Wilson et al. are wise to note the troubled history of attempts to apply evolutionary science to designing human futures. Not only should we remember social Darwinism (as they point out) and eugenics (including involuntary sterilization laws that were sometimes enforced in the United States until 1981), but we should also be cognizant of the myriad social and ethical ramifications of recent developments such as the Human Genome Project (Murphy & Lappé Reference Murphy and Lappé1994; Sarkar Reference Sarkar1998). Given this background, it should be obvious that any discussion of intentional social change using evolutionary principles should include explicit discussion of relevant normative issues, especially: (1) What kind of future should we want? and (2) Who makes this decision and how? It is surprising that these questions are not broached in Wilson et al.'s discussion.
There may be two reasons these questions were not broached by Wilson et al. in their discussion: These questions are relevant for any social policy-making process, regardless of whether it is guided by evolution; and the actual examples of behavioral change that Wilson et al. discuss (preventing child abuse, substance abuse, etc.) are relatively mundane and uncontroversial.
Those reasons are insufficient. First, Wilson et al.'s discussion makes it clear that the ultimate goal is to use evolutionary principles to guide much more substantive behavioral changes than the ones discussed in detail in their paper. This ultimate goal leads to problematic territory. For example, they take it for granted that group-level interests are at least on par with individual-level interests. But when we are dealing with human individuals, this is a normative assumption that requires normative justification. In simple situations, such as the classroom examples they discuss, the problem does not appear to be serious. But not all situations will be that simple. For instance, group harmony (if that is an appropriate interest) at a provincial or national scale, in religiously regimented societies, may sometimes be achieved only by abrogating individual interests, however they are framed (desires, rights, etc.). Whether, and to what extent, such abrogation is permissible or even desirable seems to vary widely in different cultural contexts – note the contrast between the liberal or radical individualism of most neo-European frontiers compared with the communitarianism of several traditional African and Asian societies.
Whether evolutionary reasoning allows such group interests to be achieved (i.e., it provides the appropriate techniques) does not in any way resolve the normative question of whether this is a goal that should be followed. What evolutionary reasoning does show, however, is that such conflicts are often to be expected. Therefore, instead of advocating intervention based on evolutionary reasoning, I wish to suggest that the appropriate lesson to draw from evolutionary analysis is that more effort be directed toward analyzing and resolving normative issues before we seriously consider intervention as an admissible policy option. This will require insight from a variety of disciplines; obviously the social sciences, but also the humanities, especially philosophy and cultural anthropology.
Second, Wilson et al. appropriately distinguish between short-term and long-term interests and use evolutionary reasoning to show that, once again, conflicts are to be expected. Part of the motivation for using (hierarchical) evolutionary principles is to ensure that long-term interests do not suffer from the pursuit of short-term desires engendered at the level of genetic evolution alone. But what should be regarded as these long-term interests? Even banalities such as the survival of the human species require normative justification – and human survival is sometimes even denied as a relevant goal in discussions in environmental ethics (Ehrenfeld Reference Ehrenfeld1978; Sarkar Reference Sarkar2005; Reference Sarkar2012). But leaving banalities aside, how should we identify long-term interests? More important, how should we act on them. Besides normative desirability, such cases additionally involve deep (probably unquantifiable) uncertainties about the future. Wilson et al. refer several times to climate change, and that is an apt example: scenarios and models help us specify future projections, which are not even precise enough to be dubbed predictions (Bray & von Storch Reference Bray and von Storch2009).
Making ethically appropriate decisions in the face of such added uncertainty raises a further set of normative problems about how to weigh uncertainty against ends (new problems for “practical reason”). The point is that if we are genuinely interested in long-term goals (as apparently required by the evolutionary perspective), such problems posed by deep uncertainties will be standard. (Evolutionary reasoning supports this conclusion: Few would claim any ability of contemporary evolutionary theory to predict the long-term future.) Formal decision analysis clarifies many such problems in the policy realm (Sarkar Reference Sarkar2012) but by no means provides algorithms for their solution. I am not claiming that we should therefore abandon evolutionary reasoning or worry about long-term goals; what I am claiming is that we should address our normative problems right from the beginning.
Now, it may turn out that we cannot resolve these normative problems. In that case, I suggest that the appropriate lesson to draw is to proceed with caution – not to let technological virtuosity blind us to our ethical responsibilities. I am glad that Wilson et al. are arguing for an attempt to emerge from the shadow of social Darwinism, eugenics, and the like, and deploy whatever evolutionary insights we have in the design of public policy. Nevertheless, we should move carefully. The ethical problems may turn out to be more intractable than the technological ones.
You have
Access
Wilson et al. are wise to note the troubled history of attempts to apply evolutionary science to designing human futures. Not only should we remember social Darwinism (as they point out) and eugenics (including involuntary sterilization laws that were sometimes enforced in the United States until 1981), but we should also be cognizant of the myriad social and ethical ramifications of recent developments such as the Human Genome Project (Murphy & Lappé Reference Murphy and Lappé1994; Sarkar Reference Sarkar1998). Given this background, it should be obvious that any discussion of intentional social change using evolutionary principles should include explicit discussion of relevant normative issues, especially: (1) What kind of future should we want? and (2) Who makes this decision and how? It is surprising that these questions are not broached in Wilson et al.'s discussion.
There may be two reasons these questions were not broached by Wilson et al. in their discussion: These questions are relevant for any social policy-making process, regardless of whether it is guided by evolution; and the actual examples of behavioral change that Wilson et al. discuss (preventing child abuse, substance abuse, etc.) are relatively mundane and uncontroversial.
Those reasons are insufficient. First, Wilson et al.'s discussion makes it clear that the ultimate goal is to use evolutionary principles to guide much more substantive behavioral changes than the ones discussed in detail in their paper. This ultimate goal leads to problematic territory. For example, they take it for granted that group-level interests are at least on par with individual-level interests. But when we are dealing with human individuals, this is a normative assumption that requires normative justification. In simple situations, such as the classroom examples they discuss, the problem does not appear to be serious. But not all situations will be that simple. For instance, group harmony (if that is an appropriate interest) at a provincial or national scale, in religiously regimented societies, may sometimes be achieved only by abrogating individual interests, however they are framed (desires, rights, etc.). Whether, and to what extent, such abrogation is permissible or even desirable seems to vary widely in different cultural contexts – note the contrast between the liberal or radical individualism of most neo-European frontiers compared with the communitarianism of several traditional African and Asian societies.
Whether evolutionary reasoning allows such group interests to be achieved (i.e., it provides the appropriate techniques) does not in any way resolve the normative question of whether this is a goal that should be followed. What evolutionary reasoning does show, however, is that such conflicts are often to be expected. Therefore, instead of advocating intervention based on evolutionary reasoning, I wish to suggest that the appropriate lesson to draw from evolutionary analysis is that more effort be directed toward analyzing and resolving normative issues before we seriously consider intervention as an admissible policy option. This will require insight from a variety of disciplines; obviously the social sciences, but also the humanities, especially philosophy and cultural anthropology.
Second, Wilson et al. appropriately distinguish between short-term and long-term interests and use evolutionary reasoning to show that, once again, conflicts are to be expected. Part of the motivation for using (hierarchical) evolutionary principles is to ensure that long-term interests do not suffer from the pursuit of short-term desires engendered at the level of genetic evolution alone. But what should be regarded as these long-term interests? Even banalities such as the survival of the human species require normative justification – and human survival is sometimes even denied as a relevant goal in discussions in environmental ethics (Ehrenfeld Reference Ehrenfeld1978; Sarkar Reference Sarkar2005; Reference Sarkar2012). But leaving banalities aside, how should we identify long-term interests? More important, how should we act on them. Besides normative desirability, such cases additionally involve deep (probably unquantifiable) uncertainties about the future. Wilson et al. refer several times to climate change, and that is an apt example: scenarios and models help us specify future projections, which are not even precise enough to be dubbed predictions (Bray & von Storch Reference Bray and von Storch2009).
Making ethically appropriate decisions in the face of such added uncertainty raises a further set of normative problems about how to weigh uncertainty against ends (new problems for “practical reason”). The point is that if we are genuinely interested in long-term goals (as apparently required by the evolutionary perspective), such problems posed by deep uncertainties will be standard. (Evolutionary reasoning supports this conclusion: Few would claim any ability of contemporary evolutionary theory to predict the long-term future.) Formal decision analysis clarifies many such problems in the policy realm (Sarkar Reference Sarkar2012) but by no means provides algorithms for their solution. I am not claiming that we should therefore abandon evolutionary reasoning or worry about long-term goals; what I am claiming is that we should address our normative problems right from the beginning.
Now, it may turn out that we cannot resolve these normative problems. In that case, I suggest that the appropriate lesson to draw is to proceed with caution – not to let technological virtuosity blind us to our ethical responsibilities. I am glad that Wilson et al. are arguing for an attempt to emerge from the shadow of social Darwinism, eugenics, and the like, and deploy whatever evolutionary insights we have in the design of public policy. Nevertheless, we should move carefully. The ethical problems may turn out to be more intractable than the technological ones.