Bruce Charlton has pointed out that the modern world is highly dysgenic, and as a side effect our basic moral compass and healthy instincts may be the first to erode.
I think his conclusion must be accepted if one believes in both 1) Historic high child mortality rates, and 2) The process of natural selection.
Now, if one does accept that conclusion - the evidence is everywhere! Moral standards are corrupted, inverted, dissolving. People thing what was once obviously wrong is good, etc. That is, the conclusion is confirmed by our present reality and experience.
So religion can serve as a remedy to that situation, but only if one is willing to be obedient. That is, if one is genuinely unable to see why various sins are wrong, because they've lost that advanced social and sexual instinct, then the only other option is to remain humble and obedient to God's will - to recognize that our own will is corrupted, prone to sin, and likely to mislead us.
I think the hardest part about this is that people likely to be obedient will be raised on public schools and mass media, so what they seek to be obedient to will be corrupted. This was my problem, in part - even though so much *seemed* wrong, everyone goes along...
--
Then of course, there is the possibility of supernatural help. If one sincerely desires to be obedient to God's will, makes oneself child-like and humble, and prays!
"Bruce Charlton has pointed out that the modern world is highly dysgenic, and as a side effect our basic moral compass and healthy instincts may be the first to erode.
ReplyDeleteI think his conclusion must be accepted if one believes in both 1) Historic high child mortality rates, and 2) The process of natural selection."
I think a very general conclusion - that this is a potential problem - follows.
However, saying it is a primary cause of the various trends he associates with it does not follow.
We don't know enough about genetics, mutations, and associated behaviour to say.
It's an extremely elegant hypothesis for uniting a wide array of behaviour, but at this point, as far as I can tell, the arguments for it are only suggestive.
Consider Bruce's main example, below-replacement fertility rates. Now consider Mormon fertility rates in the U.S., which as you've noted on this blog are about 50% higher than other European-Americans'. Did Mormons have higher child-mortality rates over the last few generations? I don't think so, so the difference must be explained through other factors. You can make similar points by looking at TFR and child-mortality rates internationally, where countries with lower TFRs in some cases have higher historical child-mortality rates (Thailand is one example I give on Bruce's blog, which at about 1.4 is lower than most European countries). Now apply that to all examples of behaviour Bruce takes as being attributable to mutational load.
ReplyDeleteThere are almost no groups of primarily Northern European-descended groups displaying high fertility. It seems to be entirely limited to Mormons, Amish, and some Evangelical sects. I don't think this disproves the theory, but serves as a testament of the real importance of religion!
DeleteThe other exceptions are primarily non-European descendant groups. Even within the US these groups exhibit higher rates of fertility. If Charlton's thesis holds true, then we might expect biological group differences lead to even greater differences than physical appearances (and a few IQ points) might suggest. Therefore it might be wrong to dismiss it based on the behavior of other ethnic/racial groupings.
I agree though that it's not the only factor. Everything always seems to be more complex (other influences), but I think the logic follows, and the evidence appears to fit.