Linky

Occam’s little blade could have told you that decision-making is an evolved attribute. The assumption of self interest provides the shared underpinning of behavioral ecology and economics. In fact, neither discipline could operate without that assumption. Predictive models show high fidelity, can be interchangeable between the two fields, and in general provide some of the most powerful tools for understanding behavior, human or otherwise.

Of course, what goal self-interest is directed toward can vary. Economics obviously tends to look at money (but behavioral economics is expanding the study to include any desire). Behavioral ecology at its most fundamental level concerns itself with reproductive success and inclusive fitness. But it too can look at more specific aspects. Feeding ecology and the rules of food choice in monkeys is an increasingly growing (and interesting) field.

Garret Hardin, a famous ecologist turned economist/political theorist/conservationist noticed these obvious similarities way back in the 1970’s. He was fond of saying that economics was just a division of ecology. And his magnum opus Tragedy of the Commons represents one of the earliest works seeking to apply ecological principles to political matters (in this case, conservation). Hardin called his way of thinking ecolacy. Hardin was a committed libertarian, believing it to be the only behavioral ecologically valid political system (as I do). Sadly, he passed away two weeks before I began my intensive study of his work. I would loved to have met him.

Back in the summer of 2003, I became infatuated with the confluence of philosophy and biology. This happened courtesy of a random course selection. Seminar in the History of Biology taught by Dr. Allen MacNeill. Scarily enough, I just dropped by his blog so I could link to it. And his most recent post mentions this course being taught again this summer. Coincidences like that scare the crap out of me. The course material, and Allen, quite literally changed my life in the most amazing way. He showed all of us just how deep evolutionary thinking can take us. I can’t thank him enough for that.

Anway, I saw too many problems with western philosophy to count; it was too suffused with the concept of man’s special status as the children of God. So deep is this nature in fact, that Western Atheism, such as the existentialism of Sartre, continues to propound some of the same untenable and unrealistic concepts of theosophy. There was just too much ‘Man apart from Nature’ garbage for me.

Eastern philosophy, on the other hand, I felt was on the right track. Of course, this might be personal bias, as I was born and raised a Hindu. And still technically am, although I might be better described as a buddhist. Eastern philosophy has never denied man as a part of nature. Furthermore, at least in Hinduism, the blatant phylogenetic similarities and mental capacity we share with other animals. The pedestal that western philosophy places us on was reduced to a series of steps, leading from insects up through social mammals, other primates and then us. And, although the chain-of-being model of evolution is exceedingly faulty (and is part of the basis for claims that Marxism is the next step in evolution), it’s a much better place to start than the garbage spewing from west of the Urals. Even the oldest Hindu scriptures discuss at length Man’s intimate connection with nature, and ultimately his inseparability from it. We are a part of the landscape. And from this comes one of the most powerful concepts in Eastern Philosophy: Natural Law.

By that I don’t mean things like the ‘natural rights’ classical liberals like myself often discuss, but quite literally Law from Nature. There are many schools of Hindu thought, but the one that’s had the strongest pull on me is the agnostic tradition, almost the Nietzschean ‘God is dead’ conception. The agnostic Hindus discuss how morality stems from understanding the way nature works, the way animals interact with their environment and each other, and ultimately how we can do as the animals do. But Eastern Philosophy as i’ve said earlier can be pretty vague about such things, preferring to simply say ‘nature’ and then let you do the figuring out. Still, it provides a few useful concepts from which to develop a more concrete theory of knowledge and the way the world works.

Incorporating ecolacy and evolutionary thought into other disciplines is a matter of epistemology. It’s about understanding how things got to be how they are. A large proportion of leftists are atheists. They also claim to believe in evolution. However, in many ways they don’t allow evolution to become a part of the epistemological underpinnings of their political or social beliefs. When they do, they use faulty theoretical concepts, such as the above mentioned chain of being, or even more insidious, Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point.

I happen to think this is a problem. If we’re going to be rational about our belief systems (as atheistic and agnostic leftists insist they are), then we need to make rational assumptions. Theories are only as strong as their assumptions, which is why Marxist philosophy is not a good idea in theory. Its assumptions are completely flawed, with little epistemological basis as to the nature of individual human behavior. Although Marx made some interesting observations about the nature of power, his proposed ’solution’ has repeatedly shown itself to be just as bad as the conditions which caused him to propose his unrealistic philosophy.

In the coming weeks and months, I intend to explore the confluence of evolution, philosophy, and politics. Money and baby-making are the most obvious aspects of self-interest worthy of study, but there are three more that have greater implications for political philosophy (and psychology for that matter…another area where ecolacy is under-applied): Comfort, Power, and Status/Influence. Furthermore, we’ll discuss some of the concepts of game theoretic systems (which all regimented social actions–including government–are); the natural tendency for individuals to cheat and/or defect from a system, how to prevent that, and how to construct a system that will not fall (an evolutionarily stable system). It’s scary how much the Founding Fathers were able to understand of all of this, considering neither game theory nor evolution were well understood until the mid-1800’s…and neither in wide application until the mid 1900’s.

Theodosius Dhobzansky, one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis, was fond of saying that ‘Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of Evolution.’ I’ll one up him and say that Nothing in Life makes sense, except in the light of Evolution.