How Evolution And Logic Relate: Natural Filtering vs Foresight

Evolution can be seen as a process of discovering logic that works well in a particular environment. But evolution can't see what our foresight can grasp. In some cases the logic inherent in relationships of need (e.g. within groups) can be decisive. 

How Evolution And Logic Relate: Natural Filtering vs Foresight


This is diablog #4 between David Sloan Wilson (DSW, head of The Evolution Institute, and author of Does Altruism Exist?) and me (JB).

JB: Let’s discuss how evolution and logic relate. Especially how the logic inherent in relationships of need matters in evolution.

Genes always need other genes, and cells often need other cells. Their inalienable interdependence creates a seemingly obvious “health of the needed” logic (within bodies, parts depend utterly on the health of the whole).

Does similar logic operate beyond organisms, in organized groups generally? You’ve called human groups “a kind of organism.” Isn’t their evolutionary fate bound to the health of what they need? Damaging what you need seems logically self-undermining.

DSW: Let me challenge your premise. Multicellular organisms are remarkably robust to many diseases and parasites. They also tolerate a considerable burden of selfish genetic elements such as junk DNA, meiotic drive genes, and neoplasms. Likewise for human societies. Many dysfunctional nations persist despite being dysfunctional.

Here is how I translate between your logic and my evolutionary way of thinking. Your scenario imagines individuals so dependent upon the group that undermining the group would be suicidal. So it’s only logical for a self-interested decision-making agent to avoid undermining the group.

But evolution is not a logical decision-making agent! It is a mindless process based only on fitness differences. To analyze your scenario from an evolutionary perspective, we need to posit an undermining type (no matter how logically stupid that seems) competing with a non-undermining type. Their fitnesses are not different within any given group because they are all in the same boat. But there are big fitness differences between groups that do or don’t contain the undermining type. The logically sensible non-undermining type evolves by between-group selection.

JB: That’s useful. But I’m not convinced it helps evolution evade the kind of logic I meant. Even though some within-group behaviours that harm group health are tolerable, there’s still a level beyond which it’s unsustainable. Groups either (blindly) evolve ways to stay below that suicidal threshold, or they perish sooner. I’d suggest between-group effects operate separately from this “natural filtering,” (arising from relationship-of-need logic).

You’re right to emphasize how evolution’s logic differs from human logic. Natural selection’s blind undirected mutation processes “manufacture” only certain kinds of changes. They’re inherently incremental and path-dependent. But our foresight means we’re not bound by those sorts of design limits (e.g., we can do wholesale redesign or multipoint coordinated changes; evolution can’t).

That distinction between human vs. evolutionary logic should inform how we organize ourselves, in any kind of group (in politics and economics). We need not be blind to how the local incentives of parts can subvert group health/survival (see Markets As Dumb As Trees and Darwin’s Wedge).

For the next post in this diablog series, click here ( Does Division of Labor Complicate Evolution's Trade-Offs). 

Earlier diablogs covered: (1) how evolution keeps score (relative fitness), (2) its built-in team aspects, and (3) its self-destructive competitions

Illustration by Julia Suits, The New Yorker Cartoonist & author of The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions.

Did early humans hibernate?

New anthropological research suggests our ancestors enjoyed long slumbers.

Credit: Gorodenkoff / Adobe Stock
Surprising Science
  • Neanderthal bone fragments discovered in northern Spain mimic hibernating animals like cave bears.
  • Thousands of bone fragments, dating back 400,000 years, were discovered in this "pit of bones" 30 years ago.
  • The researchers speculate that this physiological function, if true, could prepare us for extended space travel.
Keep reading Show less

Does science tell the truth?

It is impossible for science to arrive at ultimate truths, but functional truths are good enough.

Credit: Sergey Nivens / 202871840
13-8
  • What is truth? This is a very tricky question, trickier than many would like to admit.
  • Science does arrive at what we can call functional truth, that is, when it focuses on what something does as opposed to what something is. We know how gravity operates, but not what gravity is, a notion that has changed over time and will probably change again.
  • The conclusion is that there are not absolute final truths, only functional truths that are agreed upon by consensus. The essential difference is that scientific truths are agreed upon by factual evidence, while most other truths are based on belief.
Keep reading Show less

A canvas of nonsense: how Dada reflects a world gone mad through art

Using urinals, psychological collages, and animated furniture to shock us into reality.

A Dadaist artist is painted with the ashes of burned banknotes during the financial crisis.

Credit: MICHELE LIMINA via Getty Images
Culture & Religion
  • Dada is a provocative and surreal art movement born out of the madness of World War I.
  • Tzara, a key Dada theorist, says Dada seeks "to confuse and upset, to shake and jolt" people from their comfort zones.
  • Dada, as all avant-garde art, faces a key problem in how to stay true to its philosophy.
Keep reading Show less
Surprising Science

Study: Tripping might not be required for psychedelic therapy

Two different studies provide further evidence of the efficacy of psychedelics in treating depression.

Quantcast