Michael R. Rose

An excellent book about the consequences of evolutionary theory. It is in three parts:

Part I: Darwin and Darwinian Science
This part is about the historical context of Darwin's "Origin of Species" and subsequent development of Darwinian thought. Chapter 2, "Heredity: The Problem of Variation", discusses how Platonic ideals would make it hard to arrive at the concept of evolution. It also deals with the importance of Mendelian genetics as the mechanism for transmission of hereditary characteristics. Chapter 3, "Selection: Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" discusses the importance and mechanisms of selection and how it is constrained by both genetics and circumstances in the environment. Chapter 4, "Evolution: The Tree of Life" discusses the importance of the branching tree concept and differing theories of speciation, included the vogue for punctuated equilibria. It is all good.

Part II: Applications of Darwinism
This covers three separate subjects: applications of evolutionary theory to agriculture and stock breeding, evolutionary theory and medicine, and the Victorian, Nazi, and contemporary, more or less, practice of eugenics.

On the subject of agriculture and stock breeding it is straightforward but pretty interesting. It notes that breeding had been being done 100s of years before Darwin, but after Darwin, it could be pursued w/out the complication that comes from competing theories of divine intervention. An understanding of genetics only helped matters along. It discusses tactics for breeding and the necessity for variation as well as that when breeding for one characteristic, you often get another. Discusses how agriculture has at least temporarily, kept up w/ human population growth but points out that widespread starvation due to sheer scarcity of food is not necessarily over for good.

On medicine, it is much more speculative. It discusses aging and the fact that there is no evolutionary selection against it. If a population simply postponed reproduction longer, then, over the course of time, the average age of the members of that population would increase. In a similar vein, men die sooner because they are, well, male, and can get to reproducing at an early age. With improvement of medicine, certain bad genetic conditions are likely to proliferate, since those afflicted can live to reproduce. Human beings and mammals are vulnerable to diseases that other organisms simply can't get; there's a tradeoff. It also points out that bodies have lots of responses to bad things entering, and using drugs to suppress those responses may be counterproductive. Someone won a Nobel prize for showing that malarial fevers increased the probability of a cure for syphilis in a given patient by about 30 times. Seems like somebody supports my no drugs, plenty of fluids approach to treatment.

On eugenics, it is unduly upbeat, probably because it was written in the 90s. It switches the topic to race and racism as much as eugenics, and points out that "race", as a concept is just useless, and assumes that that is enough to make it go away. Well, no, political interests can keep the concept alive, regardless. A good quotable:
"While the government of the United States and some ideological cranks maintain the idea of biological race, it is being annihilated genetically." A hopelessly optimistic quotable: "The Promethean ambitions of many Darwinists to direct the evolution of mankind are now virtually defunct. The twentieth century, the great age of meddling ideologies, is almost over. People have had their fill of messianic or scientific programs for the future of the species." Nope, in 2021 there's nothing people want more, evidently.

Part III: Understanding Human Nature
The hardest to follow, because it is about human nature. Distinguishes between two separate schools of thought "evolutionary psychology" and "immanent Darwinism". The thesis of "evolutionary psychology" is that humans are mammals, only more so. The thesis of "immanent Darwinism" is that evolution has resulted in a wholly new kind of species with enormous flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. The author prefers immanent Darwinism. I prefer it to because then I am not in conflict with Neil Postman who saw a similar disconnect from a very different point of view. The author alludes to "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", a book which I must read again. After several chapters, though, there isn't much conclusion. The author argues that any system of government will be under attack from adaptable humans who constantly figure out new ways to game the system. This is utterly plausible. He briefly touches on religion as having a kind of reality in human experience, more Jaynesian, really. A good quotation: "Imitation may be flattery but it is rarely very accurate."

Most interesting is when he talks about humans in a state of nature being presumed good. He claims that this is "one of the most common, elementary, ideological assumptions of modernity". Essentially, since humans are innately good, then it must be the systems that are bad, and these can simply be destroyed and all the goodness will come flowing back. This is the general idea that makes "revolutions" so attractive. There is a good quotation: "There are few myths more alluring than the one famously spread by Jean-Jaques Rousseau, that humans are naturally good and kind. This is almost the religion of those anthropologists who seem to be determined to become the entree for the cannibal's next meal."

NOTE: I was quite excited about "Immanent Darwinism", and wanted to find other authors. It seems like it was entirely invented by Michael Rose, though.… (plus d'informations)

An interesting memoir of a scientist who has spent his career researching how to postpone aging.

He started with the premise that evolution was the ultimate controller of aging, and natural selection did nothing to ensure the survival of those who were post-reproductive, so he decided to move reproduction to an older age.

By delaying reproduction over 50 generations (!), he produced fruit flies that consistently lived longer (10%). He dubbed them Methuselah flies. By delaying reproduction, he also achieved an interesting side-effect. The flies were healthier overall than the offspring of regular flies allowed to reproduce at an early age. That was due in part to the fact that most genetic diseases, most of which don’t allow individuals to live until ripe old age, have already killed unhealthy individuals before they were able to reproduce. The offspring of those older parents, reproducing and reproducing again for generations consistently produced longer living offspring.

Methuselah flies showed more interesting characteristics. They survived longer without food. They resisted acute stress better than the regular flies, so it turned out that to respond better to stress also means to live longer.

Following the research on reduced caloric intake as prolonging life, the Methuselah flies were subjected to a calorie restricted diet, and lived still longer.

Overall, interestingly enough, it seems that indulging in sex and eating were not good for them at all. In fruit flies:
1. Early fecundity killed earlier
2. Male fruit flies could actually copulate themselves to death
3. Eunuchs lived longer than sexually active males
4. Mated females lived shorter lives than lifelong virgins, who lived shorter lives than sterilized females, who lived shorter lives than ovarieless females
5. Those who survive on 60-50% of regular daily intake of food lived still longer.

The question that I want to ask right now is: Is there any sense in living longer then?
… (plus d'informations)