Seeing ourselves in "On the Origin of Species"

As with anything we read, it is an all too familiar habit to identify with or recognise parts of ourselves and our lives in the subjects we read about. Looking at Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”, without considering “The Descent of Man” (which we haven’t read anyway), it is easy to attempt to draw parallels between his description of the evolution of animal species with our own species: humans. At least for me, this immediately raises the question of: how distinct are we really from our animal counterparts?

From past archaeology classes, I have seen the progress of physical changes through fossil records of our species over time. Particularly fascinating are the gradual changes in the size of the skull and cranial cavity and the theoretical implications that has had on our increased mental capacities. Can intellect then be thought of as a trait that has helped our species survive much like the sharp canine teeth that helps the hyena cut into its prey?

I would agree that it has, although it is no longer the case. Our sizable intellect is changing how our species reproduces and altering, through medicine, who survives. Humans are, in a way, domesticated, no longer in the volatile life and death struggle wild animals still find themselves in. We seem to be applying the practices of husbandry to ourselves, with some ethical additions. There are ethical restrictions in medicine (we no longer have, for example, forced castration for mentally or physically handicapped individuals), rights to reproduction (where couples who are not naturally able to conceive or carry a child are able to do so through various medical procedures), and vaccines, surgeries, etc to save and prolong the lives of people who would not normally survive long enough to reproduce, among others.

In all of these examples, humans are, through our intellect, altering and defying nature. Does that, therefore, keep us on the same naturally selective course Darwin has mapped out for animal species? Or are we charting a new direction, diverging from the path nature would have us on? Can we really know for sure? No. Does it worry me thinking how far and forcefully we might try to define our path and the consequences of taking technology beyond the reasonable limits nature has provided? Yes.

Samuel Butler

Samuel Butler believes that Steam Engine is invented gradually form a kettle. This is a smart example Butler came up with and in my opinion it is so true. On the other hand as we can relate this example to evolution this question has popped out on my mind that if everything is created gradually, can we argue that human being will be changed organically in the future? If human is a descent from apes, then human can evolve to another form as well. But if species are evolved by the impact of environment and how they fit in that environment, then why human is not evolved since 5000 years ago who had a much more basic life? It is true that with the help of technology and science, we think differently nowadays and our society is evolved, but we are not different species than human beings who lived centuries ago. In addition, it can be accepted that steam engine is invented from a simple kettle or human being is descended from apes and apes are evolved from other species and all species are created from nature, but no one could or still can answer where our universe has come from.

Also, Butler criticize Darwin's writing as misleading and mischievous. I think Darwin's style of writing is for all kinds of audiences. If Darwin explained all his ideas in a scientific way, it would be difficult to read. Moreover, as Dr. Ogden mentioned in class, there might be a possibility that Darwin wrote his book in a hurry. Moreover, it is discussed that Darwin persuades people well to buy his ideas. This can be a good example of natural selection or survival of the fittest itself. There might be other authors who mentioned evolution theory, but Darwin presented himself better. Therefore, we can conclude that commercialism is dependent on natural selection as well.

Darwin's family background in religion

Charles Darwin was baptized on November 17, 1809  at St. Chand's Church in Shrewbury, England. His mother took him to Unitarian church until he was eight years of age. Unitarianism is a theology, which holds that God is only one person as appose to Trinity that views God as father, son, and holy spirit in one Godhead. Darwin's mother died when he was eight years old, but he continued to attend church regularly with his sister. One of his grandfathers, Erasmus Darwin, as well as his father were freethinkers. A freethinker has a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be based on science, logic, and reason as appose to authority, tradition, and dogma. Although, Darwin's father was a freethinker, but as a physician he avoided any social conflict with his Anglicans patrons. The extended family of Darwins and Wedgwoods was supported by the Whigs who were Unitarians. Whigs were a party in British parliment who contested with Tories. By looking at Darwin's family background, it can be assumed that the family were not as conservative as others at his time.

The new atlantis

Francis Bacon values science on his "The New Atlantis" and argues that the more knowledge human gains by using science, the more it brings relief to human estate. As a matter of fact, he believes that gaining knowledge and science is a form of power. I agree with Bacon's argument as by the help of science human makes progress in life and are able to reach new technology. Moreover, he believes that nature is a mean for acquiring more knowledge as oppose to Pope who values nature and believes that nature does not have to be destroyed. In my opinion, human destroys nature to explore and invent new things. In return, human life can be destroyed by natural phenomena such as earthquake, hurricane, and flood.

Darwin's sexual selection

In my opinion Darwin's sexual selection does not hold for all females. I think in this era sexual selection theory is controversial, especially among feminists. Darwin believes that in every species males are stronger than females, but it cannot be true about human. As we see in our society, there are lots of strong and independent women who manage their life so much better than men. In addition, I disagree with Darwin's idea in struggle for life that the strongest species will survive and the weakest will die. As we discussed in class, if we want to use Darwin's idea in today's economy, although small retailers cannot compete with the big ones, but it is possible that small companies grow. Darwin's ideas were new in his own era, but it needs to be modified to be used in twenty-first century.

To understand Darwin, it is important to know and understand the people that shaped his life. As a child Charles Darwin was always interested in biology, be it plants or animals. One of the most influential people in his life was his uncle. If it was not for his uncle providing the support for Charles Darwin's main voyage, much to his fathers disagreement, he would not have provide ample support towards his hypothesis. It was because of this voyage to South America he was able to make collections and draw conclusions from different plant and animal species. Although literature does not suggest his uncle provided support in regards to biology, he provided the stepping stone that would accelerate his career, and make him one of the most famous people in history

An Essay on Man has an important message, especially in regards to this era. Although written in 1732-1734, this work not only illustrates the potential of man, but also their demise. As technology increasese, so does our dependence towards it. We are taking more from the earth than we ever had, and this is due to the rapid growth in the human population. Consumerism is also a threat because it is what drives us to live over our means. The literature is stating that to live within our means equals happiness and harmony. This theme is illustrated in the film Koyaanisqatsi which in English means life without balance. The world always has a way to balance itself out, and us as human beings are pushing the envelope and are attempting to get away with the destruction of our planet.