Herbert Spencer and the Evolutionary Theory Before Darwin: A Comparative Analysis

Lecture 10 Term 2 A New Bio-Turn?

Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903 A society in search of natural laws: Spencer designed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, as well as human culture and societies -- all before Darwin! His conception was based on two major principles: continuity of natural law (Thomas Malthus) Utility (based again on Jeremy Bentham) Expressed a great longing for societal order on the basis of the laws of nature and thus the natural sciences (positivism). True liberty is nothing else than the rational submission to the preponderance of the laws of nature. This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Spencer in regard to his economic theories!

Spencer relies on Malthus 1798; 1803 edition read by Darwin The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man ongoing struggle of existence over subsistence -- according to Malthus God directed The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, 1766 1834 Note: term survival of the fittest (not from Malthus but Herbert Spencer who read Darwin. Darwin then used it in later editions of his book.

Darwins ideas also fitted well to another accepted social theory of the time: Utilitarianism Principle: greatest happiness of all - which is measurable through measuring pain and pleasure in humans Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think .. (The Principles of Morals and Legislation Jeremy Bentham 1748 1832 It follows: the appropriate mode of action is the one that maximises utility -- maximising total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives effects of human action

Darwin collects data during his 5 year journey Darwin in the 1840s, after his voyage and his marriage to Emma Wedgewood

Darwins voyage on the HMS Beagle 1831-1836

Darwins Finches

But what is the mechanism that pulls all this data together?? Darwin finds it like Spencer - in Malthus work and his struggle for existence Malthus ideas bring all of Darwin s data together and stands at the core of Darwin s concepts of natural selection and adaptation concepts.

Adaptation and natural selection

Three central elements of Darwins argument: in every population of organism, there are differences or variations between individuals. Such variations ensure that certain organisms are better suited to triumph in the struggle for existence than there are other organisms. Finally, better suited --or more fit organisms will produce more viable offspring then those which are less suited. And the characteristics of fitter organisms are therefore selectively passed on to the following generation. Overall: Nature selects certain characteristics without any foresight or conscious design. Over a number of generations the characteristics of fitter organisms comet to dominate population, and hence the characteristics of a species change.

1871 1872 Darwin s offers his own view on the raging debate on human evolution in two, by now, famous publications

Inherent problem of such anthropomorphism in evolutionary theory until today: The reading into animal nature, which, in fact, is characteristic of human nature. These results from reading animal culture are then used to confirm continuity between humans and animals. Such logic, by the way, undergirds much of contemporary Darwinian discussion of human behaviour of Darwinists today such as O.E. Wilson or and Richard Darwkin.

Darwin transfers his ideas of natural selection to the study of Man: The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, is certainly one of degree and not of kind. the senses and the intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, &c, of which man boats, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals.

Due to their shared nervous system/brain expressions are not unique to humans according to Darwin compares expressions in man/animals Claim: Consciences and moral obligations ultimately derived from persistent social instincts which existed in both animals and humans. Therefore, he can claims for a continuum between animals and humans. (Even religious sentiments and hope existed in animals according to Darwin!)

Social Darwinism: Def.: a name given to various theories of society which emerged in the United Kingdom, North America, and Western Europe in the 1870s, and which claim to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics. Social Darwinists generally argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. It applies biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociological and political models of society. Social Darwinists generally argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. (so it is conservative in its political nature) Different social Darwinists have different views about which groups of people are the strong and the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the precise mechanism that should be used to promote strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez- faire capitalism, while others motivated ideas of eugenics, racism, imperialism, fascism, Nazism, and struggle between national or racial groups. Important: Today s Darwinism and new disciplines based on that such as evolutionary psychology practice modern forms of social Darwininism!

Inherent problem of such anthropomorphism in evolutionary theory until today: The reading into animal nature, which, in fact, is characteristic of human nature. These results from reading animal culture are then used to confirm continuity between humans and animals. Such logic, by the way, undergirds much of contemporary Darwinian discussion of human behaviour of Darwinists today such as O.E. Wilson or and Richard Darwkin.

Biohistory Biohistory as a form of sociobiology first popularised in the 1970/80? sociology and other social sciences as well as the humanities , he argued, are the last branches of biology waiting to be included in the Modern Synthesis (O.E. Wilson) Critique back then: under the mantel of objectivity and neutrality of scientific research, inequalities of race or gender were cemented as being natural .

We are told that biology is no longer deterministic: Genes are but one of the many players that act and are acted upon to determine how an organism will develop and interact with its environment. At the level of ultimate explanation, there is a rich debate on such basis matters as the possibility that evolution has selected not simply for organisms that look out for themselves, but for organisms that cooperate with other members of the same species, including, non relatives. According to these evolutionary biologist, cooperative behaviour would favour the survival of societies in which a substantial number of individuals are willing to work together for mutual benefit or to make sacrifices for the good of all, which over time would increase the proportion of co-operators and altruists in the species as a whole.

But both historians and biologists particularly evolutionary biologists and palaeontologists are interested in the past as well as the present. Both believe that the past holds the key to understand the present and both recognise that the past must be studies through critical analysis of fragmentary records rather then through repeatable, controlled experiments. Both believe in the importance of contingency. Fascinating and unpredictable events can only be understood and with the benefit of hindsight (p. 1496)

Genes are but one of the many players that act and are acted upon to determine how an organism will develop and interact with its environment. Epigenetic processes thus give individuals and populations the capacity to respond biologically as well as culturally to changing historical circumstances and to adapt quickly to new or altered niches in the natural and social world. (p. 1497)

But the problems are: What is biology ? Only one subjects in over 30 within the life sciences and they all depend on each other. Science is today techno-science Most of the findings that have come out are essentially driven by the technologies available. So you wouldn t be able to do brain imaging without the MRIs, the MEGs. So the science and the technologies are inextricable. The machines both make possible the science and help shape how it is understood You can t talk about science apart from the technology anymore. It s meaningless. (Steven and Hilary Rose)

A history of the species? Is this what historians will do? Both historians and biologists believe in the importance of culture in the ability of the member of many species of birds and mammals to learn from one another so they can improve their chances that they, their kin, or their societies will survive and strive. (p. 1495) Bias towards the knowledge of the natural sciences in use of rhetoric: Recent advances in neuroscience, for instance, confirm the intuition of historians who believe that culture, class, and prejudice have a profound impact on the human psyche.

Further problems: Unstableness of scientific knowledge Techno-science and capitalism For the contemporary biotechnological corporation to exist and survive, it is (to search investors, for instance, who would need to sink huge amount of money into a biotech venture to enable it in the first place) credibility rather than truth that is essential to start with. At some fundamental level, it does not matter whether the promissory vision of a biotech company are true or not, as long as they are credible. More investment into PR than into the new scientific developments

How to trust scientific results? Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine , she reports, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine . (Marcia Angell, Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption) Life is big business steep rise of fraudulent research

Will we need an Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to check our scientific sources? Will the bio-turn lead us into a new exciting area of historical research? Will we overcome the lingustic turn?