Natural Selection
Using the readings, experiences from the field trip, and any other sources you can find, write a 5-10 page paper explaining natural selection, how it relates to humans, and how it has been misused to justify eugenics. Make sure that you cover Social Darwinism as part of the paper, but there have been plenty of other examples of natural selection being misused for eugenics, so feel free to expand into these as well. Your paper must use at least 4 sources, 3 from the course and 1 from outside of the course. At least 1 of the 4 sources must be a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This can be one of the articles summarized by Science Daily that are course readings, just make sure that you use the original article and not the Science Daily summary. You must use in-text citations and a works cited in APA format for this paper.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181204131118.htm
https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/making-fittest-natural-selection-humans
Introduction
The process involved in the adaptation of an organism to its environment is known as natural selection, where the organism is to reproduce changes within its genetic constitution selectively. The variations within the genotype can increase the organism’s chance of survival and procreation (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2020). The genes are also preserved and multiplied within the different generations, with the less advantageous variations being left out. To this effect, the process brings about evolution. The natural selection process will occur due to differences in survival, fertility, development rates, mating, or other life cycle aspects (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2020). The differences lead to natural selection such that they will affect the number of progeny left behind by an organism.
This research paper intends to delve into understanding natural selection. A discussion on how the process is related to human beings and how it has been misused to justify eugenics will also ensue.
Natural Selection
The co-discoverers of natural selection were Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Still, the former would become the chief theorist of the process as he discussed further the topic “On the Origin of Species.” Charles Darwin considered natural selection a complex drawn-out process comprising several interconnected causes (Mogilski, 2016). It needed a variation within the organisms’ population, the required variation to be heritable, and could be passed on to the descendants. The variation would go through the struggle of existence, a process involving the selection of variations conducive to survival and reproduction in its bearers. Nature will effectively select the animals to breed, thus creating evolutionary change, natural selection is a result of the struggle for existence, and when it comes to sexual populations, it is primarily a struggle for mating opportunities.
The struggle for existence itself is an outcome from checks within the geometric population increase that may have happened even when the checks were absent. All populations of fast and slow-breeding organisms become more significant in terms of size when there are no growth limitations imposed by nature. The chacks will take various forms when in distinct populations. Limitations may either be limited food supplies, nesting sites, diseases, harsh climates, among others. Nonetheless, the candidate reproducers will find a way to reproduce within the natural populations as others die prior to maturity. The variations within candidate reproducers determine the organism’s chance of being part of the actual reproducers. Heritable variations will ensure the offspring to organisms with the “beneficial” traits produce even further similar descendants themselves. Charles Darwin explained the concept of using wolves with long legs that are used to run faster in catching prey, hence avoiding starvation. These wolves will also produce offspring with long legs, and the process continues to their descendants. Through the iterative process, a trait that is conducive to reproduction and was found in a few population members is spread across the entire population.
A study conducted by Tobi et al. (2018) would demonstrate that the selective survival of embryos led o a decreased variance in DNA methylation (DNAm) at CpGs in individuals groups that have been exposed to adverse intrauterine exposures in comparison to the unexposed group of individuals. This meant that the decreased variance in DNAm that had been observed within a population could signal the selection during the gestation period. The selection becomes a tenable explanation to the Patterns of DNA associated with maternal adversities present in the earlier development stages in utero. To this effect, the epigenetic selection is significant. It needs consideration when prenatal adversity has happened shortly after conception since mortality during human embryonic development is extremely higher prior to and after the implantation. This research was inspired by evolutionary biology involving random genetic variations filtered in natural selection, leading to a collection of variants that are fit for the environment. It was evident that the random epigenetic variations within embryos are inevitably similar to a genetic mutation. Specific random DNAm variants could enhance an embryo’s ability to survive low nutritions, which are the limited resources.
Consequently, the epigenetic variants become common in cohorts that have been exposed to famine as embryos. The survival of famine in the uterus has been connected to the possession of the DNAm pattern that allows continuous embryo growth despite the limited resources. Notably, the DNAm patterns also have their negative health impacts on the individuals in their later lives.
Charles Darwin indicated in the concluding chapter of his book the Origin of Species that he foresaw open fields with extensive significant research dealing with the origin of man and history. This statement was the author’s only mention of human evolution in the entire book. This is because Darwin knew of the challenges brought about by his biological propositions, especially from the believers of unique creation. The author thought that it is better to put aside the delicate dilemma of human evolution. Nonetheless, Darwin understood that his theory also brought significant insights into the domain and revolutionized the way human beings think of themselves and their cultures. Therefore, it brings about the concept of Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism refers to the doctrines that justify forms of individual social or racial superiority over the evolutionary principles identified by Charles Darwin. These principles are primarily the struggle for existence and natural selection (Beck, 2012). The term will be used in teleological explanations to the root causes of human progress, which are affiliated with value judgments entailing the civilization degrees achieved by various populations. In the broadest sense, social Darwinism has been used to refer to any efforts that are made towards the application of the theory of evolution concept on natural selection into social theory, political systems, economics, and different domains in an individual’s social life.
Nonetheless, the notion has been commonly unknown for the infamous affiliations to the early 20th-century political ideologies targeted at making improvements within the human race. The idea would be used to justify eugenics, imperialism, race war, and various economic, political ideologies (Beck, 2012). Notably, the ideas were founded on different misinterpretations on the original ideas of Charles Darwin and the whole process of natural selection. Others would argue that early academics affiliated to the nefarious applications of the notion, such as Herbert Spencer and William Graham, would be misrepresented or misconstrued. Furthermore, most past works failed to apply contemporary discoveries into evolutionary biology, which would now replace Charles Darwin’s initial notions.
In the theory of evolution, the phrase’ “survival for the fittest” became the prevailing notion but was misinterpreted. The phrase would typically suggest that the strongest individuals would survive regardless of the setting; thus, it would be applied in social and political policies. It became common to find these policies being in favor of a particular group of persons over others. However, this was an inaccurate understanding of the phrase (Mogilski, 2016). Natural selection, a variation within a heritable trait, such as intelligence, causes the differential reproduction within a population of persons. For instance, persons with relatively higher intelligence levels may be better in adapting to new situations, as they invent creative solutions to novel challenges and attract potential mates. In this case, the more intelligent persons get to experience greater reproductive success than the less intelligent persons. Several generations later will comprise the intelligence trait being conferred downwards to the descendants who could also mean they increasingly become higher in number outnumbering the lesser intelligent individuals in this population (Mogilski, 2016). Through this example, the process of natural selection causes a survival through the consistent and continuous reproductive success of the fittest, who are persons possessing the trait conferring the reproductive success over the competitors. The fittest does not necessarily mean the strongest. Some adaptations of physical strength have also demonstrated detriment to the person’s reproductive success, such as the diversion of somatic resources to developing muscles becomes an inefficient utilization of the body’s resources.
It is prudent to state that there are no traits that are inherently better than others. A common justification used in the rationale for eugenics is that the human race could undergo improvements through an artificial selection of traits that are considered genetically superior to others. Eugenics is viewed as an attempt made in harnessing the power of reproduction to produce individuals with traits that can thrive (Anomaly, 2018). Considering the fact that each individual expects parents’ responsibility is the provision of an environment favorable towards the development of their children’s welfare, the advocates of eugenics also indicate that individuals should manipulate biology to promote well-being as long the process does not impose undue risk on the children or other individuals within the same environment (Anomaly, 2018).
However, the eugenics notions presume that there is knowledge of what traits confer a reproductive advantage. Traits are known to benefit an individual’s reproductive success when the organism has adapted to the prevailing environmental conditions through its help. One example is that of physical strength is essential in an environment involving a same-sex competition such as males only. Physical prowess will increase one’s competitive success and illustrate reproductive success. The physical strength may allow the individual to manipulate large objects or offer protection to their close ones. Therefore, the trait could be artificially selected to be included in upcoming human populations.
Nonetheless, less physical strength also increases one’s reproductive succession in other different environments. Less physical strength means lesser muscle mass and smaller body size in improving one’s speed or making an organism inconspicuous. Genes related to higher physical strength will negatively affect the expression of other traits such as the circulating testosterone levels and behavioral aggression. Therefore, while strength may be considered better in one instance, it negatively contributes to the overall fitness of the individual within a specific environment.
Applying the logic to social and political theory becomes inherently flawed since individuals and social systems are the intersecting traits and processes. Any alterations or favors offered to a particular trait with no considerations of its impact on related attributes and processes could have unprecedented consequences. The United States was among the countries to focus on the eugenics movement where they worked on eliminating the undesired traits from their population; its proponents indicated that the best method to achieve this was the prevention of unfit persons from having offspring. As at half the 20th century, 32 states in the country had enacted regulations that caused forced sterilization of over 64000 citizens, such as the immigrants, people os color, unmarried mothers, and the mentally incapacitated (History.com Editors, 2018). Adolf Hitler would also demonstrate the consequences of being one of the notorious eugenicists. He designed Nazi Germany racially-based policies to make the German master race stronger from the influence of non-Aryans within the German territory. He adopted the “survival of the fittest” notion in that the German “Aryan” race relied on its capacity to maintain the inherent purity of its gene pool. To this effect, particular groups and races were targeted as they were determined to be biologically inferior for extermination (History.com Editors, 2018). By the time World War II was ending, these theories had lost support in the United States and a considerable part of Europe. This is due to their affiliations with Nazi programs and propaganda and the fact that there were scientific foundations to the claims.
While eugenics was looking to improve the well-being of the individual and the world in general, there is a profound tension in the consequentialist justifications and assurances given to preserving reproductive liberties (Goering, 2014). According to Sparrow (2011), to handle a challenge that collides with unjust social norms, one needs to revert to the social consequences and not the welfare of the individual. Nonetheless, the main objective of liberal eugenics is the promotion of individual welfare. Furthermore, Sparrow (2011) questions the assumption of parents working to have the best child. He stated that if individuals have a moral obligation to produce the best and that when one has embryos that do not rank highly in comparison to others, it prompts a moral obligation to utilize a donated embryo. Therefore, as the policymakers seek to enhance the individual’s welfare, there is a need for better policies that are not strictly coercive as it then becomes state-sponsored control. In this case, there needs to be proper reasons why eugenics needs to occur and adequate strategies to eliminate any unprecedented occurrences.
Conclusion
Individuals have had various gene variations that have impacted their lives and that of their descendants. Charles Darwin illustrated how natural selection would enhance the preservation of a particular group of individuals who have adjusted to conditions in their physical environments and the biological aspect. Nonetheless, some individuals would apply this notion in the social aspect of the society. In the 20th century, particular groups would suffer discrimination due to being considered having undesirable traits. Over time, the harmful applications have been reduced, but the actions impacted the lives of many at the time. It has become necessary that extensive research is done to understand the process of natural selection before applying it to the detriment of others.
References
Anomaly, J. (2018). Defending Eugenics: From cryptic choice to conscious selection. Monash bioethics review, 35(1-4), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-018-0081-2
Beck, N. (2012). Social Darwinism (No. 1215). Papers on Economics and Evolution.
Goering, S. (2014). Eugenics (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eugenics/
History.com Editors. (2018, April 6). Social Darwinism. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/social-darwinism#section_4
Mogilski, J. (2016). Social Darwinism. 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_448-1.
Sparrow, R. (2011). Not-so-new eugenics: Harris and Savulescu on human enhancement. The Hastings Center Report, 41(1), 32-42.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2020). Natural selection | Definition & processes. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/natural-selection
Tobi, E. W., van den Heuvel, J., Zwaan, B. J., Lumey, L. H., Heijmans, B. T., & Uller, T. (2018). Selective Survival of Embryos Can Explain DNA Methylation Signatures of Adverse Prenatal Environments. Cell Reports, 25(10), 2660–2667.e4. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.11.023
