Natural Selection (and the human problem)
betaboy
Veteran
Consider chocolates. We have developed a taste for it so that we could store a lot of fat. Why this impulse? Because for a very long time, we didn't get enough food. Starving was common. Famine was common. So getting food wasn't easy - hence storing it became imperative. But today we have enough food, so this 'additional' storage in the form of fat is dangerous. We try to fight against it. We fail. Our self-control has recent evolutionary origins, at least as compared with the desire for food/survival (which has been going on for millions of years).
If we apply the same logic to physical as well as emotional/psychological needs, doesn't the whole idea of change appear rather depressing? It is like we're fighting a losing battle - millions of years of evolution has programmed us to enjoy sweet things (or sex) because they're important for survival and reproduction. Now the modern mind, hardly 5000 years old, is trying to rewrite a million-year-old program - isn't this an impossible task?
The only solution I see is technology solving the problem rather than a direct human effort like meditation, religion, etc. If we accept natural selection, isn't it inevitable that we come to such conclusions?
Comments
Fine, but how does that help us? Anyone reading this is unlikely to see any significant evolutionary (technological) changes in their lifetime.
No.
Your conclusions are based on a lack of meditation. Inevitably through practice our behaviour, conclusions and perception changes. So in a sense the Middle Way provides a system of evolution and selective and indicative conclusions. That is why we practice rather going the way of the Dharma Dodo, so to speak. Sounds harsh but we might say it is the survival of the Buddha Nature . . .
Now back to the unnaturally selective . . .
It is like we're fighting a losing battle - millions of years of evolution has programmed us to enjoy sweet things (or sex) because they're important for survival and reproduction.
Now the modern mind, hardly 5000 years old, is trying to rewrite a million-year-old program - isn't this an impossible task?
Change isn't depressing per se - it seems to be all around in every moment.
Depression though is depressing and I understand seems as a battle that cannot be won.
Perhaps because the hurdles presented are necessarily insurmountable to thus manifest as depression.
Thought / language are framed within the constraints of local necessities - I am forced for these purposes to overly simplify but broadly, this I think means that they don't serve universal purposes because anything attempting to approach a 'complete' view seems incomprehensible, indeed this is chaos... the underlying 'foundation' of constant change.
If you look for impossible tasks, you'll find them easily enough whilst discounting the possible!! what a slippery subjective slope.
The issue with your proposition is that it is born of the same 'program' you identify as impossibly flawed.
Hence the bleak conclusion is yours to carry and shall in part I assume drive your interactions into the great soup of change which depresses you so much.
Inevitability? I don't see it.
Especially as altruistic actions are needed to help maintain society and its survival, people more attuned to the Dharma or the Tao are a very important part of the equation. Our species simply cannot survive if everyone strikes out on their own without helping others. We are so made as to embrace each other, not as tubs of lard, as it were. Of course, many people become obese, but they see that as just another obstacle among many others that life throws their way.
"Technology" is just a fancy way of referring to human "know-how;" what better technology, as it were, is there to rule our lives than is mindfulness and meditation?
Your argument doesn't acknowledge that in order to have the society and culture we have now, we have already changed most of the system defaults. That some of our bodies happily store extra fat because some chubby ancestors survived the famine that wiped out everyone else is . . . a fatuous :buck: example to use as the basis for your claim.
It's difficult to go in there and begin to deliberately 'change' ourselves. It's more difficult than denying yourself chocolate while on a diet. That's why most people, given the choice, don't change, and resort to mental fabrications to justify their lack of effort, or give up and wait for someone else (like technology) to do it for us. Change is arduous. It's like trying to pick up a fish hook out of a jar without pulling out all the other fish hooks. Change is global, even if your intention is only to no longer be a fat person. Each element to be changed is hooked to something else, which is hooked again to something else . . . if you seek change as long as I have, it becomes pretty clear you pull out the hook you believe is 'the one' and whatever else comes out along with it is what you also get the opportunity to deal with
Yeah it's hard. We've gotten too soft, methinks. If it's 'haaaarrrd' then it's OK to just complain and blame circumstances or the relative lack of benefits from society for our misery.
Some people don't eat sweets or have sex. So if they can do it so can I.
It seems like more and more is coming out saying that previous theories haven't given enough credit for how adaptable the human body and mind are. We talk as if 10,000 year isn't enough for us to adapt, but they are finding more evidence that this is not the case. For example the long standing theory that "if you don't eat enough you go into starvation mode and store fat" is close to being debunked. Several studies have been done in the past couple years that show our metabolic rate does not slow down to the degree that we store fat, not nearly as much as seemed to make logical sense before. So, while the theories of how ancient humans ate, when, and why, are only that: theories. Just like so many other things. They can be disproven, and they might be far, far off track of reality. There is a lot of incorrect information out there on paloe diet and other diet/fitness webpages. But if you actually look at research done and findings made in evolutionary biology and other related fields, you find much better information. Alot of the things we are told have come to be thought of as truth when really they were taken out of context to use in marketing of various products.
In any case, I find it to be untrue that we constantly fail at self-control. It doesn't even have to be a matter of willpower or self-control. Sometimes I think we convince ourselves we lack those things as an excuse for our choices in behavior. When instead what is required is truly examining and understanding our thoughts and behaviors. Once we can do that honestly, we find the answers. Meditation only helps with that.
The problem is that nature has selected us humans to be here and now. So what's the big deal, someone or something had to carry the can of conscious misgiving, or misunderstanding because we all appear to have some cross to bear (obesity, sexual desire etc. to quote you). Technology is not conscious as far as we understand or try to make it so.
My mind is not 5000 years old btw; to suggest such a thing is an anthropomorphic myopic view of the world, and a Darwinian heresy.
Lo and behold opposable thumbs and its derivative touch screen technology has given us the chance to discuss matters in almost a realtime experience; but technology requires upgrades.
Unfortunately there is no anatman 1.1 available as yet (we always seem to be on the 'beta' version - pardon the pun - well if you are astute enough to get the subtlety of it), and I don't see it becoming a consumerist ideal in the very near or distant future.
So no - technology is not the solution to the human problem - QED
Only humans think there's a problem.
If this is your understanding of natural selection, then it is obviously a misunderstanding.;) I suggest you read a few books/articles on this.
The food example was just that, an example. So was the sex example. Point is, most of our behaviors are programmed by evolutionary need. And since this need is millions of years old - and self-control only a recent phenomenon - is it wiser to depend more on technology and less on ourselves? that's the question. Until vaccine was invented, we had to put up with smallpox. Until the technology - pills, chip implants, etc. - becomes available we may have to use traditional methods like meditation, religion, etc.
"programmed by evolutionary need"
what the hell does that mean?
I personally believe that technology has caused a lot of the issues we now try to fix. (eg interacting with each other with no smart phone or monitor/keyboard between us) I'm still minimalising my online time because, to be perfectly blunt, a lot of people online piss me off with their bullshit. And I don't want to waste my time being irritated by an online persona that could be made up and/or trolling.
Dude, I'm just rephrasing your line of logic. Sounds like your line of logic, put in different words, doesn't sound so intelligent or educated anymore. You're absolutely right.
It takes hard work, and no one is going to do it for you Betaboy. Even if they could, you aren't likely to recognize the help as 'help' when it is offered, if your general perceptions of problem solving remain the same. Seeing that your current approach has done diddly squat for you so far, are you curious as to what you might change in yourself to get what you want?
As I said, you didn't understand it properly. Try to read slowly next time.
I have to admit, @betaboy, I sometimes avoid your threads -- not because of what you post, but because I think people here often are triggered into knee-jerk reactivity or defensiveness, rather than actively listening to what you say.
You're correct in that many of our mind-states are governed by biological impulse. In fact, there are neuroscientists who have arrived at the conclusion that our decisions are often made in the brain even before we are conscious of them. (See Libet's 1999 study: Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will.) We have a rich evolutionary inheritance that has helped us survive and thrive as a species for many millennia: attraction to certain foods, the desire for romantic connection (which may or may not lead to procreation), the desire for social acceptance and community and fear of rejection(which keeps us safe and encourages cooperative, pro-social behavior), etc.
But the point of Buddhism isn't to mold or brutalize our mind-body complexes into anything other than what it is -- into some perfect, super-human mechanism that never experiences any of our evolved impulses. Rather, it's about coming to terms with the suffering woven into the nature of human existence. And that suffering includes the dukkha caused by not getting what we want (e.g., what we're evolutionarily programmed for) or getting what we don't want. Another translation of dukkha might actually be "imperfection." That is, that life isn't perfect. We can't have everything we want and, even if we did, that in itself could lead to more suffering in the long-term. A large part of the Buddha's teaching is about how our actions and intentions are embedded in the web of karma, and that sometimes following our short-term impulses leads to suffering later on, for ourselves or for others.
For instance, anger is an evolved response. It can serve to alert us to violation or inequity. In Buddhism, we don't try to eradicate anger. We simply let go of it once it has occurred, and cultivate an understanding of anger's karma. Understanding that angry actions often lead to suffering for ourselves and for others makes us less likely to behave angrily. We also come to understand the chain of samsara in which all being are struggling, and thus become more likely to experience metta and compassion towards people behaving in annoying or even hurtful ways. The Buddha doesn't tell you how to feel, but what to do. And despite what the neuroscience might say, we are not slaves to our conditioning. This is one way in which the realization of anatta manifests: as Ajahn Chah said, you are not even your likes and dislikes.
I don't think technology can in any way replace reliance on ourselves to do the work that needs to be done in tending to and taming the mind. The HHDL addressed this in his interview with Larry King a few days ago, and I tend to agree with what he said. That technology can be good but only when deployed with the benefit of all beings in mind. Most technology only benefits humans and usually at a cost to other beings. I'm not always so sure that all technology, even that which helps people heal or live longer, is a good thing. If my ability to live an extra year after a cancer diagnosis comes to me by causing the suffering and deaths of hundreds or more lab animals, is that a good thing? I don't know. Is finding ways to continually increase the human life span a good thing? In some ways, it's easy to say it would be. Much more time to practice, for example! But in other ways, no, our population keeps increasing and a loner life span just increases the stress on the planet.
In any case, @betaboy, I understand that the instances you gave were examples, but to base an entire belief or opinion on them doesn't match up, for me. To give up and say "well, my biology tells me I have no self control over how much/what I eat, I might as well give in" isn't a very smart idea, in my opinion. Even to hand that over to technology if it were possible, I don't think solves the problems. We tend to blame our behaviors on some of our tendencies by saying it's our ancestors faults,and while certain things have some support, I don't buy that any of us are hapless victims.
When you get sick, you'd see a doctor. When you get injured, you'd also see a doctor. While one would give you antibiotics, the other would perhaps, Just sew you up. There are different approaches to different problems.