Liberals have historically supported the theory of evolution as introduced by Charles Darwin, at least on paper. What they haven’t done is embrace any of the conclusions of evolutionary theory for themselves.
Basically, evolution states that animals evolve because the fittest individuals in any group of interbreeding creatures have the best chance of breeding success. More successful breeding means more offspring that contain whatever bits of genetic coding that made the parent fitter. It doesn’t have to mean that the parent was bigger and stronger and more aggressive than others of his/her species. In fact, the ability to hide is often most important. Fitness is only that characteristic that allows the individual to survive long enough to breed more than his/her fellows. This mark of fitness can change rapidly as conditions change. Those individuals who were most fit in a time of plenty may be least fit in a time of drought.
As a general rule, however, any action which tends to interfere with the individual’s ability to produce more offspring is anti-evolutionary. This can be questioned in such cases as wolf-packs when individuals forgo the mating privilege to support a brother or sister, but the result is the same, his or her genes are transmitted to the next generation, even though it wasn’t done directly. But wolf-packs will generally attempt to kill the offspring of other unrelated wolf-packs. Likewise male lions will usually kill all the cubs of the previous king when they take over a pride.
Only with humans has evolution been thrown on its head. Only a foolish human would imagine that fewer children might be better. Only a foolish human would decide that it was somehow proper to have no children at all. The fitter you are, the fewer children you have, how is that pro-evolutionary? Margaret Sanger was wrong about the relative value of the black race, but she was right about how to deal with a perceived threat to one’s own superiority. She started Planned Parenthood precisely to eliminate the black race. She was like the male lion who prefers his own offspring to those of his supposed inferiors. Yet the Democrats very strongly downplay that face of abortion. But how can any species that follows the dictates of evolution stand up and support killing its own children?
It’s not only abortion that is anti-evolutionary. No evolutionary creature will give up its time and effort to support an individual that poses no benefit to its own breeding success. There is no welfare society in the wild kingdom. No other creature leaves out bits of food for unrelated creatures, either of its own species or another. If you see something that looks like it does, you can bet that at the bottom is a benefit to one’s own breeding success. By forcing others to support those who give back no benefit to oneself, or even allowing yourself to be so forced is completely against all evolutionary ideas.
Now, there are individuals in all species that do seem to be anti-evolutionary. But guess what, they don’t breed and soon die out. I do happen to believe that a greater percentage of homosexual humans are genetically built that way. That is one of the reasons why there are so few homosexual members of any species, those who for one reason or another choose to be homosexual, seldom breed and therefore whatever tendency that caused them to be so will die out.
The odd thing about homosexuality in humans is that it has only survived to the extent it has because it has been so suppressed over the years. Previously, they had children, often to hide their true nature. But now they don’t have to hide and more often than not, don’t have children. I suspect that in the future there will be far fewer gay people than there are now, because they do not breed as much as straights. Whether this is true for bi-sexuals, I don’t know. Some people believe that bisexuality is more of a lifestyle than hard wiring. Only time will tell if that is so.
Another anti-evolutionary idea is tribal diversity. Uncontrolled diversity is a killer to evolution because it washes out the effects of an individual’s genes. This is why tribalism exists. A tribe is generally related much like the wolf-pack. The continued existence of the tribe means the continued existence of the basic genetic makeup of the tribe which means your genes will carry on, even if your offspring do not. Tribalism/racism is a highly evolutionary trait. Hence, the tribe’s need to keep up their population also tended to discourage homosexuality and even made celibacy a crime in many early societies.
You might then claim that incest should be best, but you would be wrong in that another aspect of evolution is the basic ability for a species to vary so that fitter variants can gain the upper hand and continue the march of evolution under ecological stresses. Close inbreeding cuts down on the tribe’s ability to vary and unmasks bad traits. This is why incest and inbreeding have long been taboo in human society and is generally avoided in wild animals as well. But the in-migration of new genetic material is kept low and controlled. Only fit individuals can usually join another tribe.
Normal evolutionary pressure has been totally fractured within humanity during the past few centuries. Smarter or in some way fitter individuals are discouraged from breeding, while less fit individuals are often encouraged to breed. Now this may be good or bad depending on your point of view, but it is anti-evolutionary.
This is not a new idea. Cyril Kornbluth, in his classic 1950’s science fiction short stories “Little Black Bag”, and “The Marching Morons” covered this idea very well. In them a tiny minority of futuristic super-smart geniuses toiled endlessly to keep alive a vast majority of morons. Are we now breeding future generations of morons?
Photo Credit: screenpunk (Flickr)