There's an inherent contradiction looming over grand theories about where we stand in the scheme of history, and what we should do about it. Whether it be Darwinian evolution, cycles of elite overproduction, Strauss-Howe's "turnings" or Spenglerian civilizational souls and destinies, this contradiction presents itself in the following popular motif: "there is this natural historical development because of some hidden law, which dooms us all to a certain outcome.
However, by becoming aware of it, we can work against it and change our destiny." Lately, for example, Bret Weinstein has been a strong proponent of such a theory, in his case referring to Darwinian maladaptation to the modern world and how we need to counter it.
Postulating the existence of some sort of natural law guiding human destiny, and then advising us to break that law, presents us with an obvious problem. Either this really is a natural law, which means we cannot escape it anymore than we can breathe underwater or escape death. Or, we can escape it by an act of will — but if we can do that now, so could various people in the past at different historical junctures, which then raises the question of how much of a law this really is, or why people in the past should have had less free will than us.
Take the idea that we are maladapted to modern life because of Darwinian programs that arose in a very different context, and are now screwing things up for us moderns who are faced with an environment so radically different from the past. This is all fine and good, until you say "but well, just act against those programs." Either the Darwinian process of natural selection works as advertised and there simply is no escaping it — we will naturally adapt, or we will be selected out of the game, evolution continuing its thing regardless as the blind force that it is. Or, we have a conscious choice, but then so did people in the past: it wasn't a natural process of selection after all, but people constantly making choices to consciously interact with changing circumstances.
But this means there is no reason why we shouldn't be adapted to our modern environment too, since presumably people have been consciously adapting over the course of our collective walk into modernity. Conscious adaptation means we don't need vast timescales, and that our bio-psychological make-up is the result of a much more flexible process, countering the idea we could be "maladapted."
In other words, if we can break Darwinism at any point, what, then, survives of Darwinism? It's the same dilemma faced by the eugenicists from the other direction: either Darwin takes care of it, or he fails, requiring our "correction," but then he ain't no Darwin....<<<Read More>>>...
