Tag Archives: evoluzione

Genetics of Good and Evil

Good is something that would increase our collective chance of survival as a species. Evil is just the opposite. Certain things look good and noble to us precisely the same way healthy babies look cute to us. Our genes survived because we are the kind of people who would find our collective survival a noble thing, and wanton destruction of lives a cruel or evil thing.

The genetic explanation of good and evil above, though reasonable, may be a little too simplistic. Many morbid things are considered great or noble. Mindless brutality in wars, per esempio, is thought of as a noble act of courage and sacrifice. Certain cruel social or cultural practices were once considered noble and are now considered abominable. Slavery, per esempio, is one such custom that changed its moral color. The practice of slavery was condoned in some parts of the world while slave liberation was frowned upon, in an exact reversal of the current moral attitude.

Can we understand these apparent paradoxes in terms of our DNA replication algorithm? What exactly is the scope of the DNA replication algorithm? Obviously, it cannot be that a DNA wants (or is programmed) to replicate all DNAs. We would not be able to eat or survive in that case. Even the maximsurvival of the fittestwould not make any sense. Neither can it be that a DNA wants exact clones of itself. Se ciò fosse vero, it would not take a father and a mother to make a baby.

There is some behavioral evidence to suggest that DNA replication is optimized at sub-species or even intra-species level. A male lion, when he takes over a pride, kills or eats the cubs so that the lionesses of the pride have to mate with him. This behavior, however cruel and evil by our own genetic logic, makes sense to the male lion’s DNA replication program. His DNA is not interested in replicating the species DNA; it wants to replicate a DNA as close to itself as possible. Other examples of sub-species level optimization are easily found. Gorillas are fiercely territorial and protective of their groups. Their violent behavior in promoting their own specific DNA is in stark contrast to our perception of them as gentle giants.

Such blatant genetic motivations are mirrored in human beings as well; ethnic cleansing and racism are clear examples. We are also at least as territorial about our countries and homes as our gorilla cousins, as evidenced by the national boundaries and Immigration and Naturalization Services and so on. Even our more subtle socio-economic behavior can be traced back to a genetic sub-species level struggle for survival of our DNA.

This sub-species genetic division leads to the apparent paradox of the mixing of noble and the evil. Patriotism is noble; treason is evil. Spying for our country is bravery, while spying for some other country is clearly treason. Killing in a war is noble, but murdering a neighbor is clearly evil. A war for liberation is probably noble; a war for oil is not. Looking after our family is noble, but ignoring our own and looking after somebody else’s family is not that good.

Even though the actions and effects of each pair of these noble and evil deeds are roughly equivalent, their moral connotations are different. This paradoxical difference can be explained genetically by the notion that the DNA replication algorithm distinguishes between sub-species.

Arbitro: Questo post è un estratto dal mio libro, L'Unreal Universe.

Fine di Evolution

Per un fisico, la vita è un esempio pulito di interazione elettromagnetica. Per un biologo, tuttavia, la vita è un algoritmo di replicazione del DNA. Facciamo rimuginare la vista biologia per qualche istante.

I geni del nostro corpo hanno un solo movente–per essere replicato. Il nostro corpo è stato creato in conformità con una stampa blu codificata nei geni per “run” questo algoritmo. Come questo algoritmo viene mappato i nostri obiettivi di livello superiore ed emozioni è ciò che la vita è tutto per la maggior parte delle persone che non sono fisici o biologi.

Un semplice mappatura di questo algoritmo porta alla massima nell'evoluzione “la sopravvivenza del più adatto.” Ogni mutazione che ha il più piccolo vantaggio in termini di sopravvivenza si amplifica nel tempo. Allo stesso modo, tutti i geni svantaggiati vengono spazzati via.

Ma l'evoluzione negli esseri umani (e attraverso la nostra influenza, l'intero eco-sistema) ha preso una nuova svolta. La sopravvivenza del più adatto usato per significare la sopravvivenza del più forte o il più intelligente. Per esempio, se avessi una malattia genetica che mi ha fatto inclini a una malattia pericolosa per la vita (in altre parole, se non ero molto forte), le mie possibilità di trasmettere i miei geni sarebbero un po 'più piccola.

Tuttavia, a causa dei progressi della medicina, le possibilità di sopravvivenza di tali geni svantaggiate sono normalizzati a circa lo stesso livello di quelli del resto della specie. Poi di nuovo, a causa della dipendenza della qualità dell'assistenza sanitaria sul denaro, le possibilità di sopravvivenza vengono distorti a favore dei ricchi. Così, è la mappatura dell'algoritmo DNA ora “la sopravvivenza dei più ricchi?”

La ricchezza è considerato un prodotto di intelligenza. Ma l'intelligenza (come definito dalla capacità di fare soldi) non è necessariamente genetica. Può essere, ma noi non lo sappiamo ancora. Quindi per diverse generazioni, non è nemmeno il più ricco che sopravvivono, perché medie temporali fuori le possibilità di sopravvivenza.

Così che cosa esattamente sta per sopravvivere?

Arbitro: Questo post è un estratto dal mio libro, L'Unreal Universe.

Evoluzione–Logica invertita

Evolution is usually described asthe survival of the fittest,” or as species evolving to adapt to the environment. To survive, to evolve, to adaptthese are action verbs, implying some kind of intention or general plan. But there is a curious inversion of logic, or reversal of causality in the theory of evolution. This is almost the opposite of intention or plan.

It is easiest to illustrate this inverted logic using examples. Suppose you are on a tropical island, enjoying the nice weather and the beautiful beach. You say to yourself, “This is perfect. This is paradise!” Naturalmente, there is some specific gene containing the blue print of your brain process that leads you to feel this way. It stands to reason that there may have been genetic mutations at some point, which made some people hate this kind of paradise. They may have preferred Alaska in winter. Evidently, such genes had a slightly lower chance of survival because Alaskan winters are not as healthy as tropical paradises. Over millions of years, these genes got all but wiped out.

What this means is that the tropical paradise does not have an intrinsic beauty. It is not even that you happen to find it beautiful. Beauty does not necessarily lie in the eyes of the beholder. It is more like the eyes exist because we are the kind of people who would find such hospitable environments beautiful.

Another example of the inversion of logic in evolution is the reason we find cute babies cute. Our genes survived, and we are here because we are the kind of people who would find healthy babies cute. This reversal of causality has implications in every facet of our existence, all the way up to our notion of free will.

Arbitro: Questo post è un estratto dal mio libro, L'Unreal Universe.