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: Darwins 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).
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
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 no free will but a relative
free will the reproductive interest is merely a relative reproductive
So I dont 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
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 dont 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 dont 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
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.