Evolution Sucks

I. INTRODUCTION

In line with Darwin's theory, I assume that all life forms arise through evolution. Of course, this assumption is not provable.

II. THE CREATIVE IMPULSE

First, I discuss a book $[1]$, titled "Der schöpferische Impuls" (The Creative Impulse) by the German biologist Josef H. Reichholf. I found this book in an antiquarian bookshop. One of its statements is that the progress of life was primarily driven by global crises. I believe that this is incorrect. I reject the hypothesis that evolution was driven forward by global changes. My reasoning is that sexuality is the last activity animals would abandon. Sex nearly always leads to reproduction. This has the consequence that evolution continues despite any crises.

Despite my disagreement with some of its hypotheses, I found this book very stimulating and thoughtprovoking.

III. OPTIMISM IS STUPID

As an example, let's consider an important food fish, the Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). A herring can live up to 20 years (if it is not eaten first). Over its lifetime, a female fish can spawn up to 1000000 eggs. Most of the eggs were eaten, but some manage to hatch. From these, also most were eaten, but some survive. I am sure that herrings don't think about their situation, but if they could, they would feel very optimistic. They might think something like "Up to now, I have survived. This means that I am very clever. I also will avoid being killed in the future."

Of course, their survival was only a matter of luck.

IV. EVOLUTION SUCKS

The progress of evolution happens by accident. Evolution neither has direction nor purpose. There is evolutionary progress only through reproduction. In recent decades, researchers have gained a better understanding of how it works. Specially, how the genetic material is transported.

However, evolution has some 'disadvantages'. Here I present a few.

First, I want to mention the book by the German forester and author Peter Wohlleben: "Das geheime Leben der Bäume" (The secret life of the trees) [2]. It was published in 2015, and it was a huge success in Germany.

Wohlleben describes trees are caring, social beings. He writes that older trees supply nutrients to younger trees through their roots. I believe that the seemingly solicitousness is nonsense. There is another explanation for the observation. Perhaps the young trees are simply parasites. The adult trees might have an excess of nutrients. Therefore, they did not develop any defence against the younger trees. But the name "caring trees" sounds much more appealing for a socially-minded human.

According to the theory of Darwin, all life forms are generated by evolution. Yet when in radio or TV something is discussed about evolution, it is portrayed as a mysterious process, guided by a kind of secret force. Some people think that evolution has a direction, i.e. simpler life forms evolve automatically into sophisticated ones. This is nonsense. The development of life's diversity is largely a matter of chance. Creatures develop intelligence only if it provides an advantage in the struggle for survival.

In Darwin's theory, I miss the word "death". That means, I miss the portrayal of how evolution works.

On one hand, evolution is incredibly creative. It generates complex organs, for instance, an eye. On the other hand, it is cruel and merciless. Nature often eliminates individuals who aren't well-adapted. Indirectly this is expressed by Darwin's slogan "Survival of the fittest". Usually an anomaly is 'punished' by death.

Evolution advances because only those whose genetic material is passed on survive. It is at the cost of those who don't. In fact, it would be enough just to prevent certain individuals from reproducing. Evolution achieves this by killing those who are less fit.

In this light, modern medical care runs contrary to evolution. The progress of medical science, which saves life and reduces suffering, goes against the brutal mechanism that drives natural selection. From an evolutionary perspective, medical progress is a cul-de-sac.

Evolution advances through death. One important requirement for the development of humanity has been the poverty of human societies. Poverty ensures high mortality rates — through starvation and disease — which, in turn, drives evolution. Seen in this way, the fight against poverty might seem counterproductive, as it interferes with this natural process. Ironically, when poverty is reduced and population numbers increase, poverty tends to reappear due to limited resources.

For the majority of people there is only one guarantee against poverty in seniority. They must have as many children as possible. Some survive and facilitate their old parents.

In a human society with 'good' circumstances, people propagate as long as it turns into 'bad' circumstances, or, in other words, people propagate as long as the number of fatalities is equal to the number of newborns.

It is a fact that, in all species without an exception, the number of offsprings far exceeds what's necessary for species preservation. Since the number of individuals of a species remains relatively stable, the logical consequence is that most animals die in younger age, i.e. they have no offsprings. Mostly they suffer a violent death. It is very seldom that an animal dies of old age. It may happen to an elephant, or other animals with little predators.

Most of the humans often hold contradictory beliefs. On one hand, they see themselves as the "Pride of Creation" – a species of exceptional value and importance. On the other hand, people owe their very existence to evolution – a process driven by competition, suffering, and death. Evolution's engine is the elimination of those less fit to survive – including the death of those who carry 'unsuccessful' genetic material.

V. THE GLUT SOCIETY

In recent decades, several books have warned about the dangers of climate change and related environmental problems. I'd like to mention a few of them: the Club of Rome's "The Limits to Growth" (1972) [3], Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" 4, which addresses the problems with the insecticide DDT, or "The Doomsday Book" by the British Gordon Rattray Taylor 5. Even before these well-known works the German author Anton Metternich wrote "Die Wüste droht" (The desert threatens) [6]. The book, published in 1947, warns of the possible spread of deserts in the future. Metternich wrote the foreword in 1944, and interestingly, there are only vague references to World War II – perhaps suggesting that, for him, the war was not the most significant global crisis. The book, however, was not successful. In those post-war years, the Germans had other concerns than the looming threat through climate change.

Today, we see a stark divide between wealthy countries like those in Europe, and many poorer countries around the world. I strongly believe that the prosperity of some nations depends on the poverty of others. Here in Germany, many goods are produced, but I doubt that this economic advantage can last 'indefinitely'. This situation will continue 100 or 200 years, but in the long run production takes its toll on the environment – particularly through agriculture, which slowly but surely removes the soil by the wind.

In my society, I am classified as to be 'at risk of poverty'. But I think that this is nonsense. Actually, I enjoy a lifestyle that 1000 years ago would have been almost unimaginable. For instance, every day I use warm water. Some people dream of an 'unconditional basic income', but this would be impossible due to the high costs. I believe firmly that if 'many' people have access to these comforts, this would ultimately destroy the environment.

People's desire for a comfortable life drives their pursuit of money, which in our society represents the key to comfort. Yet people often overlook the fact that money has no intrinsic value. Its worth comes entirely from a country's economic strength. When you have $20,youarenotthinkingofthephysicalbills–yo{u}^{\prime }rethinkingwhatyoucanbuywiththat$20.

Germany's experience with hyperinflation around 1920 illustrates this well. When people lost faith in the currency, the money itself lost all value. Everybody was a millionaire, yet even with a million mark you couldn't buy a loaf of bread. I still own a postage stamp from that era with the face value of "10 Millionen".

Our system, capitalism, does offer some advantages such as personal freedom and social security. However, these benefits are not guaranteed; they are fortunate side effects rather than essential features of the system. History shows us that capitalism's alternatives – like communism, developed by the German thinker Karl Marx, has often failed even more dramatically.

Finally, I want to emphasize that these arguments reflect my personal opinions and subjective views. They are not presented as absolute truths – merely my perspective on the world as I see it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank Gavin Crosby for information, and as well as Lydia Ramachandran for a careful reading, and Oksana Fidan and David Searle for support.