if diversity is the key to survival on the macro level, unification and gentrification is making us as whole less fit and more susceptible to getting wiped out. if we had diversity, maybe there would be survivors.
there’s been no beehive loss in cuba because they’ve been unable to import pesticides due to the embargo. so their cultural vacuum actually allowed their bee population to survive. said another way, their culture was ‘more fit’ for bees. so the more diversity of culture we have in the world the more likely we have a variety of ‘fitnesses’ that will help our species survive.
the question: is there an existing ‘pesticide’ among us that we’re unaware of today that will wipe us out? and is that “pesticide” fully globalized? to use a concrete hypothetical: perhaps the next generation of cellphones gives each owner incurable cancer. then, only those without cell phones would survive — they were more fit, not physically, but culturally.
if we’re still on board with this logic, then the history of humanity can be seen as ironic. from our time as apes we’ve been constantly learning and communicating about the world — trying to decipher methods of living and tool making that made us the most fit. more example, the way Facebook reimagined human socialization and went viral was likely very similar to the way the bow and arrow became popular (granted over different timelines). “have you heard of this thing that lets you kill food without chasing it? it’s way easier to get meat. it helps you meet girls.” i can’t be that far off.
another concerning antievolution consideration stemming from globalization is the homogeny of thought and experience. the lack of diversity of thought stemming from a homogenous pool of instantly available and centrally located information (think your Facebook feed) leads to — not group think — but ‘species think.’ So if we understand the benefits of biological diversity (Darwin’s fitness of species), and cultural diversity (the cuban honey bees) then what about intellectual diversity?
Let’s consider the potential lack of diversity of collective human thought over time as a result of globalization (i.e. global access to the internet). The more Japan and the US and India and others become similar, our thought processes and perspectives become homogenous. The less different we are, the more similar our ideas will be. The more People Magazine we read, the less Tolstoy. (I’ve never read either, haha).
When brainstorming how to save our species in a hypothetical dooms day event in thousands of years, we probably don’t want to be a large group of (i guess tan-skinned) people who all have all similar life experiences likely inhabiting our sustainable hydroponiclly farmed high-rises. We’d probably want a diverse group of thinkers tackling the problem in different, creative ways. A homogeny of ideas and communication of ideas leads to singular ideas (or at least those within a narrow track). We’d likely arrive at a local maximum rather than a global maximum (pun!).
If we start from the idea that all of life emerged from a single evolved prokaryote (my biology is rusty), and spread out from there, like a fire work, then it feels like that firework, at some point, may collapse in on itself. we go from singularity to diversity back to singularity.
it’s like we as a species are all, biologically and now culturally, searching for the highest ground. once we find it, we’ll gather there and rejoice on the peak. all of us together. but what, then, if lightning strikes that peak? will there be “lowlanders” to carry on? or maybe humans go the way of dinosaurs. maybe the dinosaurs saw the comet coming, but they didn’t have the intellectual diversity to solve the problem.
evolutionary fitness and intellectual similarity seem to be at odds.
a sad but rationale thought from this line of thinking is that racism is actually evolutionary instinct to preserve our diversity. why do some people fear or hate other races? it surely isn’t from a place of sound logic.
looking forward — how do we preserve variety of ideas while continuing to find the best path for our cultural and social evolution? can we? does it make sense to embrace a schism of ideology on a high level as a means of human preservation?
imagine if all trump supporters or all clinton supporters moved to different halves of the US and embraced their beliefs moving forward in isolation. fast forward tens of thousands of years — perhaps one group is more fit than the other. not unlikely.
cultural homogeneity and globalization seems to be at odds with survival of the fittest. thinking down that path we can pick a couple easy examples like ‘educated people have fewer children’ and ‘lesser educated are more racist’ — maybe the smartest among us are the least promoting of diversity and procreation? the most “sophisticated” are the least “fit,” in this example. ironic.
lots of open questions here but human existence as one long twisted joke with a beginning, middle, end with a dark punchline feels pretty spot on to me. primordial soup leads to biological singularity leads to biological diversity leads to intellectual diversity. globalization brings is back to intellectual singularity. then back to primordial soup?
what’s the point of life, then? there is no point, life is joke! lighten up. and, like a joke, it’s just supposed to be entertaining and funny.