Rock-Paper-Scissors in Sexual Selection?

After reading Darwin's theory on sexual selection, I was reminded of an interesting phenomenon I read about once, that seems to deviate from the general form of superior and inferior classes being "subconsciously" identified within particular species.

Basically what happens in this lizard species is that there are three different types of male, characterized by their color, size and mating tendencies.  Each type will win out in a contest for mating against one of the other classes, but will also lose to the final group.

Here is the Nature article:
http://www.indiana.edu/~curtweb/L567/readings/Sinervo&Lively1996.pdf

And since this article is relatively dense, here is the wikipedia page describing the phenomenon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_side-blotched_lizard

I'm a little intrigued as to how a "game" like this develops in a species (it's also been discovered in a certain type of bacteria), and how it might eventually end, especially since the authors noticed that there are fluctuations in group population size but these were eventually be corrected, yielding a cyclic model.

Degenerating Morality and the Chain of Being

           In Darwin’s The Descent of Man, he refers to “higher” and “lower” animals, clearly referencing the Chain of Being.  Through morality, a process that he believes to occur through nature—natural and physical mental processes, Darwin ranks man as the highest of all “higher beings.”  Darwin notes that man’s moral sense stems from his ability to reflect upon past events and consequently, act differently in the future (236). He writes that man differs from lower animals as a result of “his mental faculties being highly active and his impressions of past events extremely vivid…” (235).  Seemingly, Darwin attributes the physical faculty of memory to man’s ascent over all other lower and higher beings.  However, his evidence is not convincing.  When I think of animals, they have memory too.  How birds remember where they’ve built there nests and how squirrels remember where they’ve buried their acorns for subsistence during the winter months is certainly a function of memory.  Considering the fallacy of the ephemeral, how is Darwin to say that the memory, and thus morality, of animals aside from humans does not exist?  Simply because we as humans cannot recognize that animals have memory in the same way that humans have memory does not mean it does not exist.  Darwin says himself that “we really know very little about the minds of the lower animals” (239).  If morality raises man above all other creatures, but man knows little about the minds of lower animals, how do we know they do not have the capacity to be moral beings?  And furthermore, how do we know that other animals rank lower on the Chain than humans?

            Additionally, Naden quotes in her poem, “Solomon Redivius” (1886): “Long ages passed - our wishes/ Were fetterless and free…The memory and the moral/Had vanished quite away” (lines 41-42; 47-48).  She presents an important idea of how our minds, and memory, deteriorate with age.   Neuroscience today has shown that degeneration of neurons, the basic units in our brains that are responsible for cognitive function, diminishes both human and animal memory.  Aging, therefore, deteriorates the mind, memory, and morality.  Considering aging’s influence on memory and Darwin’s proposition that morality is responsible for man’s ascent, as human beings age, do other animals whose “mental powers… are capable of advancement” (Darwin, 235) have the capacity to overtake aging humans on the Chain of Being? 

Is man ascending or descending? Problems with description and diction

            Darwin’s explanation of man’s descent is an interesting one. One the one hand he theorizes that man, like all other beings, is the “co-descendant with other mammals of a common progenitor” (Darwin 233). This puts man as not the top of a line of new species, but as a species that developed along side and shares similar characteristics to beings that scientists of the time called base and savage. On the other hand, Darwin notes the moral and intelligence superiority of mankind that separates him from all other beings. This moral superiority includes the ability to intelligently interact with other humans, follow a religion, the possession of sympathy, and being able to reflect on oneself. In this case, Darwin discusses two very different aspects of mankind—their connection to other, “lower” species, and man’s morality. So, does the “Descent of Man” connote man’s animalistic past and connections to other species or to the actual downfall of man as a high-powered species among less-intelligent beings?

Similarly, Mathilde Blind praises man, but spends the majority of her poem expressing the glory of animals and physical nature. Can the “Ascent of Man” connote man’s superiority despite her focus on the glory of the rest of nature?

What is this intellectual anxiety over man’s place in science and the world that Darwin, Blind, and other writers struggle with? Is the high quality of scientific writings regarding species’ origins and faculties really able to determine the order of beings?

Lower order triumph: Sexual Selection

In the Descent of Man, Darwin explains to us how we “higher order” creatures were derived from simpler organisms of a “lower order”. In the picture that he paints the conditions and the world in which our ancestors had to survive slowly but surely forged our mind and various other traits into the state they are in today, through the generations, via natural selection. Among the ‘higher order’ traits he mentions is man’s great capacity for morality and reasoning. It is these traits that we see revered in Natural selection and Scientific wooing by Constance Naden. In these poems the baser, ‘lower order’ attributes of man are held almost with contempt? In Natural selection Constance writes “ Of Science he hasn’t a trace/ He seeks not the How and the Why,/ But he sings with an amateurs grace,/ and he dances much better then I…….Tis a low that with Aves prevails/ and even in homo survives….Ah no! for since Chloe is false, I’m certain that Darwin is true!”. Is the contempt for this lower order thinking in man, and the way in which the two orders of thought and feeling are distinguished from one another not misguided? Darwin writes that our enhanced mental faculties are themselves the result of natural selection, so should we not equally praise and admire the more base faculties which the unscientific youth is filled with, the very same attributes that will win him (and not the scientist) the young girl’s affections. Should we not be slower to be so judgmental and dismissive about traits and faculties that have served our species and so many others, so well, for so many generations? 

 

Morality

Darwin’s Descent of Man has caused major uproars in many sectors of society, be it religion, science, what have you, however, I found it a bit disappointing to read because it was so vague in terminology and seemed to lack some basic considerations.  Not only does he consider man to be a “higher being,” which is controversial as we have previously discussed, but his reasoning behind this description is because man has intelligence, morals, and reasoning. Yes, I can see how humans can have a higher reasoning on the technical side of things. However, as far as the natural order of the world, we are out of tune with nature and cannot manage without the mechanical interventions that make us seem more intelligent than “lower beings” but simultaneously hurt us and the natural world.

Which brings up Darwin’s theory about morality; he says: “A moral being is one who is capable of comparing his past and future actions and motives—of approving of some and disapproving of others; and the fact that man is the one who with certainty can be thus designated make the greatest of all distinctions between him and the lower animals […] Consequently he resolves to act differently in the future—and this is conscience” (235-6).  Personally, I think he is giving man far more credit than deserved and I think that not all humans have a conscious or possess morals. We would have learned form mistakes, and as the quote goes, “history repeats itself.” We are habitual creatures that learn from mild mistakes, but it is more conditional.

What do you guys think of the morality of man? Is that part of evolution or is it learned? And did this paper bring you to question the chain of being once again?

Science, Literature, and Overall Intelligence

            Darwin’s discussion of human sub-species in The Descent of Man offers an intriguing parallel to the relationship between science and literature.  He claims that if presented with people of different races, a naturalist would classify them as two distinct species.  However, Darwin argues, there is so much overlap between people of all races that these similarities “can be accounted for only through inheritance from a common progenitor” (234).  Literature and science can be viewed in the same light: although they may seem unrelated on the surface, they both share roots in human evolution.

            As early humans became more intelligent, they became unable to “avoid looking backwards and comparing the impressions of past events and actions” (235).  Questions about where they came from, why they behaved in certain ways, or how natural phenomena occurred eventually led to biology, psychology, physics, and other scientific disciplines.  At the same time, their intelligence allowed them to imagine the future or alternate realities.  Imagination coupled with social interactions formed the basis of story telling, song, and literature as we know it today.  Both literature and science stemmed from intelligence applied to different environments, allowing them to acquire adaptations to best suit their cultural needs.  Although the two fields have diverged over evolutionary time, their phylogenetic similarities are overwhelming.

            Literature and science are still close enough to be able to interact and form new products, much like how two members of different sub-species can reproduce.  Darwin stresses the importance of “educating and stimulating in all possible ways the intellectual faculties” in order to “make the conscience more sensitive” (236).  Focusing on either discipline to the exclusion of the other leads to an atrophied conscience.  This concept is reminiscent of Frankenstein; both Victor and the monster are familiar with either science or literature, leading to tragedy.  Victor, who was so focused on viewing the past and present through the lens of science, does not foresee the ramifications of his experiment actually working.  In this way, Shelley makes a point very similar to Darwin’s.  Literature and science are two sides of the same coin; by neglecting one, you neglect half of your evolved intelligence.

            How does this theme of intelligence come up in other works that we’ve read, such as The Time Machine?  Are there other manifestations of intelligence in addition to science and literature that we should be stimulating to maximize our abilities?

            In The Descent of Man Darwin illustrates how humans are merely mammals that have developed to have particularly strong social instincts and mental powers and are not separate from other animals.  In their poetry, Constance Naden and Mathilde Blind echo this idea and illustrate how people are driven by motives of sexual reproduction and survival.  In “Natural Selection” the speaker cannot compete with “…the more dandified males” (l.25) that woo women by being physically attractive.  Although the speaker idealizes science and cares about “…the How and the Why” (l.22) of life, he is equally swayed by the desire for sexual reproduction.  Likewise, in “Scientific Wooing” the speaker is distracted from his scientific pursuits by sexual desire and chooses to woo his love by explaining the mechanisms of sexual reproduction in flowers.  While these men may aspire to mental greatness, Naden shows that they are really just animals driven by the desire to propagate the species.

Blind, on the other hand, focuses more on the violent animalistic desires of humans in part III of The Ascent of Man, “The Leading of Sorrow.”  Here she speaks of how humans treat each other badly in their desire to survive and progress, but because of their ability to comprehend what they are doing to each other they are in a worse state:

Better than this masquerade of culture

Hiding strange hyena appetites,

The frank ravening of the raw-necked vulture

As its beak the senseless carrion smites (l.5-8)

Blind claims that the human ideals of culture merely obscure our species’ more violent instincts and yet it is our culture that causes us to call violent acts immoral.  Blind ends the poem on a hopeful note, however, claiming that humans are also capable of using their moral powers to create forces of love and goodness like God (l.120).

            When we studied the Romantics we discussed how humans have a sublime ability to learn and question the world around them.  Do Naden and Blind agree, or are they more cynical about the sublimity of humans?