A Darwinian Left

In a previous post to this list about Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" I jumped straight to hot-button issues concerning innate differences among humans without laying out his more fundamental observation, which is that we humans have profound innate similarities. I liked this summary by another author of where I think the recognition of innate human nature leaves us:

"We should not:

Deny the existence of human nature, nor insist that human nature is inherently good, nor that it is infinitely malleable.

Expect to end all conflict and strife between human beings, whether by political revolution, social change, or better education.

Assume that all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning. Some will be, but this cannot be assumed in every case.

We should:

Accept that there is such a thing as human nature, and seek to find out more about it, so that policies can be grounded on the best available evidence of what human beings are like.

Reject any inference from what is 'natural' to what is 'right'.

Expect that, under different social and economic systems, many people will act competitively in order to enhance their own status, gain a position of power, and/or advance their interests and those of their kin.

Expect that, regardless of the social and economic system in which they live most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation.

Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends.

Stand by the traditional values of the left by being on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed, but think very carefully about what social and economic changes will really work to benefit them."


I also thought this was apt:

"Wood carvers presented with a piece of timber and a request to make wooden bowls from it do not simply begin carving according to a design drawn up before they have seen the wood. Instead they will examine the material with which they are to work, and modify their design in order to suit its grain. Political philosophers and the revolutionaries or reformers who have followed them have all too often worked out their ideal society, or their reforms, and sought to apply them without knowing much about the human beings who must carry out, and live with, their plans. Then, when the plans don't work, they blame traitors within their ranks, or sinister agents of outside forces, for the failure. Instead, those seeking to reshape society must understand the tendencies inherent in human beings, and modify their abstract ideals to suit them."

The quotes above are from a short book by Peter Singer, "A Darwinian Left" (1999). Although I do not agree with everything he stands for, I thought those passages were excellent.

Adding my own take on one key point, I would note that Darwin and evolutionary science say not one iota about how things ought to be, only about how they are. It's very hard to know the ultimate source of our values and goals; they are the product in some fashion of our culture, our history, our ideas, and our human nature. But it is neither correct nor desirable to give "human nature" any special status in that list. Where "human nature" matters a great deal is when we contemplate transforming our society. It lets us estimate the chances of success in meeting our goals, allowing us to make wise compromises between what we would like and what is possible.