(A brief Aside: in the course of this article, I express ideas which I don't actually believe simply to make a point. It's called satire. Please don't send me hate mail for being an evolutionist. I am, in fact, not. In addition, I'm aware that I oversimplify a few matters here, but it's necessary. Trust me-- I didn't want to write a dissertation today!)
A few days ago, I was discussing with a friend the idea that beauty could not have evolved, or that it would offer little reproductive advantage in the grand scheme of natural selection. Birds sing. They sing as a mating call. But there's no reason why a female bird should find a male's song pleasing. There is no gene, as far as we know, for preferences.
Likewise, there's no reason that a peahen should be pleased by the bright and daunting plumage of a peacock, nor is there any reasonable explanation of how having said plumage makes the male a better reproductive choice than anyone else.
There are beautiful mollusks that live at the bottom of the ocean. They have no eyes, and they can't perceive their breathtaking colors. The colors give them no special adaptations over their less attractive counterparts. And in our day-to-day adventures, we never would encounter them, so they give no advantage to anyone else.
Moreover, the ones which live within grasp of humans, you would expect, would evolve to be less attractive, since that gives them the advantage of being left alone on the beach, and not picked up and taken home, where they wither and die.
Attractiveness to the eye stimulates chemicals in the brain which are associated with the reproductive hormones. We know this. But consider this example: researchers discovered about five years ago that in male fruit bats, the size of the gonads is inversely proportional to the size of the brain. Interestingly, this gave reproductive advantage to both categories of males. Some females were attracted to the size, and they chose the males whose reproductive capacity was more obvious. The males with larger brains, however, were often able to “charm” females into mating with them. So the females who were less shallow, if you will, chose males who were more intelligent, giving their offspring a higher chance of propagating said brainpower, while the females who selected well-endowed males gave their own offspring larger reproductive organs. This polarization of traits means that mediocre males with neither larger testes nor larger brain are selected out of the population!
How all this affects us is a bit less obvious, but important nonetheless.
Imagine, for a moment, a lovely caveman community. It's spring, as we know, in the spring a young caveman's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love (1). Now without useful language, only minor grunts, a caveman (We'll call him Og) is not able to express his affection for a certain lovely cavewoman (aptly named Gra). Now, he has two choices: either take her by force as his wife, or convince her to come willingly. What's to stop Gra from choosing Gron, the strongest caveman in town, as her mate? Not to mention, Gron has a reputation of taking whomever he wants, and no one can stand up to him. Poor Og! Will he ever find love?
One day, as he is walking along the sandy shore, Og finds a round rock-looking object. It has a pretty flower design on it, and is quite nice looking. He thinks Gra will like it, so he takes it and gives it to her. Something important has just happened! Og has given the first gift! And now, Gra has a sentimental attachment to the sand dollar and, by proxy, to Og!
Later, Og finds a flat piece of bark. He smears some flower color on it, and again gifts it to Gra. First piece of art!
We now have a reproductive reason for art to exist.
But there's a major problem.
Let's fast-forward several thousand years. We've seen art develop from conjugal gifts. Probably first it was used to secure mates. As time went on, trade began to flourish, and art was no exception. Someone figured out that he could make the art and trade it for goods and services: the first professional artist! (the first corporate sellout as well?)
Cave drawings became a way to communicate, as well as decoration. Rocks were scarred with designs. Paints developed. Stories were told. Suddenly beauty was a commodity and it bled into everything: household tools had to be attractive. Precious stones developed value. And the human body became an expression of art as well when we mixed needles with ink.
Swords were embellished, breastplates stamped with images. Clothing became colorful. And in the Renaissance, our view of beauty developed even more. The early naturalists turned back to nature and smiled on it. They began to paint serene landscapes. Over the next five hundred years, our opinions on beauty were refined. Earth is beautiful. We established National Parks and Reserves to preserve that beauty.
But somewhere along the way, beauty turned against us.
As we discovered more of the world, we began to appreciate nature far above humanity. When we told the story of Earth, we cast ourselves as the villain, the invader, the rapist arriving on the scene and violently destroying what is pure and beautiful when left alone. In the words of Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park: "What's so great about discovery? It is a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."
As such we vilified the human race, to the point where we are now blaming and berating ourselves for the very climate changes which seem historically to favor evolution, especially speciation, AND which have yet to prove their detriment.
So in the past century or so, our perception of beauty has created a situation where in favor of preserving the beauty of the Earth, we are almost willing to destroy ourselves. Beauty has saved us, and condemned us. Beauty has become a villain, seeking to annihilate the human race rather than see Earth overdeveloped and species destroyed because of our selfish needs.
But I have one question:
When we are gone from Earth, who will be there to appreciate its breathtaking beauty?
No comments:
Post a Comment