Civilizaţia Foametei

Saturday (May 23rd, 2009) in Bucuresti it was the diversity march, where sexual minorities (in numerical minority compared to order forces) marched expressing in their own way, which I personally find quite funny and interesting, but not vulgar. To compare, after the minorities’ demonstration ended, I saw at Unirea subway a group of football supporters who cried loudly, sang with brutal voices, and when a passenger complained about their aggressive behavior in a public place he was insulted. The question is: what is the opinion of the organizations Provita, Families Alliance in Romania and Romanian Orthodox Forum, who prepared a counter-demonstration against diversity march, named normality march, about these noisy supporters? Are they less noxious than gays and lesbians for the education of children who see them manifesting? They are normality…

Having in view that violence and war (because this is what supporters do, they behave like at war, they simulate a little war, or more gentle said, like rival gangs, the psychological mechanisms that govern their behavior are the same) were important factors in the history of the human society, they represent normality. Some experts even consider that there was a positive selection in increasing violence, a fact that is very easily found in some human societies (for example Ute Indians, described by Lorenz). Violence is normal, but for the sexual point of view, are these people liked by these organizations which fight for normality? Are they really heterosexual?

From anus to passionately suicide

To answer these questions we should define homosexuality, but also heterosexuality. And things are not as easy as they seem at first sight. Most of the time, when thinking about homosexuals, people reduce their sexual behaviour to anal sex at men, which seems very disgusting, or to clitoris stimulation at women. Unfortunately this happens in Romania at high level. In a tv show at Realitatea Tv Friday, Adrian Paunescu, once called by Radio Profm the biggest poet alive, exclaimed at some point ” what normality? Normality through anus?”. If this is the level of a poet, what to expect from other people? Homosexuality does not mean sexual attraction, the availability to have sex with individuals of the same sex, but the availability to have romantic relationships with a certain sex. A research made several years ago shows that bisexual individuals can have sex with both sexes, but the availability for romantic relationships is with one sex only. This means that a bisexual woman is really attracted affectively to one sex only, women or men; the same goes for a bisexual man. It is also known that there is male prostitution practiced by heterosexual men, who have sex homosexually, but only for money, without emotional implications, the sexual attraction does not exist in this case. About female prostitutes it is known that they are often lesbians, this is why it is easy for them to do this, because they do not involve emotionally, not even as sexual attraction.

Homosexuality means more than sexual relations between individuals of the same sex, it means affection, passion, crimes, and passionate suicide. Any good person would suffer when hearing about the existence of a society which denies the right to marriage of two heterosexual individuals, as it happens in India, when people are from different castes. But if there is about prejudice, in the country that should be the biggest economic power of the world, the European Union, the situation is even more striking, it is judicially settled. And Romania is a European Union country…

Probably in no other culture except for the occidental one, partners involved in marriage do not have more rights, which make many heterosexuals reticent in signing such contract. Homosexuals who want to give these privileges to someone do not have this possibility. In a society which pays that much attention to conjugal relations, in which the husband/wife has direct access to goods, life insurance, children conceived or adopted during this relation (even if they aren’t his), homosexual relations are seriously discriminated. Don’t they have the same rights to personal life that heterosexual have?

Homosexuals’ sincerity

Several years ago, after a discussion I had with my aunt, who is now 85 years old, she was surprised by the attention that media gave to homosexuals. “Why are there so many talks about homosexuals? Big deal! Romanians were half homosexuals…” Homosexuality does not start in Antiquity and does not start at the human being. The homosexual behavior was observed at many animal species, starting with reptiles, to other mammals and birds (for example geese). It is very interesting that at pigmy chimpanzees, bonobo, Pan Paniscus, considered the closest species to man, even closer than the common chimpanzee, Pan Troglodytes, homosexuality, especially the female one, is very extensive. Their sexual behavior is very much alike the human one. Not only these funny primates have sex out of the reproductive period, more precisely they have sex for pleasure, females’ orgasm being typically human, masculine type, but their lack of sexual prejudices does not stop here. Bonobo females, beyond the extraordinary imagination of positions, they often have lesbian sexual relations, which have a special social role, strengthening the friendship relations between females within the group. At humans sex has also a big social role, the importance that many cultures give to nuclear family is a proof of that. Anyway, probably the prejudices that exist in many cultures, including ours, do not allow people to manifest their “real sexual face”.

It seems that Antiquity was more sincere form this point of view, and from other points of vew. Beyond Romans’ homosexuality, exercised during many campaigns, the homosexuality of Greeks was even better known. During Athenian democracy homosexuality prevailed among superior sections of population, in fact at Athenians. The question is: Why so many homosexuals in Antiquity? Why at present they aren’t so many? Perhaps homosexuality has slightly different proportions in various populations, although I don’t know much about this, but its proportion must have been very different from the present one. We do not have a clear picture of the real dimension of homosexuality in the Athenian society. Nevertheless the sexual relations that mattered were the relations between males. In a society which attached much value to culture, physical and spiritual formation, married women were illiterate, their role being reproductive. The only females that existed from the sexual attraction point of view were… courtesans, well-educated and interesting women.
Konrad Lorenz, the famous ethologist, Nobel Prize winner, makes the difference in “The so-called evil”, a book about aggressiveness between the homosexuality of the young man wearing make-up and that of the Greek heroes, like Achilles and Patrocles. He describes homosexuality at wild geese, where males often make successful couples, which due to force and communication between partners occupy high positions in hierarchy, being more successful than heterosexual relations. At geese, the pairs which are formed based on the triumph cry (something familiar to those who lived in the country and observed geese) are very stable, most of the time for the entire life. The relationship between the two ganders is very much alike the homosexual relations between the Greek heroes. Lorenz also says that sexual relations at the wild goose, like at humans, are the natural consequence of a good affective relationship, while the reverse is not true. In this case, the homosexuality of ancient Greeks or of Romans was the natural result of very good relations. When communication between sexes was slack, male homosexuality and the female one as well, was the solution for good emotional relations. In all the societies where communication between sexes is slack there appears the homosexuality. Sultans often had lovers, despite their harems of…lesbians, for the same reason.

Is the situation different now? No, just the taboos are different. Psychologists say the homophobes are often repressed homosexuals. The supporters I met feel very well in the presence of other males, their female partners being used just for reproduction and housekeeping. Their life, what makes them feel good, what represents them, is beside their friends, other males. For many women the situation is not different. Their life is beside their girl friends, the reason they married being the social conventions. I was shocked by the confession of a young woman in this regard. When her husband went in a mission, she was left alone, which made her “really feel alive”. When asking her why she married, she answered that because of her parents, because of social conventions. She obviously preferred my company. Nothing new. Our recent ancestors several hundred years ago had separate lives, women with other women chattering, and men at the bar with other men. Conjugal partners were used for economic purposes, procreation, and something that today we would hardly call sex.

Can these people be called heterosexual? Like ancient Greeks, they are not able to have emotional relationships with their partners, who are different psychologically, which creates much more communication problems than between individuals of the same sex. Like Lorenz’s homosexual ganders which have sexual relations very rarely, and they can couple with females, which sometimes form a ménage- a- trois, keep their availability of being attracted strictly sexually to individual of different sex. Homosexuals are superior to these people through their sincerity and honesty. They do not use just the opposite sex individuals for mean purposes. The sexuality object is the same with the affection object. Can one be called heterosexual when the opposite sex induces just a sexual excitation based on signal stimulus?

The courage of real heterosexuality

What is reproached to homosexuals by well-educated and tolerant people is the fact that they seem to lack imagination and selfish, because they are able to invest emotionally only in similar individuals. Ayn Rand, the creator of a philosophic system which she named objectivism, blames homosexuality for this kind of reasons, considering that romantic relations are possible only between individuals of different sex. But if we follow these criteria, how many people really are heterosexual? It seems logical that romanticism be a big adventure, the object of these relations be individuals not only of different sexes, but different culturally, genetically etc. Unfortunately, these investigations are expensive from every point of view; they require a lot of strength and courage. Real heterosexuality is for the strong, tolerant, patient, gentle, who accept challenges and risks. Most of the people, according to researches, choose similar partners, even physically, not only culturally, and who live nearby. What would happen if there weren’t any taboos related to homosexuality?

Where does homosexuality come from?

However, if we explained the Achiles phenomenon, how could we explain the phenomenon of “the young man wearing make up”? if based on the data above we can promote the theory that bisexuality could be rather ordinary, meaning that many people would accept, based on emotional relations, having sex with individuals of the same sex, there are real homosexuals who feel attracted sexually and emotionally only to individuals of the same sex. Psychologists say that there aren’t peer reviewed articles which show that homosexuality is innate, as some claim. Unfortunately there are not many researches regarding sex, not as many as it should, because of prejudices. These researches require financing, and many are reluctant in financing researches about sex. Psychologists say that homosexuality is a consequence of deficient psychological development in the first childhood, between 3-5 years of age, when the child learns to attribute his parents’ roles. If the parent of the same sex is absent, he takes the role of the parent of the opposite sex. Is it???

Even if the data for refuting this are precarious, still there are some. Within a feature report broadcasted on Discovery, I saw the disastrous consequences of this approach. After a birth accident, a baby boy suffered a sex change operation and then he was raised like a girl. Everything was supposed to be normal because every child is born without a distinct sexualisation of the brain which appears subsequently as a consequence of environmental factors. Although some data showed that testosterone treatment during the intra-uterus development of female mice changed their sexual behavior after birth… The life of that child became a nightmare. The role of girl made him very unhappy, his adaptation became very difficult. Eventually he found out the truth. And by the end of the feature report he committed suicide…

The theory about homosexuality that I did not present in “The civilization…”, but I presented the collateral reasoning, is a very simple one (I should write a scientific article about this!). This would be a problem of the intra-uterus development pace. At the human being intra-uterus development time is altered, meaning there are stages that are dilated very much, if we compare to other mammal species. On the other side, there are data which indicate that antenatal stress makes the female brain think like a man and the male one think like a female. I saw this kind of situation. A transsexual female thought this situation was based on an accident her mother had before her birth. Probably things are a little more complicated. Briefly, sexual organs are formed in a development stage, much earlier, while the brain develops subsequently, in the last trimester of pregnancy. Homosexuality and transsexuality would be another time artery of the brain development. In fact, the difference between the male brain and the female one would be of this kind, a slightly different investment in some structures as a consequence of slightly different development paces. Certain antenatal conditions, supported of course by a genetic predisposition, could modify the development pace and brain sexualisation. In support of this theory is the fact that certain facts related to brain development, such as lateralization, are similar at heterosexual women and gay men on one hand, but at lesbians and heterosexual men too. So, there are similitudes of brain organization at heterosexual women and gay men, but at lesbians and heterosexual men too, probably due to a consequence of the development conditions. In this case homosexuality and transsexuality would be the result of the presence of sexual organs specific to one sex and of brain sexualisation specific to the other sex. A contradiction between the sex of the brain and the sex of the genital parts.

So, at least in some cases, the homosexual behavior is decided before birth. On the other hand, some researches suggest that being raised in a gay family does not change the sexual orientation of children towards the general population. So, in this case the theory of the influence of parents` role in defining the sexual orientation of children is off. But the history suggests other solutions for reducing the percentage of homosexuality within a population. After the disappearance of Athenian democracy, the woman´s role in family and society changed, relations between sexes modified, there appeared feminine representations in art. Why? Men did not spend any more time in agora with other men; they spent more time in family, communication between sexes improved. Perhaps the advocates of patriarchal traditionalism don`t know, but the values they promote encourage gay behavior, and the reduction of their influence in society could bring some changes, at least in some cases, described above.

And the fact that marriages between gay individuals are not legalized because they do not lead to giving birth to children is hilarious. Most of the time humans have sex for pleasure, not for reproduction. On the other hand, the human being can be defined as the species which does things that are not necessary for the survival of the individual or of the species (definition from “The civilization….”). So, marriage between gay individuals is as…human as it can be. It´s time family was not just a form of prostitution anymore, at least not in all cases, as Soviet educator Makarenko described it. This is what patriarchal family is, far from being saint for a man who respects human rights . In 21st century we should give family a chance to be the place for people who want to be happy, who try to exercise the right to search for happiness…
The knowledge of little Titulescu

Some time ago I read an article in Romanian media about a legislative initiative of Mr. Ponta, according to which a new amendment will be introduced into the Criminal Code which stipulates that therapeutic abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy becomes a felony because, he said that after this age abortion becomes murder, as the foetus is considered a person. What did he rely on when saying that? Nobody knows, but him. After the biologic knowledge, nobody can say exactly in what stage of development -pre or even post native, there appears the quality of human being. I have written about this in “When human life begins”.

Human or Neanderthalian? Just a child…

I remember a discussion I had several years ago (in 2005) with a colleague, anthropologist with over 30-year experience in the field. It was about a recent controversy at that time, related to the possibility that some hybridizations could have been made between the man of Neanderthal and modern human. The discovery of a child who had both the characteristics of a modern human and of a Neanderthalian, led to this controversy. Of course, the person who discovered him considered he was a hybrid. But things are not so simple in the field, as it may look like at a first glance. My colleague said that the individual who was in course of development is simply “a child”, about who we do not know if he was a hybrid or if he belonged to one of the two species. “He was a child”.

It may look like a simple thing, but those who are not experts in the field do not know that human babies (children) do not have yet many of the typically human characteristics. The thorax of little children is similar to the chimpanzee one; it is not flat like the one of a mature person. Also, the position of hyoid bone, an important human feature, with an important role in articulated language, is not the position it has at the adult that is lower, position which settles around 12 years of age. But the fact that the big toe, which is opposable at new-born children like at chimpanzees was also mentioned in biology books (when evolutionism in Romania was taught in schools). In other words, the younger children are, the closer they are to our kindred, the big primates. It would be interesting to see how those who deny evolution explain this…We do not have a clear definition of human biologic condition, so we cannot know when human life really begins. Anyway, it is obvious that not before birth. We do not have any sign that symbolic thinking which is considered a typically human feature, perhaps the feature which has the best chances to define human condition, appears before birth. Symbolic thinking is what makes speaking, human type communication possible.

Tradition which blames depending on the possession of a uterus

Where do Mr. Ponta’s ideas come from? If is not from science, then from tradition. It seems that sometimes tradition is more important than science when it comes to influencing political decisions. And we are not in Afghanistan or Iran. Unfortunately, although most of the Westerners revolt when they hear about women’s situation in Islamic fundamentalist countries, they do not realize that tradition oppresses western women too. We are not talking about the fact that interdiction of therapeutic abortion means sentencing women to death. The initiator of this amendment says that some medical exceptions will be included within the law. But any interdiction of abortion, irrespective of the pregnancy period it refers to, represents violating woman’s rights. Bashfulness regarding sexuality, in this case feminine bashfulness, even in western culture, leads to numerous abuses. Interdicting abortion means sentencing someone if not to death and cripple after an illegal abortion, to life sentencing when giving birth to an unexpected child. Would you sentence someone to prison for life for having free consented sex? Bringing to world an undesired child is similar. Those who speak about limiting the right to abortion, have they talked to a woman who gave birth to an unexpected child? Do they know what her life becomes after that? The woman, who is often lonely or involved in a bad relationship, will not have her own personal life anymore, her career will be ruined, if she has one, if not- her poverty and despair will worsen. Our society which emphasizes freedom condemns half of the population to having a life programmed to pregnancy, just because she has uterus.

The woman should be the only one to decide when she wants to give birth to a child. Nobody can oblige a sportsman to participate in a very tough competition if he is not prepared, or a mountaineer to do a risky climbing if he is not ready, a pilot to pilot when he cannot concentrate, or simply a man to buy a house or a car when he is not prepared. Despite all these, some people consider obliging a woman to enter in a very risky and challenging investment for life. Would somebody dare asking someone, if not a woman, to make a dangerous surgery which would result in loosing his teeth, and other health problems that appear after a complete pregnancy? I don´t think so. Then how can anyone ask a woman to give birth when she is not ready or simply she doesn´t want to?

There are women who just don´t want to have children. Women did not come into the world to procreate, their contribution to the society development can be very important, without involving their uterus in this affair. A friend of mine, D.S., said something intelligent regarding this matter, declaring that an unexpected pregnancy is worse than a rape. Having in your uterus a child that is not wanted is more painful than being raped, psychological effects are even more tough… And to think that in some European countries, UE members, like Ireland and Poland abortion is illegal, and in others like Lithuania it is limited, even if it is therapeutic…What do these countries have in common? Catholicism…Those who militate against abortion do not want to kill children, but they want to kill women or at least their lives. It is also blamable that in some countries where there are many Catholics, like Germany, church interferes in counseling women who want to abort, trying to make them change their minds. If this does not happen, women remain, beyond physical trauma, with a feeling of guilt. Although I often consider that prison is a very tough penalty for human faults, I would sentence to prison someone who blames somebody for trying to keep his right to life.

Women cannot be reduced to uterus, not even from the sexual point of view.

Women cannot be reduced to uterus, as some try to do. Some time ago, a psychologist friend of mine, Dan, after a discussion about nationalism, brought the ideea that fanatic nationalists have a certain morbid relation with thei mothers. He have given several examples of fanatic nationalists from the Romanian political world, who had some veneration for thei mothers, althoug normally they are vulgar misogynists. They assimilate the country with the mother, thus being obsessed by the fact that their mothers or women who carry their genes be raped by strangers, meaning the genes of other heirs.

If we think about history, about the Athenians´ attempt to have a pure race between the walls of their fortress, his theory seems very likely. But he also says that these fanatics maim women, because they are more than mothers, first of all hey are able to feel a great pleasure. We could say that until the uterus women have a lot more things in their genital parts that are important. Women are humans too, meaning they have sex for pleasure, which sometimes can lead to unexpected pregnancy. Religious fanatics should ask themselves why God made women feel so much pleasure, if they have to behave like some nuns who are only allowed to procreate.

According to their theory, everything has a purpose. Which is the purpose of the feminine sexuality, different from other primates? The females of our species, like the bonobo ones (Pan Paniscus) have a specific type of orgasm, a masculine type. This is one of the misterious human features. There were several theories about the female orgasm at the human species. Actually, their evolutionary role, which according to the theory of evolution must lead to fitness development, meaning to survival through descendants, still remains unknown. There were several theories, from the sperm suction (which takes place also without orgasm) to pairing with several males, who in this way were confused about the paternity, which would have prevented the killing of children. In “Civilizatia foametei” an original theory is presented, which lacks teleology more than any Darwinian attempt of explaining it. According to this, the appearance of feminine orgasm has a “very noble” origin, being related to the development of other important organs. Additionally, at human and at bonobo, sex has a very big social role.

To conclude, we, the Westerners, should not revolt when we hear about the way women are treated in Islamic fundamentalist societies. The difference between us and Moslem fanatics is not big: we do not cover and sequester women, but we take their right to life and happiness. Scientists would also want to impose their ideas in the society, but the “scientific Talibans”, people who lead their life after the scientific discoveries, would not use tricks, like tradition advocates.

Those who suffer for “”the souls of unborn children” could save souls that are already born, like adopting children from Bangladesh or India or even more simple “to adopt” adults in hell, meaning to marry persons from countries of the third world, where there is no democracy, human rights are not observed and there is no hope in general. Both variants are less challenging and risky than bringing to world an unexpected child. Some atheist militants of the right to abortion do not exclude these possibilities…. Fortunately, on our planet we also have decent politicians, who have positive points of view regarding the right to abortion. Congratulations to Mr Obama for that!

en

Solidarity with Moldovan Republic

This is a topic that doesn’t have direct connection with evolution, with science, but it has with human nature. Incidents in Moldovan Republic, where human rights are being violated, did not have a great impact on Romania. Not only the Romanian government, which anyway is incompetent, did not adopt a fair attitude of reproving the violation of human rights, but also the humanist organizations in our country did nothing. I noticed that no organization of this kind, which I am a part of, has made a decision so far regarding the incidents in Moldova. I do not want to defame them, considering that so far they had praiseworthy initiatives, but now, when these serious events took place, they were preoccupied with less important things. The purpose of a humanist organization is represented by people’s wellbeing, and when people’s lives or rights are in danger, anything else should be secondly.

I’m not bringing to discussion the cultural connection between Romania and Moldova, but simply the vicinity to this state. Even if such problems had been in Rwanda (I’m giving this example as several days ago it celebrated 15 years from the genocide in this country, which I hardly find on the map, but I remember its capital is Kampala), a fair attitude politically and civic would have been the solidarity with the victims of human rights’ violation. Unfortunately, political gossip and the sensational are more interesting for the public opinion in our country. Romania is the country where nothing matters, according to Marta Bibescu…Nothing important, but this is another topic.

The state’s origin

The discussion today would be about the state, institution which should protect citizens’ rights, but in most parts of the world it abuses them. The individual concludes tacitly a social contract with the state, but this is probably the most breached contract of all.

In “Civilizatia”, beyond evolution, the appearance of typically human features, brain, skin, long and slow life, bipedal walking, low fertility, menopause, behavior, symbolic thinking, language, etc. I also speak about the appearance of civilization. It is called “Civilizatia foametei”… (The famine civilization). In fact the idea of the title came to me when I was writing this chapter, when I had no title for the book. I thought I should call it “The famine civilization”, but someone advised me this was a better title for the book than for a chapter. So I called that chapter “From famine to civilization”. Of course, it starts with prehistoric apes of all kinds, which are assumed to be our ancestors, but it ends with the appearance of civilization. Certainly, there is also about the setting up of state. Although there are many ideas, many theories, cybernetic models which treat the setting up of the state, they refer to the administration of agricultural products’ surplus. Any state is based upon the existence of agriculture, without agriculture which ensures food for a big number of people, of a community, the state setting up is not possible, as it is also impossible the appearance of civilization. So the state appeared when a section of the population was preoccupied with administrating agricultural products, not being involved anymore in agricultural production. The problem is that not the primitive agricultural societies DO NOT produce surplus (data quoted in Civilizatia, presented in Wilson’s Sociobiology). So, probably in history this happened only when they were obliged. How? Some philosophers consider that state appeared as a consequence of human nature in tribal cultures. They talk about the existence of so-called micro societies based on the system of alpha male, through which the weak individual is oppressed by the strong one, like at many species of animals. But anthropologists draw attention upon the fact that existent tribal societies distinguish through the lack of centralized authority, and societies that are much bedded are a recent acquisition of history. However, social inequity, as well as occupational specialization, also exists in some societies of hunters- reapers, although they were considered to appear in the societies of farmers.

The theory presented in “Civilizatia…” is that the state appeared as a consequence of human nature, but with other meaning. A phenomenon which also exists in present can suggest how state appeared: protection tax. State appeared through a simple technique, described in movies like “The seven magnificent” and parodies that were made based on it. Sedentary farmers have “paid” in agricultural products nomadic animal breeders, who were much more skilled at war, to protect them from other similar groups of nomads. History registers many empires which were set up through domination of peasant cultures by nomads, from Antiquity (Akkadiens) to Ottoman Empire. In state appearance two factors are necessary: agriculture and army. Administration is a consequence of the existence of army. The existence of writing or of a similar communication system is essential, although some data suggest that writing appeared, at least in some regions (China) after the appearance of state.

State evolved in the meantime, Athenian democracy and Roman Empire contributed to the appearance of some features of modern state. But the state remains a coercive system in most of the world’s countries. Events in Guantanamo show that even the most democratic states can make abuses against their citizens or the citizens of other states. In the summer of last year I saw a feature report in which Christopher Hitchens, publicist and writer, one of the best known atheists in present, who is admirable from certain viewpoints, offered himself as a guinea-pig for tortures like drowning simulation, saying that if he resists others can resist too and their application is not so severe…All the people who swim, jump in the water and dive, people who know this feelings, would resist to these tortures. But they can do this in their homes, in shows where they agree to be subject to these tortures. But…no honorable citizen should pay a state which does those things to somebody, no matter what he is suspected for. If all my family was killed by someone, I would not accept that a suspect for this murder be subject to this torture, at which I would probably resist, but no other tough treatments at which I can resist, but which for other represent tortures (for example being obliged to think, to solve problems:).

The state through its existence represents a source of corruption, a source of abuses. A solution to this would be a minimalist state, in which a great part of its prerogatives should be transferred to local authorities or other institutions. The state is paid by us all; we do business with it, like we do with the grocer. And as we do not accept the grocer to harm us, we should neither accept being deceived by the state. This institution, like others, should be reformed, modernized a lot. It was often said that science did not solve the problems in the society. It didn’t, because they weren’t yet treated scientifically. Science and human solidarity could change things for better. But unfortunately the interest for science and solidarity are minimal in our society.

I want to express my sympathy for the victims of abuses in Moldovan Republic, irrespective of their nationality. Condolences for the families and friends of those who died!

en

“World is not enough” was the title of a movie from the James Bond series. Indeed for people who want do great things, the world is not so big. And what is even more sad, there aren´t so many possiblities as it may look at a first sight. And this is not about natural resources, technology, etc., it is about the most valuable resource of the planet: the people.

Especially in the developed countries, but in Western culture in general, there are organisms which try to sensitize the public opinion at problems related to wasting natural resources, destroying the environment, the dissappearance of species. But nobody tries to sensitize the public opinion when it comes to wasting the most important resource of a country, and of the planet: the people. There are some who complain about overpopulation. It is absolutely true that overpopulation is a problem in some regions, because of the limited resources. Malthus is the first who signaled the problem of the too fast increase of population against the increase of natural resources that are necessary to a human society. Malthus, who considered war a solution for the problem he had signaled, was answered that except him nobody was in excess on the planet. Maybe some Westerners, who are worried about the overpopulation of some regions of the planet, which are not overpopulated, like Africa which is in fact underpopulated, should be answered similarly today, that except them, nobody is in excess.

The reduction of fertility and the increase of reproduction age _ phenomena in the spirit of the human evolution.

There are some who complain about the population´s ageing. And this is really a problem in certain regions, especially in Euro-Atlantic. Birth rate decreases, as a result of some cultural changes caused mainly by prosperity, which also led to increasing the hope of life. From the evolutionist point of view, I believe we have no reason to worry about the low birth rate, but we should worry that the hope for healthy life, which is related to productivity and social costs connected to ageing does not keep up with it. Unfortunately, although the ageing phenomenon is studied, and the age pathology research costs millions of dollars, there is a certain scepticism related to the possibility to treat or prevent the ageing. At this moment thee is no method of slowing or stopping the phenomenon of ageing at people. All the products of rejuvenation, of slowing the ageing are just false. The life style is still the only method to preserve a healthy life until old age.

But if decreasing birth rate was correlated to a proportional increase of healthy life duration, we could speak about a new stage of human evolution, a new stage of humanization, idea that was presented in “Civilizatia foametei”. Man stands out from the most kindred primates by a low fertility doubled by his long duration of life. Human life is very slow, meaning that his development, his maturing is very slow, his childhood is very long, the period of child dependence is unusually long. Human being is a species with slow and long life within an order of animals with long and slow life: primates. They also have lower fertility than other mammals. Generally there is a positive correlation at mammals between the life duration of a species of mammals and the size of the brain compared to the body, and a negative one with fertility. There is a theory about the origin of this connection in “Civilizatia foametei”. The evolutionist answer to the increase of life duration is a lower fertility and a reproduction age even more advanced. The fact that people chose to have children later, especially the educated people, is the result of our species´evolution. We may say that our evolution takes another step forward, in the same direction.

A longer life, with a more advanced reproduction age is less economical for a species. The “interest” of a species is that its genes be the best represented at a certain moment. If this is done through a longer life of the members of this species, and not through a shorter life and a bigger investment in reproduction (type r strategy), considering that reproduction is an expensive process from the energetic point of view, the species is put to advantage from the energetic point of view.

I am one of those who consider that something can be done for increasing life duration of this species; moreover, I consider this a duty for our evolution. It is unfair that a person, be it a tram-driver and not a scholar, artist or business man, live so little. Any individual is an institution, who can offer more.

The hope of logical thinking and free feeling in present

There is a problem that most of the people nowadays do not survive so that they reach their natural genetic potential. The hope of life of a girl who is born in Africa is approximately 50 years. In some countries, the situation is much more serious, for example Botswana, where, because of AIDS, he average life duration is 36 years. Access to normal education, to logical thinking, decrease the chances of manifesting the genetic potential of a person who is born in a non-democratic country of the third world. Millions of people who are contemporary with us, millions of children who are born now, are condemned for life to not having water access, proper food, medicines, and proper education and free thinking. There are millions who have access to food, shelter, medicines, but who are lost for society because of education. Millions of people who will never invent, discover something, although some of them have the intellectual potential for that. Millions of people who are wasted, whose brain is full of superstitions (for example in Africa), who have difficulties in assimilating the simple principle of cause-effect, which is the basis of Western science. Other millions of people are transformed in wrecks from the viewpoint of rational thinking by religious indoctrination or the equivalent (communist, situation of North Korea). Millions of male children condemned to be misogynists, millions of female children condemned to be self-conscious and inhibited become incapable of having a family and social life considered normal in our culture, children who irrespective of their sex they will never assimilate values like human rights or democracy (in Moslem fundamentalist countries, but not only). These children will not have the chance of a normal, free life, they will not have the chance to really express themselves. The war against terrorism should have been made on this plan, not with guns. These people, within globalization, not only they are lost, but they become a threat for out way of life.

Unfortunately, in Western culture there are many who discriminate others from different populations or cultures, whose ability to invent and create important things is denied. The question for these shallow Westerners is whether they can make inventions, discoveries, create masterpieces. If they knew how these things are done, how important education, free thinking and feeling are in the process of creation. But it is much easier to put a label than try to understand a phenomenon. These people are similar to those whom they deny the possibility to do great things for progress. What is even more interesting is that there are some people for whom the present human races are not enough for their ability to discriminate, so they use prehistoric people to satisfy this necessity. The man of Neanderthal was also subject to these racial discriminations.

Beyond the Neanderthalians´ intellectual ability to develop technologies, to create art, we face the problem of present people, from which very few really can involve in progress, because of the societies in which they were born. Moreover, taking into consideration the present outlooks of many cultures, almost every social relation of a rational person with “common people” becomes dangerous.

en

Both in the scientific world and in society, the most difficult accepted idea from Darwin´s theory of evolution was the selection one. Even during Darwin´s life, until the beginning of 20th century, when the discoveries of genetics offered the biological basis of individual characters variability (the gene), the scientific world accepted evolution, but it was reserved against natural selection. One of Darwin´s closest friends and co-workers who helped him impose his theory, considered the idea of selection irrelevant in evolution (Ernst Haeckel), and many researchers simply did not accept it.

Briefly, people accepted evolution, but did not accept selection because, as seen later, selection had frightful implications in politics, society, philosophy. If man was an animal like any other animal, evolution would be the result of natural selection, just like it is at every other species.

Eugenic is one of the consequences of the idea of natural selection. Eugenic (from Greek words « eu », good and genes « born ») was a scientific, political and moral ideology whose apogee was reached in the first half of the 20th century, but which was then abandoned after the Nazi Holocaust and association with racism.

After reading « The origin of species », Francis Galton, Darwin´s cousin and an important biologist (he introduced statistics in biology), considered that human civilization, through helping weak and handicapped people, eludes from natural selection, human populations thus being in danger of falling in some kind of mediocrity. Like Darwin, Galton noticed that some human features, both intellectual and moral, are hereditary, so they could be improved through selection, like farmers improve the features of plants and animals through artificial selection.

Galton exposed his ideas for the first time in « Hereditary Talent and Character » (1865), but in great detail in the book « Hereditary Genius » (1869).

This book is free on the internet. If someone has the patience to read it, he will discover how benign are those recommendations, especially the social ones, for improving the qualities of human populations. Galton simply makes the eulogy of society encouraging people with intellectual and moral abilities to have many children. These persons of both sexes should be encouraged to marry young and the selection of partners to be made based on the criteria of talents and moral qualities, and not of wealth and social origin.

In most of the developed countries, this really happens. It is interesting that Galton criticizes The Chirch, which was a factor of negative selection, brave and non-conformist people were often persecuted, on the other hand, some of the talented people were attracted within the Church, where celibate stopped them from procreating. Taking into consideration the xenophobia and racial hatred generated then by the Nazism, which embraced eugeny, it is interesting that Galton was satisfied by the quality immigration in Great Britain, giving the example of the asylum obtained by the Huguenots in his country. Maybe if Galton had seen what the Nazi did with the intellectual Jews, Romany artists, etc., he would have been very upset.

But always, as it happens in present with the interpretation of Koran, which doesn´t say anything about the Islamic veil, and the crimes of Islamic terrorists are serious sins, any idea can be distorted and used as support for political doctrines which are often criminal, eugenic generated numerous abuses and crimes starting with he Unites States (where it first appeared), then in Germany, Australia, and other countries like Sweden ( !).

Although there were no criteria for the superiority of human features, numerous ethnical groups, from Afro-Americans to Jews, Romany, aboriginal Australians were subject to abuses starting with sterilization, forced adoption of children and even killing.

Ill people, especially the mentally ill and persons with low intelligence quotient were also sterilized or even killed. But Darwin and Galton are not guilty for that. Existent prejudices in certain environments led to those violations of human rights. There was no science in those acts, and most certainly no Darwinian evolution. There aren´t now and there weren´t then data which certify the biological superiority of the white people, especially of the Northersns, as the Nazi claimed. On the contrary, the attempts to show that the white race is the most evolved, with the most numerous neotenic features (many typically human features being considered consequences of the neoteny, meaning the maintenance at adult of some features from the previous stages of development) failed.

Also, when the Jews were exterminated in Nazi camps as they were an inferior race, some of the most important ideas in the science of those times, starting with physics (Albert Einstein) and ending with psychology (Siegmund Freud) belonged to Jews. Then more than ever Jews could not be considered human waste. But it seems this did not matter. There are contemporary researchers who cite even Hitler´s admiration for Jews´intelligence, and his approach was more anti-eugenics, as he wanted to eliminate the supremacy of this minority in many fields of social, economic and scientific life.

Beyond these suppositions, we can say that eugenics in Hitler´s policy was a simple tool. As he declared, he used the anti-Jewish sentiment that was very intense in Germany, to offer the people a common enemy, a recipe that has been tested for millennia, having the effect of increasing the social cohesion. Jews were exterminated not because Hitler considered them an inferior race, because « nobody defended them ».

Hitler used pseudoscience like he used, allegedly, Nietzsche´s phylosophy. This philosopher, who was said to have inspired the Nazism, had a great admiration towards Jews and criticized anti-Semitism, even recommending the expulsion of the most ardent Jew-baiters, ideas that were presented in “Amurgul idolilor”.

Eugeny entered a period of silence after the Second World War Two. It is about those measures of active eugeny, but passive eugenic, in its soft forms, exists now too. Genetic advices, choosing the sex of a child, in order to avoid a genetic disease, even that recent law (mothers´ law) that wants to encourage women with a career to have more children, are forms of eugenics.

Another doctrine that led to numerous crimes in the past century, which was said to be inspired by Darwin´s ideas, is the communism. Unfortunately, communism precedes Darwinian evolutionism. The Manifesto of the Communist Party appears at London in 1848, and « The origin of species » in 1859. Otherwise, communism denies from the start the human nature, the attempts of creating « the new man » can be considered rather Lamarckian, meaning they suppose direct intervention of the environment in the evolution of organisms. Soviet science in Stalinist period promoted the ideas of a Lamarckian, Lîsenko, when important Darwinian researchers (Vavilov) were sent to call-up camps where they died.

Te extermination of intellectuals and democratic politicians can be considered artificial selection. Communism embraced Darwin´s evolution theory because it was the only materialistic theory accepted in science that explained the origin and evolution of the human being.

en

Once Andrei Plesu, who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, said that if we extricated ourselves with the political leaders we had (it was about the international policy), then there was a God. Current economic recession would run counter to Plesu´s statement, our corrupt and limited politicians are starting to fail.

But anyway, the idea that Gods, whoever they be, could exist, sounds strange from an evolutionist, however…What are Gods? Notions accepted by many people, which have certain significations well determined, often with profound emotional implications. If people believe in an abstract notion, if it influences their lives, it can be said that it exists. Does democracy exist? It does! -Because people believe in it. So we can say that Gods exist.

A prove that Gods exist is the way religion guides the life of millions of people. Vatican issued recently « the most authoritative statement in bioethics in the last 20 years « (source: the newspaper Cotidianul)

As it is shown in the article, Vatican reaffirms its hostility towards in vitro fertilization, research with embryonic stem cells, second day contraceptive pill or anti-progestative RU-486 (I am curious if this is recommended in Romania instead of mechanical abortion, when it is possible). The last two enter under the incidence of « abortion sin ».

I am not entitled to discuss the ideology that led to such decisions, but I am entitled to discuss the effects some of them have on the health of millions of people. Such ideas, like discouraging the utilization of condom in Africa, led to millions of people having AIDS and dieing. Also, forbidding abortion for religious reasons led to the death of thousands of women in many countries of the world.

The denial of human nature

I vote for freedom of religion and of expression. Anyone can say everything, anyone can invent the ideology he wants, but when you try to impose it, then things should change. If somebody invented an ideology which said that wearing the seat belt when driving is a sin, probably many people would revolt. Similarly, if an ideology would ban insulin treatment for diabetics or sun creams for persons with light skin.

But when somebody is saying this under the authority of traditional Churches, other standards are applied. Some recommendations have negative effects or even deny human nature and the laws of nature. Homosexuals will always exist, certain conditions will lead to homosexuality, just like certain conditions will lead to the appearance of diabetes. If type II diabetes can be prevented through a certain behavior (movement, avoiding fatness etc.), it is not known how homosexuality can be prevented. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that in his country homosexuality did not exist. If this is true and the absence of homosexuals is not the result of their killing (artificial selection), then Mr. Ahmadinejad deserves Nobel Prize for knowing the mechanism of homosexuality appearance and preventing it.

Like communism, Christian religion often denies human nature. As it states that sex with other purposes than procreation is a sin, it can similarly declare that bipedal walking or the lack of hair on the body are sins too. Because sex for pleasure and not only for reproduction, sex outside the fertile period and certain aspects of sexual pleasure are typically human features, like bipedal walking, the lack of fur or the big brain in comparison with the body. As it is known, it is very difficult to establish the exact fertile period at the human being, also, the human fertility is reduced, so recommending sex only for procreation is very difficult to follow, and also very unrealistic.

Also, condemning homosexuality as a sin, is the same thing as condemning people with blue eyes, or people who like sweets. Homosexuality exists at animals too, and the percentage of homosexuals, who exist since Antiquity at men, is relatively constant in populations. Several years ago it was a percentage of 10% of the male population having homosexual orientation in USA. We do not know this percentage in our country, although the source Basescu indicates about 20%. I doubt the scientific value of this figure; probably the President generalizes the situation on the commercial ships. Anyway, homosexuality is so present in human populations, that sociobiologists wonder what its evolutionary advantage is.

It´s just that sociobiologists do not revolt when they hear about homosexuality condemnation, like anthropologists do not revolt when hearing about abortion and contraception condemnation. But everybody revolts when hearing about cultural absurdities which lead to sexual mutilation of children, to the lapidation of some people, but with one condition: to be in other cultures, not in ours.

An equivalent religion

If a today´s guru created a new religion, which denied equally human nature and these recommendations of Vatican, it could recommend, among others:
1. Avoiding bipedal walking, which can be considered a sin. Bipedal walking causes all kinds of health problems at men, and also a difficult birth.
This recommendation would be similar to forbidding contraception and abortion, which represent effects of infringing the rule of sex for procreation. They are both typically human features, although sex for pleasure also exists at other species, like bonobo and dolphins, meaning it is even more difficult to deny from the biological point of view.
2. Stigmatization of people with white skin, which it is a sin. And if they get melanoma because they stayed in he sun when this could be prevented, those sinners must die. Anyway, sun creams must be forbidden.

The last one seems an absurdity, but it looks like the homosexuals´ stigmatization. It also looks like some reactions some people had against the vaccination campaign for HPV. I saw on a forum somebody saying that if developing a cancer caused by infection with HPV is a measure of promiscuousness, then «the sinner must die! » But it is much easier to say that a melanoma caused by unconscious exposal to sun is a consequence of sin, of hedonist behavior. For thousands of years people have taken measures not to get sun burnt, until fashion imposed us to tan excesively and forget about the danger. But people have always had sex for pleasure. Who would say about a person with melanoma: «the sinner must die? »

Condemning a behavior by the Church is made under the threat of hell, the eternal prison for sinners. But here, on Terra, there are and always have been much more palpable hells. If people realized that without democracy, human rights, science, and other discoveries of the sinners they go to similar hells with North Corea, China or Africa (they create them where they live), then maybe they would know what they should be afraid of in the first place, what recommendations are the most important.

en

History repeats itself. As it is a science, it handles repetitive and predictable phenomena. In Nigeria, children who are accused of witchcraft are tortured for exorcism and chased away. Sometimes they are killed. Beyond the human aspect of this problem, is the scientific one. Why does this happen? Nigeria is one of the poorest countries in the world (West Africa being an extremely poor region of the world), although, as the feature report shows, it is the 12th oil producer in the world. Oil enriched excessively the corrupt politicians, but the majority lives with one dollar a day (national income per capita is around 500 dollars/year). Personal chances of developing through one’s own are minimal. Tribal relations (group) are powerful. Children are chased away, because parents don’t want problems in their group; most kindred relatives often torture these children with the purpose of exorcism.

Another important aspect, described in the feature report, is that in their culture the cause-effect relation, which is the basis of scientific thinking, does not exist. Witchcraft is to blame for all the bad things in the world (poverty, diseases, etc). Then what needs to be done? – To exorcize or kill all the wizards. And this is what they do, encouraged by some authoritative institutions (numerous non-Protestant churches) which have a certain profit from the credulity and despair of these people. There are many churches in that region. What happened in Africa in 2008 happened in Western Europe in the Middle Ages- Nothing new. Also the religious fundamentalism in some Moslem countries had a precedent in Europe in the same period. The problem is that it can happen again. If the interest for science decreases, if we don’t realize the importance of cause-effect relation in science, politics, every-day life, we can make things as serious as those in the feature report. Also, if we don’t realize the importance of the mechanisms and institutions that took Europe out of the Middle Ages, it can always return to that period of time. Feudalism is like a social and historical energetic minimum, social systems tend towards it. At least in Europe, in feudalism nothing was produced from the scientific and technological viewpoint. Although feudalism also existed in China and Japan, for example in China famous inventions that we use nowadays appeared. China didn’t have a monotheist religion, which had the monopoly in all the fields on what is good and what is wrong, amplifying all the abuses from all the sectors of social and economic life and suffocating all the ideas. What is happening now in Nigeria shows us what our situation in the Middle Ages was. This is what a world without science, without the idea of cause-effect known by Ancient Greeks looks like. Without science there is no progress, the economy declines, the institutions which maintain democracy decline, and we can always go back to feudalism. Surprisingly many times in our culture people give more importance to prejudices than to the cause-effect relation; because it is much easier. With a prejudice or a not proven conviction, you feel you solved a complicated problem, you feel relaxed. Prejudices, dogmas, have advantages for our thinking, they are rewarded, they make us feel better, make our life easier. For how long….

en

As Petre Roman would have said at the Revolution, ‘this sounds like hell’, but the history has proven that it is true. Individualism doesn’t mean selfishness, as it would seem considering its etymology. On the contrary, individualism supposes assigning a value to the individual, and not to the group he belongs to. If a certain individual is valuable on his own, and not thanks to the group he is part of – clan, tribe, caste, social category, etc., then the society is better. This is probably the origin of all the social and political delights that we, Europeans have watched in some regions for more than two thousand years (I am talking about Athenian democracy), without realizing how lucky we are.

But it seems that this type of society represents the exception, and not the rule. In most societies you exist through the group you belong to, and too little through what you can do. This is not only about traditional societies (primitive), but some civilizations too. In Antiquity and later, in the states from India’s actual territory there were no historical chronicles like those in West. The king was a character through his position, not through his acts, he couldn’t impose in history. There is the king, not a certain king. It was considered that history as we see it didn’t exist there. Time just passed away, but social changes or any other type of changes didn’t exist. Everything was the same, for thousands of years, everybody knew his role, and nobody could change anything essential; because it was predetermined in he laws of nature. That’s why there are difficulties in knowing the names of historic characters in this region, because they didn’t register, as their actions weren’t registered. Simply because their vision about the world considered it was useless. People were born in castes; social mobility (moving from a caste to another) didn’t exist.

Obama’s success, maybe less shocking in Ancient Rome than today

It seems difficult to compare with what happens in Europe, in Greece and then in Rome, but not only. Do we know which clan did Hypocrate, Aristotel, Thales or Aristofan belong to? Of course, we have vague data about the town or island they came from. These people were important through what they did, and this is what remained. Moreover, all the free people dreamt of individual glory. When a boy was born, his parents dreamt he would become « a champion » at the Olympic Games. As difficult as the way to success could be in those places, there was a chance. At Rome things were not very different. Romans record heroic, noble, real or less real actions of some characters whose origin did not recommend this type of actions. Additionally, despite its extraordinary toughness, the Roman Empire was characterized by social mobility; there was always the possibility to move from one class to another. There were emperors from all the regions of the Empire. Probably during Romans’ time we wouldn’t have been so surprised of Obama’s success. There were Roman emperors who were born in Africa, although they belonged to the white race.

Where did individualism start?

Like other good things, individualism is favored by war situations, by crisis in general. It seems that long stability, not the war or crises, is the greatest danger for human society. Crisis situations favor the assertion of some non-conformist, competent individuals with strong personality, who in other circumstances would be eliminated. Maybe not accidentally, culture in which hoplites appeared not only did it give birth to democracy, but it also was characterized by individualism. Credible or not, individualism died in Europe in the Middle Ages until the Black Death, the devastating epidemic in the 14th century. A feature report on Discovery was about a Western character with an important political role, very rich and philanthropist, whose grave we don’t know about, because the fact that individualism of any kind was discouraged by The Church in the European Middle Ages, before this epidemic… Individualities appear after the epidemic which decimated the population of Europe and affected the society of that age. People who didn’t have a chance before because of their social origin, they have success now. Not the physicians who were approved by the Church established the methods of preventing the epidemic spreading; they failed with their fantasies. Simple people, with common sense, who observed that if the disease didn’t appear in 40 days, it would never appear (quarantine).

Modern science, which since its beginning abounded in people from modest social categories, appeared only as a consequence of individualism. Every scientist, by definition, wants to do original things, experiences that nobody has ever made before, and theories that nobody has ever emitted. He doesn’t interpret endlessly sacred texts, being hundreds or thousands of years old, which originated from divine revelations.

Not only the science, but also modern democracy, humanist value, human rights, etc would be the natural consequence of the reappearance of individualism in Europe. Among the values of Antiquity to which the Europe of Renaissance returned, individualism should be on top (fortunately, Europeans had something to return to, others didn’t). Democracy, liberalism had advantages in those historical conditions, but they couldn’t have appeared if a critical group of nonconformist, individualist people hadn’t found the chance to assert themselves and assert their values. It was that structure of people who was favored now, who was needed. It is probably the same type of people who in Antiquity would have built a fortress like the legend of Romulus and Remus.

Some time ago I took part in a discussion about human rights. Who says that man should have rights? It’s like a revealed truth, it can be said, an axiom. But wording the human rights would be only a mental constitution of this type of man (his vision of several centuries ago). He felt he needed these rights then in order to feel free and develop. Unfortunately the majority of people do not feel this necessity, not now and not then.

Things have changed since then. Not only that this type of human being would feel that he needs more such rights, but the more constant socio-economic conditions do not favor this kind of man anymore. Among successful people this type is rarer. Things that several decades or centuries ago horripilate us, are coming back now. We live in a world in which the monopoly of guilds is starting to reappear, in which freedom of expression is not what it used to be… The Middle Ages, which we wanted to leave behind, is starting to reappear. Individualism is less important, affiliation to a group is more important. In poor countries like Romania, it is known that without contacts you can’t do anything. Characters, which are nothing through themselves, but through their fathers, partners, and party, are famous.

A “political farce” at the White House?

The fact that it is happening in Romania is serious, but the fact that one of the most liberal countries in the world, maybe the most liberal of all, USA comes to this situation is very serious. World does not have a rabbit to run after anymore, it doesn’t have a control point anymore. It is very serious that in the 21st century we are glad that an Afro-American (or whatever is the right term from the political viewpoint) reaches the White House. This should have happened a long time ago, as a long time ago a woman should have been president in this country. Could it be a new era, could America recover? Could it be a trend of positive changes in the entire world? It would be nice to be so, we all want that, but unfortunately things may be totally different. Mr. Obama, a very nice person otherwise, (whom I personally don’t consider a black man, not only because he is half white, but he has a good education, he didn’t grow up in a ghetto) although he is a member of the Democrat Party, he had a less liberal campaign than McCain’s campaign. Elements from his curriculum vitae make him less liberal than McCain. There is lots of money behind him, probably many interests. Maybe his success shows in a bigger extent not the elimination of racial prejudices of the poll, but of the interest groups. Europe is full of racism and anti-Semitism, as statistics show, because of the decline of individualism; it is hard to believe that America is much more different. My opinion is that until at the White House comes a president with a resume similar to Oprah Winfrey’s, America only has a “tanned” president, as Berlusconi says. Developments will prove whether Mr. Obama really is what we want, and not just a “political farce”.

Individualism and morality

Liberalism, whose advantages in economy and in society are very well-known, is related to individualism. Individualism doesn’t mean indifference towards other people; on the contrary, it gives importance to the human being as an individual, not as a group, the man with his personal qualities. Individualist people want their own personal happiness, they don’t want to simply survive and prosper through the group. Every individual is important for them, irrespective of the race, sex, religion etc. Also, as they want to have a positive image of themselves, they don’t accept to harm with the facility of those who are part of a group. Beyond empathy, we sometimes avoid certain facts, in order not to change the self image. “I don’t do such a thing”, individualist people often say.

It is interesting to know if the societies in which there used to be individualism (most often because of militants) are more predisposed to assimilating democracy now. We also cannot stop wonder whether there are differences, beyond the cultural ones, meaning genetic, between different ethnical groups, in its availability towards individualism. Another question, which every evolutionism would ask is whether the Black Death also caused a selection somehow, people who were resistant to that infection, did they have another qualities? But most probably, genetic factors are related to nuance, the cultural and environmental ones are the most important without any doubt.

Not accidentally the richest continent in resources, but with the poorest people and maybe with the biggest corruption is Africa. Tribal connections are still very important there. Is there any genetic connection with the former Yugoslavia, where political and religious indoctrination led to the genocide in the ‘90s? On the other hand, in Islamic fundamentalist countries, the family, group, tribe relations are very important. Women’s status is related to this phenomenon, they are family objects, which are not allowed to lose value.

In crisis conditions, people tend to adjust themselves to nature that is to do things which really change things, not at the society meaning to create and maintain favorable alliances. These aspects are discussed in “Civilizatia foametei”. If these crises which remind us that we are people don’t exist, they will have to e invented. Europe always had crises. Probably the lack of natural obstacles that were difficult to pass stopped the isolation of populations in Antiquity. Total security was impossible. Total security, lull, warm life, started to set in Europe…

en

A recent article in Romanian media brought to discussion the way human thinking can be influenced by the social environment, more precisely social conformism. Everything started with some experiments made in the ‘50s by the psychologist Solomon Asch. Within these experiments, subjects were shown two playing cards; one of them having a vertical line, the other one had 3, one having the same length with the first. Subjects were asked which of the 3 lines were equal to the first, question to which most 5-year-old children would have answered correctly. But the psychologist introduced seven men in the equation, who, with his consent, examined the lines and gave the answer before the subjects. Some of them gave a wrong answer (on purpose). To Dr. Asch’s astonishment, 3 of the 4 subjects gave the wrong answer being influenced by these people at least once, and 1 of 4 complied with them 50% of the time. Unfortunately in the ‘50s the techniques of investigating cerebral functions were little developed, and Dr. Asch died in 1996 wondering if the results of his researches showed that subjects gave the wrong answer consciously, but they did it because of the group or its pressure changed their perceptions. The new research, published in the online edition of June 22nd, 2005 a Biological Psychiatry, uses investigations with RMN of the cerebral functions; more precisely it pursues the activation of different cerebral areas during some mental operations. This research involved 32 volunteers who agreed to participate in a research on perception. Subjects were asked to rotate mentally three-dimensional images of some objects, and then they were examined with the help of RMN. Their decisions were influenced by 4 actors, who played the role of volunteers, who gave unanimously correct or wrong answers. In order to eliminate some errors, and to be sure that the social pressure influences the answers, subjects are told in some cases that a computer gave the answers. Many subjects fell in the trap of group pressure. In average, 41% of the time they gave wrong answers together with the group. The researches presented two hypotheses about what was happening. If this social conformism was the result of conscious decision making, changes should appear in the frontal areas responsible with conflicts supervision, planning and other superior activities. But if on the contrary, social conformism originated from changes of perception, the changes of nervous activity should appear in the cerebral posterior areas, dedicated to seeing and spatial perception. Indeed, people who imitated the group in wrong answers presented an increased activity in the right intraparietal sulcus, area that is accountable for spatial perception and had no activity in the cerebral areas involved in the decision making. Instead subjects, who make their own decisions, not taking into consideration the group, had an increased activity in areas of the brain related to unpleasant emotions, tonsil and right caudate sulcus.

The research has important implications, as Dr. Berns says, in electoral selections or in trials with jury, situations in which we appeal to the majority judgement. These implications are important, but there could be others…

Neoteny and conformism

It is known that most of the people are conformist. People need conformism, some authors say. Many human institutions are based on this quality of the people; but not… the progress, which is the appanage of the non-conformists. Modern science starts from individualism, from the desire of some people to make unique things, which nobody has ever made before them; these things are experiments, ideas, etc. Modern science appears in Europe in certain historical conditions, after the Black Death which led to numerous social transformations, it destroyed the old hierarchies, and allowed people who were thinking with their own brain, not necessarily affiliated with official institutions accepted by the Church, to distinguish them. Nonconformists are the solution used by the society in crisis situations (let’s hope that this financial crisis will have the same effect), but in conditions of relative stability they are expelled from the group, very severely as history often showed. Why? Because nonconformists are centrifugal, they don’t lead to the increase of social cohesion. On the contrary, conformists are centripetal, we might say. This is the main reason. Nonconformists are no delightful persons; they are often hard to accept, especially in some cultures. The European culture, which was hard-tried, learnt how to accept and appreciate them, but it doesn’t mean that it is easy to be nonconformist anywhere in Europe.

Although creativeness is one of the greatest human qualities, social conformism is in the human nature. In fact there is no contradiction between these two assertions. In other words, people could be more conformist than other primates. Why? The human being is neotenic; he has certain childish features at maturity. In fact there are some nuances here, but the idea is that the development time at the human being is changed. There were attempts to explain through neoteny some typically human features, like loosing the hair on the body, brain increasing, the game at maturity, the possibility to learn all the time etc. What is very important is that neotene animals are…docile. More information about the causes and mechanisms of neoteny appearance at the human being can be found in “Civilizatia foametei/o alta abordare a umanizarii”. Some tame animals are neotene, the sheep for example. These animals are more docile than others. Neoteny allows agglomerating. Neotene animals are less aggressive, less fearful than others.

Do we have the proof that people are more conformist socially than other primates? An experiment in which for opening a box certain steps, which could be learned, had to be followed suggests that yes. Some years –old children were taught how to open that box. Among the steps there were some absolutely useless, which didn’t lead to opening the box. The same experiment was made on adult chimpanzees. They also learned how to open that box, but they eliminated the useless steps, unlike children. The result was that children admit the teacher’s authority, who knows best. Is this a kind of social conformism? Yes. As far as I know the experiment wasn’t made on chimp progenies or adult persons. Probably adult people wouldn’t have made those useless steps, although the experiments mentioned above show the terrible mistakes social conformism lead to. Anyway, chimps didn’t admit teachers’ authority, they thought with their brain, and did well.

Conformism is cheap

Social conformism has certain advantages. In some situations it really helps for an easy learning, accepting some information, which if are correct, can be very useful for the survival of the individual and of the group. But as the experiments above show, conformism is likeable; it doesn’t hurt, unlike nonconformism. Social conformism is very…cheap, it supposes low energy consumption. But it depends how far you go with it. We all have moments of social conformism. It is ok to let yourself guided when you are walking with somebody who knows the way. But we shouldn’t do this when voting. When you stop wondering about the world and about life and you only rely on reflexes you have learnt or assimilated without any criticism, things become serious. The sleep of ration and the seep of nonconformism, bring monsters. The world we are living in is a socially conformist world, despite the apparent democracy. Few people chose to think with their own brain. Unfortunately, this happens in science too. In addition, because they work in teams, nonconformist, difficult, individualist people are often excluded, in favor of the obedient ones. It is said that thinking doesn’t hurt, but thinking against the general trend does hurt. I know from my own experience. The most unpleasant thing when writing the book, excepting the bibliography, was trying to see beyond the ideas that are deeply rooted in science. Even if you are a nonconformist, you feel an almost painful barrier. Then it really takes courage to emit heresies, to write them, to argue them. The career of such a scientist can be ruined. You have to take that chance. But there is also the lack of feedback; you don’t know the opinion of the others about what you are saying…it is like you are groping but you have to move on. You have no choice.

This is a terrible experience, as an Indian declared on a writers’ forum. Writing original things, be it science or literature, is a terrible experience. But after you pass all those obstacles, nothing is getting in your way. New ideas come in succession; you feel free, the world enlightens for you. Expressing valuable thoughts against the trend, in any domain, becomes a routine.

Is it worth writing an original book? -From this viewpoint yes. It is the only one until now. It’s like an initiatory experience.

About human nature and shallowness

Man didn’t invent the lie. There are many species of animals which dissimulate in order to obtain different things (protection, sex, food), even plants (carnivorous plants etc.). But the human being is the only species who searches the truth, the only species who wants to know himself, to know his nature.

But unfortunately few people have the privilege of searching the truth about the world and about themselves. -Firstly because it is difficult and secondly because it is painful. The truth is that the strong beverage, whose name comes form “steel” in Russian, is for the strong persons. For the others there are halves, tenths, hundredths of truth or lies, which sometimes are more easily understood or accepted. People want to be indoctrinated, they like it, and they prefer this instead of searching and accepting the truth. There are many researches mentioned in “Civilizatia foametei”, and in “Sociobiology” by Wilson (Humanitas).

Indoctrination kills

But this aspect of the human nature is perhaps more dangerous than deliberate killing of congeners, a rare phenomenon at other species (but present at our closest kindred, chimpanzees). In fact, one of the reasons that circulate about killing congeners is indoctrination. The weapons which create a distance between opponents, so that the submission signals which normally lead to stopping the fight cannot be perceived, and pseudo speciation, treating the members of the species as if they belong to other species, are other hypotheses that explain this human behavior (Civilizatia foametei_Comportamente umane aberante). In the same book, another explanation is presented, which is knew as far as I know (I didn’t find it anywhere) – the fact that man, like the chimp and other species of mammals, has the ability to “separate from the environment” in certain conditions, to not observe anymore what it is happening around him, which makes him ignore the submission signals. The power of concentration makes him not seeing around him when he is not violent or aggressive. But this is not the subject of this article.

The human being- made to be indoctrinated

Indoctrination is guilty for killing congeners, among others. And where does indoctrination come from? Why is man so easily indoctrinated? One of the attempts of explaining some human features (among which the losing of fur, reserve fat, increasing of brain), which is rather old, is neoteny, keeping the embryo features at the adult. Without detailing, it explains what neoteny is, it is about a certain nuance of neoteny at the human being. Not only does man have embryo features (the lack of hair on the body, hair on the head, like little cubs of other primates have), but his appearance has a lot in common with primates’ cubs.

Neoteny refers not only to morphological features, but also to psychological ones. Mammals’ cubs, like children, are more obedient, more docile, they obey adults in a way that adult animals do not. Cubs play, but man, a neotene animal, also plays as an adult. Tame mammals are neotenic (the reason is in “Civilizatia foametei”), their gentleness was once a selection factor which helped in their taming. They are docile as adults too, the dog is neotene compared to the wolf (for example wolf cubs bark, adult wolves don’t), the adult dog is very dangerous, the adult wolf, although it can be very sociable, it cannot be compared to the dog. Neoteny makes possible the long learning, creativeness, which has a lot in common with playing.

But any medal has two sides. An animal which is more docile, more obedient, which accepts more from the leader, as children accept from the adult, can be more easily indoctrinated. An experiment showed recently on National Geographic shows children (human cubs) who learn how to open a box through many operations, some of them useless. They imitate everything, step by step, not only the useful operations. Adult chimps don’t do this; they only repeat the relevant operations for opening the box. Are chimps smarter than children? As the report says, children trust the teacher, the one who teaches them how to open the box. He has authority, unlike the chimps. Because they are not neotene, we should add. This authority is also applied to adult people, who act similarly to chimp cubs.

Without neoteny, which is certain docility, we wouldn’t be today 6 billion people, we wouldn’t live in crowded, big towns, we wouldn’t have endured so many things within history, and we wouldn’t have made civilizations. Neoteny allows agglomerating. But without it we wouldn’t have been so easily indoctrinated. Without it we wouldn’t have killed so industriously our kindred, we wouldn’t have hated each other, we wouldn’t have done so many bad things.

Education of religion

Some other thing: we wouldn’t have had religion! Religion is a method of indoctrination of a population, human group, with the well-known purpose of exploitation, unfair division of resources. This is a general truth; I wouldn’t have spread such a big banality in an original book. Maya priests, who used to kill in a spectacular way people who were happy to be chosen for sacrificing, they did this with the purpose of keeping their privileges. The inquisitors, crusaders, etc. It is not difficult to guess what kind of people they are from the moral point of view. What honest man would accept to be taken by a traditional population the savages) as God? What honest man would accept to deceive other people? These people benefited from some typically human features: fear for the unknown, for the nature, the facility of being indoctrinated (neoteny), possibly the symbolic thinking, which makes people see things where they aren’t (how many people see Jesus, or Virgin Mary in different spots?).

The equation of religion appearance (of faith more precisely) could be neoteny + symbolic thinking. Without these conditions, it is difficult to expect the appearance of religion. Chimps have no chance to have Gods.

Education and the risk of indoctrination

Knowing the human nature, its big capacity of indoctrination, especially in the childhood, the responsibility is big. People hate each other for cultural aspects, like language and religion, features which don’t say anything about them as humans, which don’t show their decisions, because they were educated to hate other people on these principles. Let’s be serious, who would chose to be a Chinese, especially that learning Chinese signs is difficult? But one of 5 people is Chinese… Others speak all kinds of strange languages, some of them being imposed to their ancestors by conquerors (most of them, including our language), others are Moslems, Jews, Christians, Hindus etc. there are very few who chose their ideology, religion, language and culture are even harder.

But the effects of indoctrination, education in childhood, and not only, assimilated without reserves, are seen daily. People are often shallow, and what is even harder is that sometimes our valuable thoughts are shallow. Some of them are the result of indoctrination or they are strengthened through indoctrination. Those for who it is difficult to think used them unalloyed.

There was a scandal recently about a teacher from Zalau, school headmistress, whose sexy pictures appeared on the internet. Although the woman was a professional and appreciated by students, everybody was against her. She has to resign! Unfortunately she did. In the same time there appeared several news about frauds at the baccalaureate, identical papers, protocol money, actions which should be serious for a normal person. But it hasn’t been made so much fuss about it, as it was in the case of the “porn-teacher”. Look where indoctrination leads: some sexy pictures of an attractive are criminal, but theft at every level, from students to teachers, is accepted. Through those pictures, not only the woman did no harm, she even produced pleasure. Sex is not a crime, what differentiates people from animals (excepting the kindred bonobo chimps and dolphins) is the sex for pleasure. The exacerbation of the sexual instinct is not animal, it is human. While the theft, the cheat also appear at other animals and they are disastrous for a society. Unfortunately in 2008 a competent person was punished because she showed her naked body on the internet, and those who took money from the students in order to let them cheat remained unpunished, moreover, the authorities didn’t seem too willing to identify them.

If we asked those who are against the teacher what the reason of their anger was, they would say that she wasn’t a good example for the children. But are those who let them cheat, who take the money for protocol, who change their papers at the baccalaureate an example? It is more simple to think this way, in fact to feel this way, as in their brain expressed sexuality is connected to a strong emotional sentiment, taboos, while the fraud operations are complicated, uncertain etc. If indoctrination makes such victims today, why should we wonder about witch hunting, about Islamic terrorists who kill innocent people?

People education, especially education at early ages, must be regarded more seriously, as human nature, with its implications in daily life and in the society development must be regarded more seriously. The idea of human freedom, of natural rights, should improve compared to the one that was more than 200 years ago, during the French Revolution, and then it was guaranteed in the American Constitution. Now we know much more about humans, about the human nature. And a fundamental right of the human being should be not only the freedom of thinking, but also the freedom of being taught and stimulated to think since early age. The right to pleasure is another one, but about this, some other time…

en

Everybody heard about those science fiction stories in which very complicated machines (technologically advanced) “humanize”, obtaining the most valuable human feature – consciousness, and they even come to rule the world, revolting against their creator – the human being. The last successful movie of this kind was Matrix. On the other hand, if there is a domain of current technology which advances beyond any prevision of the last decades, this is the domain of IT technologies, of computing machines.

The vitalist theory of consciousness

For those who Marxism was let drop in their ears, no matter how young and not interested in the official ideology in the former communist countries they were, the phrase “consciousness is a product of the evolved matter” sound very familiar. But Marxism is just an exponent of materialism, its originality here, like in other fields, is rather limited. Any materialist agrees with the idea that consciousness appearance is a consequence of super organizing the matter. Biological evolution leads to the super organization of the matter. It results from natural experiments during millions of years. For the moment life cannot be created in the lab, but it seems that more and more organized living matter is possible. If this status of matter can be reached, not necessarily through evolution, can consciousness be reached? The natural conclusion of this rationing would be that even the most complicated machines should be capable of consciousness. So, in these conditions, we could wonder today, in the time of computer science explosion, how long until the appearance of conscious machines? But the opinion of an evolutionist biologist is the following: machines built on the current principles will never have conscience.

Is consciousness the appanage of the living matter (very organized), appeared through natural ways? No, a vitalist theory of consciousness is not necessary. But in order to create machines with conscience we must understand where it comes from in the living matter. In biology new features are useful for the survival of the individual or they derive from ones which were useful in the history of the species. Living nature doesn’t want to improve, to be awarded, it makes useful things. And because it does it accidentally, it often has errors. Consciousness is one of these “errors” of evolution.

Consciousness comes from interior

What is consciousness? What is the guilt feeling? Consciousness supposes knowing the effects of your own actions, with their logical, material, and emotional implications. Before doing something, you see its physical, material effects and the way you will feel after you did that. Consciousness supposes an extraordinary cognitive and emotional feed-back, meaning many relations between the brain areas involved in knowledge and in emotionality. It is certainly dependant on a big brain. The guilt feeling appears after the deeds (conscious actions) are contradictory to the emotional coloratura which accompanies their consequences. Either we feel that we broke somebody’s feelings, that we harmed somebody or we did something which causes an impersonal harm, which influences the image of one’s self, culpability is a feeling which is more or less related to empathy, that ability to put ourselves in somebody’s stead. Psychopaths, persons who are often very intelligent, don’t have culpability feelings. They are incapable of empathy, which is present at animals too, even at some species apparantly less “amiable”, like the chimps. Such an individual told in a documentary on Discovery Channel how indifferent he was watching a horrible accident of a child, caused by him.

So consciousness is related not only to intelligence, but with affectivity too. But where does affectivity come from? The James-Lange theory, with its new variant, the theory of somatic marker, suggested by Antonio Damasio (presented in the book Eroarea lui Descartes, Humanitas publishing house) supposes that affectivity comes from interior, meaning the signals coming from the muscles (their tension status), but also from the internal organs (arterial tension, pulse, feeling of emptiness in the stomach, and many others) determine affectivity. We feel good or bad affectively depending on the signals we receive from the interior of our body. These signals are not specific; you don’t know the signals from the heart for example. Anyway, even the visceral pain is very difficult to localize. So, people have consciousness firstly because they have affectivity, they receive signals from their body, which show them its functionality.

There is another thing, at the human being and chimp these signals arrive in the brain (right anterior island, an old phylogenetically formation, involved in vital functions), while at other vertebrates they stop in the inferior layers of the central nervous system. These very kindred species inform their brain which connects to the external environment of what is happening inside them. A less known aspect by common people is that the human not only has a huge brain, but he also has a great sensibility, both external (signals from the sense organs), and internal. This means that the human being is very “cabled” with nerves, more than his kindred, the chimps and the species that are now fossils, like Homo erectus.

Consciousness is economic

So consciousness comes from the specific signals from the interior of the body, from muscles and viscera. If these signals were transmitted directly, separately to the brain, then would consciousness be possible? Probably not, then things would be very different. In the present conditions, in different situations the animal faces, now would be the classic example “run or fight”, physiological parameters change, and the superior animal, especially man, learns what emotional states he has in this kind of situations, he learns how his body responds, and tries to avoid such situations.

But how did affectivity appear? There is no affectivity at reptiles, amphibians etc. It exists at birds; at mammals it is very developed. Why did it appear? The hypothesis I presented in “Civilizatia foametei” is that animals, among others, are homeothermic, they have to adjust temperature all the time, they dispose of some energy that when they have it they must economize it one way or another. They need much more the access to data about the functioning of their body. Reptiles, when they don’t have heat, they just move to standby. Moreover, mammals and birds have bigger brain. Affectivity has an adaptation advantage. Although things could have been much better, nature shows as usual, what it has. Man has come so far with affectivity and also developed consciousness because all these are economic. A bore sensitive body is better controlled. A more “conscious” behavior is also better controlled, so it is more economic. (These aspects, like many others related to consciousness, affectivity are explained in detail in “Civilizatia foametei/o alta abordare a umanizarii”.)

How are conscious machines made?

Only present machines, no matter how “evolved” hey become, no matter how spacious their memory was, no matter how fast they are, they don’t receive signals from their body. They have just a “relation” brain, let’s say. Their interior functions are not processed by it. Moreover, they don’t need this. Because they don’t have to make any effort in order to survive, they are constantly fed from the plug. Their functioning has no connection with the living matter, which exists based on other principles. The nervous system, at animals which receive everything from the environment (parasite worms) regress, it becomes rudimentary, because it is not needed anymore.

How can a machine with consciousness be possible? One which could mime consciousness could be made now: software could be installed in order to furnish information about its functionality, the warming, charging degree, one which one way or another feels tired, angry etc. But for a consciousness close to reality there are many conditions to fulfill, the administration of a certain quantity of limited energy would be necessary, it should be in a complicated system, which mime society. And machines can be much more performing without consciousness…

In Matrix, people were artificially fed; their function was controlled by machines, which had undertaken the brain functions. If people controlled their internal functions through machines, they would probably do it much better, but affectivity and consciousness would be seriously affected. It is difficult to imagine that world now. People in Matrix would have been completely different people…Consciousness is just one of the human features which results from his biological imperfection. But our present world is based, among others, on its existence.

The idea of this article came to me after a discussion I had on Saturday with a psychologist friend, Dan.

The philosophic dimension of evolutionism

Why don’t people accept evolution?

Recently, in the first moth of 2008, National Academy of Sciences, with the help of Science magazine, issued a brochure “Science, evolution and creationism” destined to wide public. The brochure has the role to popularize, at the level of a gymnasium pupil, the main ideas about evolution. This initiative came as an answer to the ascent of intelligent design, a form of masked creationism, which officially admits evolution, but considers that certain aspects extremely complex of the living world cannot simply be explained through luck, without the intervention of an external intelligence, whose origin is not mentioned. Intelligent design started to be taught in some schools in USA. In 2005 a lawsuit was registered in USA, the first which ever came to a federal court, sued by the parents of some children from Dover, Pennsylvania, who were taught intelligent design in school, as an alternative to Darwin’s theory. Teaching this theory in schools was banned, because intelligent design was considered creationism, so religion and not science, teaching religion in schools being contradictory to the American Constitution.

Although intelligent design is not very popular, evolution is often difficult to accept, even among intellectuals and not only in the States. According to a research in 2005, about 10% of the American adults considered that the human was too complex to have evolved from other species (they were practically advocates of the intelligent design), but 54 % thought than the human being didn’t evolved from other species, against only one fifth (22%) who accepted the fact that the human evolved from other species (evolution)1. Another research, also made in 2005, reveals the fact that only 63% of the American doctors consider that the evolutionist theory is more legitimate than the intelligent design, and among Protestant doctors, supporting intelligent design outruns the supporting of evolution2.

We don’t have data about Romanians vision regarding evolution. But probably here too is manifested the same tendency of sympathy towards Darwin’s theory. Probably this phenomenon is partially explained by the decrease of trust towards science and technology. Evolution, which doesn’t come down to changing the living matter which is considered to reach a superior organization plan through this process, means optimism related to technology, science, society development. Although common people benefit from the scientific progress now more than ever, unlike the previous generations who benefited from any new discovery or invention, they consider that science doesn’t make them presents; it is just doing its job. Science is no more a queen, it became a slave.

Then the changes due to scientific progress are too many, are hard to assimilate, they no longer produce any pleasant surprise, they get tired now. Progresses can no longer be understood, they no longer produce enthusiasm, hopes, and they are just consumed. They no longer influence the philosophy of life which in the absence of time and of thinking effort becomes simpler. It has somehow been reached the situation presented in science fiction novels, the fight between people and machines. In fact not the machines revolt against people, but people don’t understand them anymore, they feel outrun by their complexity, which becomes hostile.

Returning to traditions, to mysthicis is a natural consequence of this way of life. People need answers, even the least sophisticated ones, and philosophy which gives the simplest answers, even if they cannot deal with critics, lead to contradictions, they answer only partially, is the best. Without pretending that this observation has a scientific value, I noticed that people who reject evolution they simply don’t understand it, they don’t know much about it, and they are not willing to make an intellectual effort to understand it.

But the idea of the biological evolution itself has a great philosophical value. It is an approach of philosophical problems like happiness, the sense of life etc. If you admit biological evolution, including that of the human species, you admit that the human has evolved from other species, unfortunately species of primates. The monkey is considered one of the most pathetic mammals. Evolution from primates eliminates the last bulwark of anthropocentrism. We are no longer in the centre of the Universe, nor in the centre of the solar system. The origin of the human being becomes extremely humble; here is nothing special in our genesis. Earth was not populated with plants and animals in order to make the man happy, on the contrary, the human appeared accidentally, like any other fly or rat, and it appeared from the monkey. It seems the human condition has nothing noble in it, nothing divine.

But evolution gives chances. Unfortunately only for the chosen ones, that is the fittest. This means it is a bit cynical too. However, the idea of “the survival of the fittest” which illustrates to a certain extent Darwin’s theory, it doesn’t belong to him, it belongs to an American Lamarckian. Darwinism considers that individual variations of some features appear spontaneously, then those who are favorable for the species will be set with a bigger rate, through a bigger number of descendants. But Lamarckism, an evolutionist theory which precedes Darwinism, supposes direct action of the environment upon some features with the appearance of some changes which are then transmitted hereditarily. Although the present theory of evolution denies the hereditary transmission of the features obtained, like direct modelling of some features by the environment, Lamarckism had, even after the appearance of Darwin’s theory (1859), many advocates in the USA. The popularity of this theory in a liberal country comes from its liberal dimension. Lamarckism supposes evolution during life, with visible results, so the self-improving of the individual. Contrary to some opinions, Lamarckism doesn’t suppose the existence of a divine plan, its advocates are not religious people, and they are liberal. Darwinism describes a more gentle liberalism, in which luck (fortuitous life) matters, but also the individual qualities are rewarded through more descendants. The individual is the object of natural selection, the engine of evolution after Darwin. You don’t have to be the fittest, but as in economy, you have to be a little better, to have something mote in order to have success.

When you are poor, not educated, without any chances to change your situation, how can you be an evolutionist? Indeed, democrats and educated people who adopt evolutionism, although among them those who don’t accept it are a majority, show the first research quoted. In Romania, things are even worse, and Darwin’s theory seems a bad joke. When you see around you that `the most fitted` individuals are among the most damaging for the species, as a simple person you wonder what does being fitted means, or whether the species is going towards self destruction. Real individual qualities don’t matter, only the relations and the lack of morality, extremely favorable in a society like ours.

On the other hand, social mobility (migration between social strata and classes) is now smaller than in the past, at least in Romania, and in other more developed countries. Evolutionism had a great success, and it even influenced political ideologies (less positive effect) in a period when social mobility was very big, when children from the country side with poor and illiterate parents often became successful business men, politicians, scientists. Presently, when the biggest hope of a Romanian child to become rich is becoming a footballer, and not a doctor, lawyer, or scientist, it is difficult to believe in evolution.

What we believe has a social importance, people’s vision about a phenomenon can have political, economic implications etc. Seeing things one way or another may mean an implicit advertising for some groups of political or economic interests (possibly religious, which often subscribe to politics). Proselytism for a certain idea can be economically advantageous on long or short term for certain economic and social organisms. For example, the strongest supporters of intelligent design are not Protestants or Catholics, and they try to benefit by the support of religious organizations, for which they advertise.

But in the first place people’s vision influence their desires, dreams, decisions, it influences the society for better or for worse. The fact that people no longer believe in science and evolutionism is science, while creationism, including the intelligent design is not, is very concerning for the future of a society. Improving belief of the West, which we are part of, led to progress. The human is the biggest fortune of a society. A society in which people are educated, they have hopes, a bright and progressive vision on life, is richer and has bigger chances for success than a society with less educated people and optimistic about science and progress. Recent history offers examples, less favourable for Romania. Severe returning at the level of mentalities, in which Romania struggled in early ’90s, consequence of a tough communist, contributed to the terrible pauperization and slow transition which followed that period. Unfortunately history repeats. But as it is a science, events can be predicted.

en

I have purposely chosen this title. Those who are a bit familiarized with biological sciences know that the proofs of evolution are everywhere, the living matter has so many common features at all the species, plus the similarities at DNA level superpose the morphological and physiological ones between the species, that’s why we call them “phylogenetically kindred”. The proofs of evolution are countless and everywhere for neutral persons, but not for those (let’s don’t call them creationists) who reject it from the start as a bad idea. They always say that no matter how many “missing links” were discovered, how many races of animals and species of plants were obtained artificially, they wouldn’t let themselves convinced about the existence of evolution until they see it in action, until they see species created in the laboratory.

What does a species mean? A species is a population in which there is an unlimited change of genes between its members, but it is isolated reproductively from other similar populations. This means that unless we have obtained from a mother-population another population which is isolated reproductively from the initial one, we don’t have evolution. Experiences in this regard weren’t satisfying; the “artificial” species of blowflies were later proven to be wild species hardly detectable. However, it is often spoken about incipient species at plants.

Another important problem is the impossibility to obtain life in the laboratory, at least for now. If life cannot be obtained in the lab, its appearance being impossible from the unliving, then life didn’t appear from the unliving, as evolutionists suppose. We know the rest. I will try to answer these problems through my current knowledge.

Sex is the hardest to prove

What do those who deny evolution want, in order to be convinced of its existence? -Populations who isolated reproductively from the mother population. This is only about the species with sexed reproduction. Otherwise, there are artificial viruses, but viruses are entities at the limit between the living and the unliving. It is also considered that there are species at the bacteria, although they don’t have sexed reproduction. Still, they change genetic material (plasmids), and the species bacterium doesn’t exist in this case. Here starts the problem of resistance to antibiotics and of intra-hospital infections. Bacteria change plasmids which contain genes of resistance to antibiotics both within the species and inter-specific. This means that they give their genes to the resistance of kindred and of friends (it seems that the bacteria are not at all selfish, the selfish gene of Dawkins was not transmitted yet, the plasmid, because it didn’t appear).

Things are more complicated at the species with sexed reproduction. Sex or its absence (between populations) is very difficult to prove, Clinton knew best and showed it in the lawsuit related to the harassment of Monica Lewinsky. Very kindred and extremely similar species of trees for example, are isolated reproductively because they have different periods of flowering. Also, at insects, very kindred species are reproductively isolated because they have slightly different nuptial dances, which make them not to recognize the possible partners. Reproductive isolation is sometimes related to some details which are less important from the biological point of view, but which have important consequences. This is in fact in the spirit of Darwinism, which says that evolution is made through small, slow changes.

These persons who deny evolution, when asked “How do you explain the similarities between the species, if not through evolution?” they will say that they come from the laws of living matter organization. According to them, human and chimp don’t have a common ancestor, although the similarities between these species are striking. In this case, there are data which show that there was subsequent hybridization between the initially separated branches which led to these species (Patterson et al., 2006; doi: 10.1038/nature04789).

An interesting question could be addressed to all those who deny evolution and don’t consider the similitude between the species, would be: How do they explain linguistic similarities between languages that are extremely far from the geographical viewpoint, spoken by people of different races (populations politically and genetically)? How do they explain the similarity between Turkish and Mongolian? And still, here we have historical documents of some migrations. Also, the similarity between today’s Dutch and the Hittite of 3000 years ago, spoken in Anatolia, today’s Turkey? Ceram, in “The secret of Hittites” really says that the scream of a thirsty Hittite, who asks for water, would be understood by a Dutch from the 20th century. We have proof that there existed connections between the ancestors of Hittites and Dutch? Here there are many missing links which we will probably never find, but without migrations, wars, trade, and of course sex, which is present at the contact between human populations, these similarities cannot be explained.

If you admit that languages have evolved one from another, that all the similarities of vocabulary and grammar are the natural consequence not of coincidence, not of a unique model of organization of languages (which would be, as Chomsky suggests, at basal level), but of the historical connections between human populations, then why don’t you admit that similarities in biology are the consequence of historical connections between species? -Because you don’t like the idea. We all reject ideas that we don’t like, we all believe in extraordinary things, which don’t have anything to do with reality, like the free judge. But the difference is that some are in a greater extent conscious of that.

Let it be life… in the laboratory

Another problem of those who deny evolution is the fact that for the moment the “creation” of life in the laboratory is not possible, that is the creation of living from the unliving. Experiments we all have learned in high school only show that important organic substances can be obtained in the chemistry of the living from the unliving or that lipids have certain features that mime the existence of some microorganisms (the famous coacervates). But these experiments are very important for understanding of the living. Other working hypotheses, other experimental models, which will result from the theoretical understanding of the living, will probably lead sooner or later to obtaining life in the laboratory. If nothing was obtained until now, it doesn’t mean that it is not possible. Electricity has been unknown for thousands of years, and today it is obtained every day” in the laboratory”. What would those who deny evolution say then? If they are creationist probably they will horripilate that scientists pay God, like they did when cloning was a success, an incomparable one.

It is true; people don’t know much about evolution. If today we knew everything, if Darwin’s theory were complete, then nobody would write scientific articles about evolution, books would no longer be written. Are books and articles about Newtonian mechanics written anymore? I wrote a book about human evolution, “Civilizatia foametei”. When I wrote this book I thought, in my credulousness, that it will convert many creationists into evolutionists or at least some will no longer deny evolution. A theory which explains why did the brain increase, why did fur disappeared, how did human thinking appear (which made possible the appearance of language), the typically human sexuality, plus the menopause etc., that the phenomenon they are based on is only one, ecological (documented in the history of species), which has documentary effects for those changes, could have offered less opportunities to attack. In science the simplest answer is often considered the best, especially when it answers so many questions. After the book was published I asked such a person, about whom I knew he was a creationist, if he accepted evolution now that humanization can be reduced to an over activation of a metabolic way. The answer was “no”, because he didn’t see artificial speciation (appearance of new species in the laboratory).

Science should be separated from religion and philosophy, and people should separate science from religious, political and philosophical convictions. When I first read sociobiology, at university, I was very shocked at many theories and ideas. But if you want to reject scientific ideas, you have to do this with scientific means, if you cannot, you just have to accept them. I know how it is; sociobiology is very difficult to digest for a liberal.

en