on the population as a whole. My own short-sightedness is easily corrected by my glasses in modern UK whereas in the EEA of a million years ago it would have been a major handicap that may well have resulted in death long before I had a chance to breed.
At this point it’s worth pre-empting one of the more superficial and tiresome objections regularly raised by creationists. We’ve already covered the ‘naturalistic fallacy’:
but I want to restate the point:
The fact that natural selection callously lets
the weakest die doesn’t mean that it is right.
The ancient evolutionary environment was hard and ruthless, in one sense that was because early humans lacked the technology we have today to make things better. Acknowledging that life was cheap ‘back then’ doesn’t mean we think that’s how it should be. But let’s be clear:
Natural selection doesn’t care what you or I might think.
Natural selection doesn’t care about anything.
Evolution isn’t concerned with individual comfort unless it aids procreation
As we will see throughout this series evolution isn’t the result of any grand design to ensure human happiness. It’s simply a ‘mechanism’ a process by which different organisms compete with each other to survive.
Personally I wish it was different. I wish there was a plan. Perhaps a divine creator would have designed a world without so much pain and suffering. But that’s not how it is – unless you believe that starvation, disease and ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ are somehow the hallmarks of a benign, intelligent designer.
Evolution has no plan, no compassion and no interest in ‘right and wrong’. Those concerns are solely human. To shirk our responsibility for creating our own moral code (whether we take our morality from nature or from Divinity) seems to me to be nothing more than intellectual and moral cowardice. If we can learn anything from either religion or the evolved natural world it’s that both are capable of creating almost unimaginable catastrophe. We accept uncritically either of these at our peril. So let’s stop pretending that Darwinism has anything to teach us about how things ‘ought to be’. Darwin’s great gift was to provide us with a way to understand how we evolved in the past. What we do with that knowledge is another question entirely.
REFERENCES
Badcock, C. (2000). Evolutionary psychology: A critical introduction. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press.
Let’s be clear about just what ‘hard wired’ means. After all – there aren’t really any wires in the brain. There are nerves that look a bit like wires – indeed they carry electrical signals through the body just like the wires in a plug but that’s not really what we mean in evolutionary terms when we talk about ‘hard wired’.
In an evolutionary context what we mean is that some things are ‘fixed’ and immovable. They are ‘hard wired’ in so far as they cannot be changed.
When we talk about physical attributes this is easy to understand. For example, the colour of an individual’s eyes is hard wired – it’s the result of their particular genetic make-up. So is the ability to wiggle one’s ears (or not). These are genetically determined and they’re not about to change whether we like it or not.
It’s important to be clear about what we’ve just said….
Physical attributes such as these are not negotiable. They’re hard-wired.
There’s another name for this – it’s called ‘determinism’.
Determinism means that the individual has no control over these particular attributes. They’re as they are and that’s all there is to it. Short of modern innovations such as cosmetic surgery we all look the way we do because our genes determined our appearance without any reference to our preferences or desires. That’s why most people have two legs, two arms, four fingers and an opposable thumb on each hand, spines that are notoriously vulnerable to injury and chronic pain and extremely badly designed eyes (the optic nerve passes through the middle of the retina creating an unnecessary blind spot). Nor can we change the fact that our sinuses, perfectly adapted for drainage in our quadruped ancestors, are extremely inefficient in bipedal humans as anyone with a headcold can attest etc etc. We didn’t choose these things – they evolved that way and we’re stuck with them. That’s determinism.
That’s all very well and nobody would dispute the fact that we can’t control the basic evolved structure of our eyes (however poor that structure may be). But what if we couldn’t control our basic behaviours either? For a lot of people that might be a bit harder to accept.
In evolutionary psychology the idea is that our mental ‘modules’ are just as determined, just as ‘beyond our control’ as our physical attributes are. We are what we are, both physically and mentally because our ancestors evolved that way. Some evolutionary psychologists go so far as to suggest that free will is an evolved myth – an evolutionary con trick that lets us believe we’re in charge when really nothing could be further from the truth.
Others aren’t so rigid. They talk about the ‘default’ settings that spring from our evolutionary make up but also include into their theories the possibility that we can overcome those predetermined character traits. In other words that we retain a degree of free will even though the cards may well be stacked against us from the outset.
In large part this blog series will explore these two notions and in the process try to go some way toward deciding whether or not free will is an illusion. But it will also go further. We’ll also examine those aspects of human psychology that seem to be universal with the assumption that they evolved in our species (and other species) in exactly the same way that other characteristics evolved and by precisely the same basic mechanism – natural selection. Let’s look at another example.
Creationists often object to evolutionary theory on the grounds that, based as it is upon natural selection or ‘survival of the fittest’, it cannot account for widespread traits such as altruism. However that’s just not true – it can, and it does.
“The altruist expects reciprocation from society
for himself and his closest relatives.”
Andrew Marvell (1650)
“I’d lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins”
JBS Haldane (1974)
Tit for tat
In 1981 Anatol Rapoport won a competition. It was a simple contest – the various contestants had to write a computer programme that would survive in a sort of electronic evolutionary environment. His programme, which he called ‘Tit for tat’ was simple and effective. In short it consisted of just 4 rules to apply to co-operative relationships with other programmes:
1. Never be the first to defect (defecting means ‘cheating’ to you and me)
2. Retaliate only after your partner has defected
3. Be prepared to forgive after carrying out just one act of retaliation
4. Adopt this strategy only if the probability of meeting the same player again exceeds 2/3
The programme beat all other programmes including the selfish and opportunistic, exploitative ones. And it did so with ease. The reason for its remarkable success was that the rules it operated by meant that it rewarded cooperation and kindness from other programmes whilst punishing transgressors by withdrawing cooperation and kindness. In other words the altruistic programme rewarded altruistic others.
Crucially the Tit for tat programme didn’t understand anything about altruism – it was merely following rules and being nice to everyone unless they were unkind to it.
We can see how a genetic mental module that inclines us to be nice to others (so long as we expect to see them again) would thrive in the evolutionary environment where people presumably knew each other in their tiny communities for their entire lives. We can also see how little they would need to understand about the higher philosophy of altruism and cooperation – they just did nice things because their genes drove them to in the same way that people enjoy sugars and fats because the genes for those preferences gave their ancestors an advantage when food was scarce. There’s no need to understand it or even be conscious of it – just doing it is enough.
This unconscious trait – this tendency to act in certain ways in particular situations is what we mean by a ‘mental module’. It’s a genetically predetermined characteristic that responds to circumstance (a fellow altruist or a cheat) in predictable, predetermined ways.
Just because the theory of evolution by natural selection explains how we got to be the way we are, there’s no reason to imagine it can tell us how we ought to behave. There’s no particular goal-direction for the human or any species inherent in evolution. Nor is there any master plan pointing us toward perfection. Nobody is in charge and no great plan exists in a realm beyond.
Natural selection is a non-conscious, automatic mechanism that determines how likely individuals are to get their genetic material, their DNA into the next generation. That’s it. The fact that certain individuals with specific adaptations and attributes survive whilst others die off may provide the illusion of a plan, even of design but don’t be fooled.
Natural selection isn’t random because it follows some simple principles and it does so consistently. But those principles weren’t designed either. They just are.