What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

Darwinian Conservatism?

January 7, 2011, 11:03 PM
Peter2

There's a lot of talk on BIG THINK about evolutionary explanations of this or that human behavior.  They're all pretty fascinating, although far from completely convincing.

Darwinian explanations, for what its worth, usually strike me as pretty conservative.  In fact, the best Darwinian political scientist, Larry Arnhart, has written a book and writes a blog called Darwinian conservatism.  Larry distinguishes Darwinian conservatism from "metaphysical conservatism."  His conservatism flows from a Darwinian understanding of the human being as a wholly natural animal, one whose behavior can be completely explained through an understanding of natural evolution. 

Metaphysical conservatives tend to emphasize what distinguishes the human being in his or her freedom, self-consciousness, personal love, technological power, awareness of his personal contingency and mortality, and longing for God.

But all conservatives tend to agree that a considerable amount of our happiness comes from doing our social duties to our families, friends, community, and country.  And understanding oneself as a liberated individual--someone who finds freedom and dignity in being autonomous or freed from relational and biological imperatives--leads one to pursue happiness but never find it.  Darwin's understanding of who we are by nature--although incomplete--frees us from transhumanist and other techno-liberationist fantasies about the possibility or desirability of transforming ourselves into something other than natural beings.

The Darwinian conservative tends to say stuff like members of our species are political animals, but so too are the chimps, bees, and ants.  And we're cute, smart, social mammals, but so are the dolphins.

The metaphysical conservative says something like:  If the other animals are so smart and political, where are the dolphin presidents and princes?

And: Where are the dolphin poets, philosophers, physicists, preachers, priests, poets, and even plumbers?

The metaphysical conservative doubts  there could be a completely satisfying evolutionary explanation of the behavior of Socrates or Jesus or Solzhenitsyn or Mother Theresa or Mozart or Shakespeare or Nietzsche or Pascal or Churchill or Lincoln.   Or even, for that matter, Hitler or Stalin.

The smarter Darwinians (like Arnhart) aren't all for atheism, of course.  They can see that religion is an indispensable social bonding mechanism, if nothing else, for animals such as ourselves.  Religion generates pro-social behavior, and that can't be bad.

For Darwinians, religion only goes wrong when it become all otherworldly or too personal, but they really can't explain why it takes those wrong turns.  A Christian would say that religion is really all about personal significance and personal love.  It's about the being who can't be reduced to merely a part of nature or anything else.  That's not to say we're not natural beings (see Thomas Aquinas), or that evolution didn't happen (see Walker Percy).

But it might be true that once evolution produces an animal smart enough to discover the theory of evolution, that animal would inevitably exhibit behavior that would show the theory to no longer be wholly true.

There's more...

 

 

 

 

 

Darwinian Conservatism?

Newsletter: Share: