Occidental culture

T H E   F A L S E   S E L E C T I O N   P R I N C I P L E

Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can live in an artificial environment, which is made by themselves. They can live on their own “absolute islands”- thus: without any natural environment. If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit). Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans. In other words: Darwin’s selection principle is false.

Interest (=> will) is the most important thing (perhaps it is really Kant's „Ding an sich“ - “thing in itself” / “thing as such”). A good example is the “sexual selection” that I would prefer to call reproductive interests when it comes to get ressources (including offspring / children), namely either by (a) dominance or by (b) will to appeal. If a female can't reproduce herself and doesn't want a male or children, because she is kidded - for example - by feminism or other nihilisms, then she is no longer part of the evolution. End.

Who benefits from that?

In any case:

One has to have electric transmitter, for example: nerves.

Without logic consciousness makes no sense because there must be a construction of a logical relationship for the consciousness, even also when it is merely an imagination. Without logic language makes also no sense. But what about logic? Does logic make sense without consciousness? No. Does logic make sense without language? Probably yes. A very primitive bacterium somehow “knows” what to do in order to survive, but probably does not need a language (note: language does not necessarily always mean „human language“, but also “language for all beings”).

Another consideration:


If we consider the principle „luxury“, we come to other results: in that case namely the language came perhaps first because the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning behind it because of the luxury of grunts.

Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. „Das Menschheitsrätsel“, 1922) the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo - Wissen, September 1998, S. 43-47): “The human beings are descended from the throw” (translated by me) and “human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore because they are luxury beings” (translated by me), no beings of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but on the contrary: beings of alienation, of insulation (cp. isles and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions ... etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general then?

Relative reproductive interest because of the relative free will of living beings.

There is probably no selection but reproductive interest.

So we probably have (1) variation, (2) reproductive interest (instead of selection), and (3) reproduction as the three principles of evolution.

Who or what selects? God? The nature? The environment? That would mean very passive actors in evolution. The reproductive interest means at least partly active actors in evolution.

A reproductive interest is part of the will (and therefore also of the nature, environment), and because of the fact that living beings have nofree will” but a relative free will the reproductive interest is merely a relative reproductive interest.

So I don’t deny the principle selection but I partly ignore it because no one knows who or what really selects.

The creator of the universe - in premodern times there was no doubt that it was God - is sometimes also called “designer”.

The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.

For human beings luxury is not the exception but the rule.

The so-called “revolutions” are also and especially a part of the luxury. They are a special kind of luxury for they occur because the so-called “revolutionary” want the power and thus the greatest possible luxury gratis, without any work, without any effort, ... and so on.

The nature is full of violence, full of cruelness, full of abominations, and any and every living being is equipped with the will to live, the will to power. Even then, if we really want to take responsibility for nature, we could not do it, because we are also living beings. So the human promise of “responsibility fort the nature” is a lie. Having said that, we should not be surprised about that lie.

Schopenhauer was the earlier and the better “Darwin”. A half century before Darwin Schopenhauer explained philosophically, especially metphysically, how the nature works. Accordig to Schopenhauer the cause is the “will”, the „thing as such“ is the will. A half century later Darwin said that the cause of evolution would be the natural selection. Darwin was a theologian, and thus his statement has a theological aspect because of the question: “what or who really selects?”. However, Schopenhauer was the discoverer or founder of evolution.

We don’t know the first cause; we can believe in a so-called „unmoved mover“(Aristoteles) or in a so-called “thing as such” (Kant) which became later the “will” (Schopenhauer); we can also believe in coincidence and its following “selection” (Darwin); but the latter is the most imperfect one of those four explanations how development and/or evolution work.

We don’t need to say that Darwin was totally wrong, but we should be allowed to say that he was partly wrong, in any case more wrong than Schopenhauer. We also don't need to consequently negate the nature because it is so cruel (and it is very cruel!). Because of that we can faith in Nietzsche and his affirmation of all development (thus also evolution and history), but also not too much!

Darwinistically we evolved from the apes, okay, but Anti-Darwinistically, thus culturally, we evolved from the throw(ing) (**|**|**|**|**|**).

Humans’ pleasure and replication are already separated. So humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,) machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans and gods.

If someone says that “natural selection disproves God”, then that one merely says by using other words, how important it is to have not only a natural science burt also a spiritual or moral science, or philosophy.

<= || =>

- Register -


  Occidental culture