Qui Bono?
It's interesting you bring up the subject of evolutionary model of developement of music. I've been reading Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett and finally getting to juicy parts about the evolutionary model of cultures.
It's hard to immediately come up with an explanation for how music could make human beings more survivable. But the question of whether music makes human beings more survivable is not quite relevant to proving or disproving the evolutionary model. How is that you say? Let's quickly go back to some basics about the biological evolutionary model involving the DNA and expand on the idea with the concept of memes.
Important thing to remember from biological evolutionary model is that what matters is the survivability of the information in the DNA, not neccesarily the well being of the creature that contains the DNA. The classic mistake in thinking about biological evolutionary model is that what matters is the survivability of the creatures. The actual entity that survives from generation to generation is the molecular patterns in the DNA that constitudes genetic information. Various genetic patterns compete to continue their existence by copying themselves as often as possible inside the DNA. Of course if there is too much junk genetic patterns in the DNA it makes the creature that contain it weaker and less survivable, so they might be less likely to mate and have off springs. Eventually mechanisms that control such rampant distructive proliferation of such genes will eventually get in place, genes will keep each other in check. This sort of phenomena can be observed in real time (versus evolutionary time of millions or years) in creatures like fruit flies. In 1950s a lineage of fruit flies naturally developed through normal mutation what is popularly called the "p element" in its DNA. P element is a parasitic gene that copies itself rampantly across the DNA. P element itself did not add anything to the survivability of the fruit flies, in fact it hampered the survivability of fruit fly creatures, but it was extremely prolific within the DNA because it was so good at copying itself inside there from generation to generation. Eventually rest of the fruit fly genomes have adapted and found ways to supress the P element (as DNAsthat did not adapt was "infected" by P elements beyond survivability). However P element still exists widely inside fruit fly DNA to this day.
The latin phrase people use when asking questions like this is "Qui Bono?". (who benefits?) Did the fruit flies benefit from the P elements? The answer is no. Proliferation of P elements is irrelevant to the well-being of the fruit flies (until it reaches a point where fruit flies are being bogged down by so much junk P element genes that they become significantly less survivable and thus less likely to procreate and pass on the genes).
Now, I like to content that human biological evolution has halted a long time ago. We no longer allow the biology weak to perish. In fact our unique ingenuity has allowed us to become free of such a relentless system and we now figure out ways to keep the physically weaker alive and allow them to procreate. The consequence of this is that our DNA pool is objectively becoming worse and less survivable. The reason why this can happen in an evolutionary model is that DNA is no longer the method of choice for communicating information that contributes to survivability of humanity from generation to generation. Before human beings, generations of creatures would have to die for that species to "learn" (through process of elimination) how to handle a new situation. Now that is no longer neccesary. We communicate in real time through words, pictures, videos, etc. Human beings have biologically evolved to a point where information most vital to survival can be stored and transmitted from generation to generation from and to our brains. Human evolution is now no longer a genetic evolution. To use a term coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976), our mode of evolution is through memes - memory genes - fragments of information that is stored in our brains like genes are stored in the DNA.
Evolution of memes can happen much faster than that of genes. In the span of a few years (or even days) vast numbers of new patterns will emerge, proliferate, then disappear. Some will provide genuine benefit to the well being of mankind. Others will be free loaders much like P element is inside fruit flies.
Where does music fit into this? I think the benefit of music for human kind is a complex thing to measure. I think it creates a commonality that can enhance social cohesion that can improve the survivability of that society. Creative tendencies such as one involved in making music could be the same as ones that yield more tangible benefits for human beings. But a catchy tune that just turns out to "get stuck" in people head easily such that we infect one another through humming, and en masse over the radio waves, could simply be free loaders like the P elements.
Should music be abolished if it adds nothing to human survivability? Of course not. I think the problem happens when people mistake evolutionary science as a social philosophy. We can better understandd how the world works and so far it appears to run under an evolutionary model. The natural world is ruthless. But human beings have experience of happiness that is independant of that. Our challenge is to use everything we know about the world to further our goal of enhancing our human experience.
It's hard to immediately come up with an explanation for how music could make human beings more survivable. But the question of whether music makes human beings more survivable is not quite relevant to proving or disproving the evolutionary model. How is that you say? Let's quickly go back to some basics about the biological evolutionary model involving the DNA and expand on the idea with the concept of memes.
Important thing to remember from biological evolutionary model is that what matters is the survivability of the information in the DNA, not neccesarily the well being of the creature that contains the DNA. The classic mistake in thinking about biological evolutionary model is that what matters is the survivability of the creatures. The actual entity that survives from generation to generation is the molecular patterns in the DNA that constitudes genetic information. Various genetic patterns compete to continue their existence by copying themselves as often as possible inside the DNA. Of course if there is too much junk genetic patterns in the DNA it makes the creature that contain it weaker and less survivable, so they might be less likely to mate and have off springs. Eventually mechanisms that control such rampant distructive proliferation of such genes will eventually get in place, genes will keep each other in check. This sort of phenomena can be observed in real time (versus evolutionary time of millions or years) in creatures like fruit flies. In 1950s a lineage of fruit flies naturally developed through normal mutation what is popularly called the "p element" in its DNA. P element is a parasitic gene that copies itself rampantly across the DNA. P element itself did not add anything to the survivability of the fruit flies, in fact it hampered the survivability of fruit fly creatures, but it was extremely prolific within the DNA because it was so good at copying itself inside there from generation to generation. Eventually rest of the fruit fly genomes have adapted and found ways to supress the P element (as DNAsthat did not adapt was "infected" by P elements beyond survivability). However P element still exists widely inside fruit fly DNA to this day.
The latin phrase people use when asking questions like this is "Qui Bono?". (who benefits?) Did the fruit flies benefit from the P elements? The answer is no. Proliferation of P elements is irrelevant to the well-being of the fruit flies (until it reaches a point where fruit flies are being bogged down by so much junk P element genes that they become significantly less survivable and thus less likely to procreate and pass on the genes).
Now, I like to content that human biological evolution has halted a long time ago. We no longer allow the biology weak to perish. In fact our unique ingenuity has allowed us to become free of such a relentless system and we now figure out ways to keep the physically weaker alive and allow them to procreate. The consequence of this is that our DNA pool is objectively becoming worse and less survivable. The reason why this can happen in an evolutionary model is that DNA is no longer the method of choice for communicating information that contributes to survivability of humanity from generation to generation. Before human beings, generations of creatures would have to die for that species to "learn" (through process of elimination) how to handle a new situation. Now that is no longer neccesary. We communicate in real time through words, pictures, videos, etc. Human beings have biologically evolved to a point where information most vital to survival can be stored and transmitted from generation to generation from and to our brains. Human evolution is now no longer a genetic evolution. To use a term coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976), our mode of evolution is through memes - memory genes - fragments of information that is stored in our brains like genes are stored in the DNA.
Evolution of memes can happen much faster than that of genes. In the span of a few years (or even days) vast numbers of new patterns will emerge, proliferate, then disappear. Some will provide genuine benefit to the well being of mankind. Others will be free loaders much like P element is inside fruit flies.
Where does music fit into this? I think the benefit of music for human kind is a complex thing to measure. I think it creates a commonality that can enhance social cohesion that can improve the survivability of that society. Creative tendencies such as one involved in making music could be the same as ones that yield more tangible benefits for human beings. But a catchy tune that just turns out to "get stuck" in people head easily such that we infect one another through humming, and en masse over the radio waves, could simply be free loaders like the P elements.
Should music be abolished if it adds nothing to human survivability? Of course not. I think the problem happens when people mistake evolutionary science as a social philosophy. We can better understandd how the world works and so far it appears to run under an evolutionary model. The natural world is ruthless. But human beings have experience of happiness that is independant of that. Our challenge is to use everything we know about the world to further our goal of enhancing our human experience.
posted by cataclyst78 at
2:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home