The story of evolution can provide a window into understanding the world. It lends us an explanation of how things have come into existence; and not only in a biological sense. The story has become more expansive and all-encompassing than we may even realize, and it can be used to account for aspects of society and culture. If we accept that the principal diagram for evolution draws on the idea of natural selection, then we can in turn rationalize the former ‘aspects’ from an evolutionary standpoint. Among the most rapidly changing, and therefore most visibly evolved, aspect of society is consumerism. The purpose of this paper is to explore how we can apply the story of evolution, beyond the context of biology, to understand how products have changed in order to adapt to our ever-changing personal needs as consumers.

Emergence That May Become Possible By ‘Blink'

For as long as they have co-existed, evolution and religion have butted heads. Religions decry evolution as a farce and evolution, in turn, condemns religion for touting what they believe to be a wrong and ignorant argument. Ironically however, both evolution and religion have evolved to mimic one another in certain ways. In order to maintain and attract more followers (ie: survive), religion has changed and adapted (ie: evolved). Meanwhile, evolution has grown closer to becoming a religion.

Evolution and religion are simply two philosophies set on opposite sides of the spectrum. On the abstract end, there is the intangible-based religion and on the other, more concrete end, lies evolution, relying on the tangible. Just as faith feeds religion, its opposite, reason, sustains evolution. It is reasoning that drives evolution forward and allows it to change. If new evidence is discovered to dispute an argument of evolution, it is simply changed to suit the newfound proof. Religion, on the other hand, relies on faith to move forward-if evidence is found to dispute a belief, it is ignored. In both, change is a necessity-in evolution, because it as a theory in itself, requires that change occur as more evidence is discovered and in religion because as time and society changes, it must adapt to remain attractive to new and current prospects.

Given the hierarchical, self-important outlook of human-kind on existence, it is no surprise that most regard ethical knowledge as a “marvelous perspective that we and no other creatures have” (Dennett, 468). Such a statement may seem well-founded, as ethics are derived from our own ideas of human morality and the consequent rules established in their wake. Yet, it is difficult to discern just how this societal construct came into existence. In a world where the ends tend to justify the means, how can we explain the evolution of human morality and the resultant negation of our animalistic instincts?

In our class discussions on biological evolution we have defined the term crane as something that builds without intent and the term skyhook as something that creates with intent. The question of drawing parallels between a computer developing artificial intelligence and the evolution of human intelligence depends on how those two terms are treated. A computer with intelligence programmed into it has been the creation of a skyhook, in this case the computer programmer who set out to create artificial intelligence. If you do not believe that skyhooks have any part in evolution then you could not believe in the evolutionary development of AI unless you take into account the way that the human understanding of computers and programming would have to evolve and the fact that to be truly intelligent the AI would have to keep developing and evolving to be considered so. An intelligence created by a skyhook that does not develop independently of the skyhook is not truly intelligent; the intelligence must evolve on its own to qualify for that designation.

Richard Dawkins’ theory of the Selfish Gene is controversial.  His theory suggests that biological organisms are vehicles or machines that carry genes.  Genes are the replicators that create biological organism; they function to replicate themselves and as a means to acquire resources.  Dawkins argues that natural selection operates at the genetic level and not the individual organism, since individuals are just programmed carriers.  The purpose of life for the organism is to provide survival and reproductive sites for genes.  Proponents of Dawkins’ theory assert that the main point is that the gene is the unit of selection, which completes and extends the explanation of evolution given by Darwin before the mechanisms of genetics were uncovered.  Critics argue that the theory oversimplifies the relationship between genes and the organism (The Selfish Gene).  I believe that a gene-centric view of evolution is a revolutionary way to view the selection process, but it is also a useful theory to explain many biological phenomena, such as altruism. 

The current struggle between religion and science leads to many heated and debated questions and theories.  Many of these questions surround the existence of god and of when and how this existence evolved into being.  The concept of religion and god evolved in human culture as a result of brain structure and survival adaptation. Biologically, god and religion evolved as humans’ first form of consciousness.  Specific brain structures and brain formations allowed and encouraged this.  In addition there are several social and behavioral adaptations in man’s early culture that promoted the existence of god and religion.  Both biological and socially, early mankind was suited for the evolution of god and related concepts. 

Adult union and the consequent development of a family, exists throughout many world cultures.  Unlike the United States, where serial monogamy is the prevailing relationship category, many other cultures support a variety of adult unions, which would be illegal or socially unacceptable in the United States.  These alternative adult unions can be as diverse as the cultures themselves, confirming that there is no “universal system of ethics” (Dennett 494).  Taking a closer look at the “culturally strange” relationship arrangements in other countries, will help to increase Americans’ appreciation for and understanding of the social dynamics within those cultures, which ultimately leads to better cross-cultural communication. I think this communication must occur to prevent “ethics [from settling] into an … equilibrium” (Dennett 494).  I believe that the United States should encourage educational programs that discuss and appreciate the diverse cultural traditions such as those of the Na of China, the Tibetans of Nepal and the Indians of India.  Cultural relativism is the view that all cultures and beliefs are as equally legitimate as the next.  I am convinced that cultural relativism, and not ethnocentrism, needs to be the prime focus of all learning institutions to further encourage the understanding that alternative and seemingly “strange” relationship categories are often adapted by different social groups as a mechanism to cope with economic, religious and culture pressures. 

We as humans are unbelievably diversified. Each of us spawns from different races, socio-economic statuses, and regions of the world. We speak thousands of independent languages and have established ways of life. Biologically speaking, one person’s specific arrangement of genes makes him individually unique in the world. We are highly specialized people who strive to surmount the challenges presented by the world and attain new goals. What is the unconscious motivation that drives us to achieve our goals, gain knowledge, and discover new things? Despite the realization that each person is biologically distinct, the guarantee of man’s progress on Earth rests on the boundless leverage of curiosity. Inquisitiveness, in coalition with imagination, may prove unkind at times through the decisions we make in life, but they are useful scientific and literary tools. One of the motifs in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland is steadfast curiosity, as he unfolds the tale of a young girl who gains maturity and valuable insights of the world via her fantastical imagination. Curiosity may have killed the (Chesire) cat, but it is an essential attribute to possess when striving for success in both the sciences and humanities.

Urban planning theorist Jane Jacobs comes from a long line of deductive thinkers that can be traced back to empiricists like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. In “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” she endeavors to apply such methods of inquiry to the modern American city. Just as Locke argued that the mind is a “tabula rasa,” Jacobs contends that most components of the urban landscape are not inherently badly or well designed; rather, the success or failure of such components — sidewalks, parks, blocks, neighborhoods — depends entirely on the surrounding environment in which they are deployed.