Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Dystopias and evolution

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Dystopias and evolution

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Imagine it's 1984 (the book). We all lived in a dystopia, totalitarian society.

Do you believe the stability of the society Orwell describes could be everlasting?
If this dystopia went on for thousands of years and (as presented in the book, 1984) technology became stagnant, would evolution lean to adapt to making the stability everlasting, or would evolution adapt to making the society overdone, overseen, unstable; or am I transcending what evolution is capable of?
In other words, could evolution have an effect on our behaviour which would definably seek to either increase and endure the stability of the totalitarian society, the dystopia, or would evolution cause our behaviour to display symptoms or more symptoms and wish to go against sort-to-speak the society for the sake of adapting power to overthrow the society.

Since a dystopia is a point of view and not an objective state of the society itself, perhaps evolution only recognizes the need for behaviour to change if the dystopian mindset is the mindset a person takes in the totalitarian society, and the dystopian mindset is considered inefficient for the potential of the individual.

Perhaps if in a dystopian mindset already, there lacks a potential the individual has in a society, so evolution is incapable of adapting the individual to have the tools to change society, but rather it would be much easier to change the individual's perspective. (individual=man) So society will always continue to be totalitarian, and become more stable in the process.

@Holiday20310401,

Genetic evolution or evolution of culture?

If there is a sufficiently strong selective pressure, then an organism is going to consciously engage in behaviors to either avoid (if negative) or take advantage of (if positive) this pressure. In a human society, that means that a dystopia's deleterious (harmful) effects on humanity would effect a change in individual behavior and possibly culture.

It's very likely that many of the cultural practices we already have were evolutionary adaptations; not inscribed into our genes, but inscribed into our inherited culture. Like the dietary laws in Islam and Judaism, for example.

Genetic evolution is WAY too slow. Oppressed and suffering peoples change their environments.

@Aedes,

As I recall, Orwell does not present a dystopia thousands of years old, but instead a rather new dystopia.

It's been several years so I'm really not sure.

@Holiday20310401,

As far as I know, culture tends to be passed forward like genes since parents educate their children in their vision of the world, so I think culture would evolve to stabilize society, since in a totalitarian government only those who agree survive, and only being alive can one pass his culture forward. Though sometimes children can generate a different culture from the one passed down by their parents. For example: If the parents secretly hated the government but lacked the courage to do anything about it, their children, raised in an ambient of silent hatred against the government, could hate it even more and take action, maybe it could even take many generations for "The hatred to build up enough". So I think it would depend of the initial state.

Just wild speculation though, since I am not very acknowledged into social or cultural matters Smile

@manored,

The "thousands of years" was so that the genetic evolution would actually do something, and yes it is the genetic evolution I was referring to.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Genetic evolution is WAY too slow. .

Do you believe that evolution is a slow continuous thing, or is it a series of leaps or jumps? That is to say, are there examples of little leaps in awareness? Just curious.

@Elmud,

Elmud;53609 wrote:

Do you believe that evolution is a slow continuous thing, or is it a series of leaps or jumps? That is to say, are there examples of little leaps in awareness? Just curious.

Both are true. They're not mutually exclusive.

Most of evolution has to do not with selection but with the change in gene frequencies over time as new generations come about.

Natural selection is a mechanism for comparatively rapid change, though, because suddenly it's not just probability but reproductive fitness that determines the gene frequencies in the subsequent generation. With strong enough selective pressure you can even get "genetic sweeps", where a new trait becomes predominant fairly quickly.

It's no wonder that major events like extinctions, climate change, etc, are followed by massive species diversifications, because the selective advantages completely change.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

It's no wonder that major events like extinctions, climate change, etc, are followed by massive species diversifications, because the selective advantages completely change.

What are your thoughts about when humanity became "aware" of their uniqueness? I guess what I am getting at is, was there a time of separation from other mammals in regards to an awareness that we were different. By using the word different , I mean to say that we became aware of our mortality. We also became self conscious in regard to many things. Other mammals did not consider these thought processes. They were instinctual. There had to be a point in time, where we became more than just instinctual.We became self aware. Would you consider this a little jump or leap in the evolutionary process? I hope you can understand my questions. Sometimes words fail me. Thanks.

@Holiday20310401,

I have no idea -- but I think that's probably more of a modern problem. In other words, we've probably been cognitively capable of that question for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, but it's only been in the last few millienia that people have begun to ask abstract philosophical questions.

All animals have some degree of awareness of difference with other species. That's why you're not going to find a rooster trying to f**k an iguana. There is an innate recognition of other members of the same group, and this extends not only to mating but also protection of young, as well as hierarchical things like rutting.

@Holiday20310401,

I would say that a multi-generational totalitarian society that was harsh enough in its enforcement that there was a drastic difference between the reproductive fitness of those who acquiesce and dissidents that one could see a genetic shift.

I would imagine that such a state of affairs could really only be supported by a group whose genetic make up already predisposed them to such social structures.

In other words, it is far more likely that biological factors would correct the cultural blip, or the totalitarian state would not be considered a dystopia.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;53664 wrote:

I would say that a multi-generational totalitarian society that was harsh enough in its enforcement that there was a drastic difference between the reproductive fitness of those who acquiesce and dissidents that one could see a genetic shift.

But you need to bear in mind that even a single allelic change can take tens of thousands of years to sweep through a population unless there is a massive selective pressure.

It would take something tantamount to the Holocaust to change gene frequencies over the short term. And that IS a form of human-induced evolution. I mean if one group has gene frequency X, another group has gene frequency Y, and you kill 75% of group X, you're going to alter the general population's gene frequencies sharply in favor of frequency Y.

@Holiday20310401,

In biologic evolution, I think people would evolve towards enduring and accepting more until the point most would not consider the state a dystopia. Off course the state would have to be unrealistically strong to survive in the beggining then everone hates it Smile

@Holiday20310401,

Manored,
The problem with speculating about this is that evolution doesn't idealize -- it compromises for the sake of reproductive fitness. So if you did an experiment where you oppressed people for millions of years under some kind of constant system, evolution might actually make them regress and become dumber and more concrete because it's maladaptive to spend their lives lamenting their hardship.

@Holiday20310401,

I would imagine that over a period of millennia genes that provoke behaviours such as:

* Asserting individuality through attention seeking behaviour.

* Challenging authority.

* Reacting to authority one cannot challenge by forming a splinter group or going it alone.

Would diminish.

Assuming that the different classes depicted in 1984 would tend to breed within their peer groups (as is suggested in the novel), you would probably see these traits diminish amongst Outer Party members. The proles less so and Inner Party members not at all (though they would have to breed outside their peer group to avoid other problems).

@Holiday20310401,

I don't know if a dystopia is indeed self-maintaining. Most real and fictional dystopias are/were rather young and/or short-lived. Zamiatin's We seems to imply his dystopia has been self-maintaining for a millennium or more, but frankly, part of that seems more due to the implications in his dystopia that they had been able to achieve so-called "material perfection" and that most the human race was destroyed in some untold tragedy.

Real dystopias--Hitler's Germany, Soviet Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Pinochet's Chile, etc.--on the other hand, very rarely survive beyond the despot in question. Bolshevism was the longest-lasting (short of Cuba, which has numerous exceptions to the rule) but in the end collapsed due to a supply gap. But the fact that no self-maintaining dystopia has yet arisen doesn't mean one can't--perhaps the conditions simply haven't been right?

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I have no idea -- but I think that's probably more of a modern problem. In other words, we've probably been cognitively capable of that question for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, but it's only been in the last few millienia that people have begun to ask abstract philosophical questions.

All animals have some degree of awareness of difference with other species. That's why you're not going to find a rooster trying to f**k an iguana. There is an innate recognition of other members of the same group, and this extends not only to mating but also protection of young, as well as hierarchical things like rutting.

Lol. i have to tell ya. I had this little dog once. Name of Barski. This little fella, "part chihuahua", would try and get romantic with anything. Cats, rabbits, stuffed animals, I mean anything. Funny thing about ole Barski. He had three testicles. So, ya never know, there may be a few ****** roosters out there as well. By the way, thanks for the "I have no idea". I don't know idea either. Just speculating.

@Holiday20310401,

Quote:

Real dystopias--Hitler's Germany, Soviet Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Pinochet's Chile, etc.--on the other hand, very rarely survive beyond the despot in question. Bolshevism was the longest-lasting (short of Cuba, which has numerous exceptions to the rule) but in the end collapsed due to a supply gap. But the fact that no self-maintaining dystopia has yet arisen doesn't mean one can't--perhaps the conditions simply haven't been right?

The theory proposed in 1984 was that no oligarchy had been able to maintain power because they had always been dishonest with themselves about why they had sought power.

For example - Marxists claimed they seized power in order to liberate the proletariat, and told themselves that they were only maintaining their leadership until such a situation arose in which power could be handed to the masses.

In contrast the oligarchy in charge of Oceania admitted to each other that the reason they seized power was because they liked having power, and so could agree to be far more ruthless than existing dystopian leaderships - who at least had to pretend to one another that they were serving some sort of greater ideal or purpose. Hence why they were so effective at maintaining their power - because their entire society was constructed in order for them to maintain it.

So it's not so much that the conditions have not been right - it's just that lovers of power have made each other feel too insecure to admit to being lovers of power - 1984 is just an exploration of what sort of situation might result should members of a government be so honest and ruthless about a lust for power, and agree to make sure that such power was never ceded to another ideology.

I have heard of quite a few journalists who suggest the leadership of North Korea are intimately familiar with the philosophy behind the government of Oceania.

@Dave Allen,

This is exactly what I mean. Can the mind not influence the natural selection as much as more 'objective' processes? So if the public loves their leader would that love not be increased like a positive feedback mechanism? If evolution was affected by the mind in love with the environment then why couldn`t it be affected by the dystopic mindset?

Now I know, this contradicts a good point Aedes makes with "evolution cannot idealize" (or whatever he said), but is this not just a factor of natural selection and not the other form evolution being the quick changes (what is it called by the way?)?

But all this evolution, adding complexity seems to be a trend. Evolution is different from progression, but is evolution not progressing the species to a higher awareness of the environment, adding to it's ability to survive and multiply?

This higher awareness could be that awareness of the environment, the totalitarian society, causing the objective state of the society to be more recognized by the individual. However, does the subjective perspective of the society hinder in any way that increasing awareness of the objective state of the society? I mean, sure you could list off the Darwinian train of thought to stipulate it's effects, but is there not another mechanism?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

This is exactly what I mean. Can the mind not influence the natural selection as much as more 'objective' processes? So if the public loves their leader would that love not be increased like a positive feedback mechanism? If evolution was affected by the mind in love with the environment then why couldn`t it be affected by the dystopic mindset?

This sounds a bit like the evolution described by Lamarck - that traits exercised during an organism's life can be passed down to it's offspring.

EG: A giraffe's neck is long because giraffes spend so much time stretching to reach leaves on tall trees.

However, this theory of evolution was widely discredited by Darwin's theories.

Simply speaking - Darwin teaches us that traits which help an organism reach breeding age, and outcompete it's rivals for energy and mates, are more likely to be found in greater proportions in later generations.

So practising 'love' would not really count - as it doesn't necessarily lead to loving offspring. However, an individual who did 'love the leader' due to genes influencing a trusting nature, or an easily cowed nature, or whatever, would be less likely to be labelled a subversive and removed from the population - and therefore more likely to produce offspring.

1984 even uses a term to describe such 'useful' members of society, those who are naturally loyal - Goodthinkers. They are even encouraged to breed "for the good of the party".

However, there is also the issue of behaviour learned from parents and role models - so people who do practice 'love' will also probably better instill their values to their children - even if they have a natural prediliction for cocking a snook at authority.

This is why it is very hard to talk about humans and natural selection - because humans are so good at compensating for oddities of environment in comparison to so many other animals.

However, I do think that over enough generations you might see a diminishing in certain aspects of human behaviour and an exaggeration of other traits - loyalty may become 'hard-wired' in, and instincts relating to independence may atrophy.

Quote:

Now I know, this contradicts a good point Aedes makes with "evolution cannot idealize" (or whatever he said), but is this not just a factor of natural selection and not the other form evolution being the quick changes (what is it called by the way?)?

I think you may be thinking of punctuated equilibrium. This would have little to do with the scenario you propose - it is more to do with the vacuums left in many ecological niches after mass extinctions - and the fact that a lot of new species appear in a relatively short period of time as new forms arise to take advantage of the 'free niches'.

Quote:

But all this evolution, adding complexity seems to be a trend. Evolution is different from progression, but is evolution not progressing the species to a higher awareness of the environment, adding to it's ability to survive and multiply?

As far as I understand it evolution is really just a matter of creating a form that is more energy efficient than other competitors for the same sort of ecological niche.

For example, we are less muscular than great apes. We are probably not as muscular as our common ancestors with great apes.

Is this not a step backward?

However, it would take us more energy, and possibly a longer time, to develop a better musculature. That is energy and time that could be spent breeding.

So we sacrificed a degree of strength because we didn't need it as much as apes because we use tools more than they do.

So it is wrong to think of evolutionary success as going hand in hand with added complexity - many successful forms of life are highly simple, and just as evolved as you are. You might think you are much more gifted than a bacteria, but a bacteria's simplicity means it can reproduce every few minutes.

Quote:

This higher awareness could be that awareness of the environment, the totalitarian society, causing the objective state of the society to be more recognized by the individual. However, does the subjective perspective of the society hinder in any way that increasing awareness of the objective state of the society? I mean, sure you could list off the Darwinian train of thought to stipulate it's effects, but is there not another mechanism?

I don't think so. Comparing a human society to the pressures put on species by the ecosystem doesn't really help matters in my view - because the ecosystem is so much more complicated than a human society.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

So practising 'love' would not really count - as it doesn't necessarily lead to loving offspring. However, an individual who did 'love the leader' due to genes influencing a trusting nature, or an easily cowed nature, or whatever, would be less likely to be labelled a subversive, and removed from the population - and therefore more likely to produce offspring.

Why not? The human body is a system that must achieve homeostasis. The environment has effects on the human body causing positive feedback on this ideal. But the ideal it has is not the best ideal there is to the survival of the the individual's ability to multiply and survive. The ideal, this homeostasis state of being, could shift could it not? Well obviously it does, it is not static, surely. In natural selection it of course has to be I know.

If you spend all this time loving the totalitarian society and the society gives back by meeting the survival requirements then would not the ideal shift towards increasing the amount of 'loving' abilities, however linear it would become. At what point could the amount that society attributes to the survival be realized as of more influence than the ability for the individual to survive on its own? Surely this symbiosis between society and the individual could be a mechanism in evolution, and the totalitarianism only increases it's efficiency by making the direction more linear, right?

It's just as a non-real mechanism as the natural selection is, just that it is emergent from the complexity that society attributes to the deterministic evolutionary processes.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Dystopias and evolution

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Dystopias and evolution

Quick Links

My Account

able2know