EVIL IS NO ACCIDENT. EVIL IS A LOGICAL SYSTEM,THE CALCULUS OF PAIN, AN IRREPLACEABLE PATHWAY TO ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY. NOT ONLY IS EVIL A NECESSARY PRECONDITION FOR SENTIENCE, IT IS EVEN WHAT SENTIENCE WAS BORN FOR TO DO MORE OF, ONLY BETTER THAN BEFORE.
(Some will scoff at the, apparently naïve, use of the concepts “evil”, “sentience”, “born for”, “better than before”, etc. We will explain them all.)
***
***
EVIL IS NOT THE HAND OF FATE, IT’S A THEOREM PROCEEDING FROM THE AXIOMS OF LIFE. IT IS NOT A DISASTER, IT IS A MIRACLE. IT IS NOT LOVE’S ENEMY, BUT ITS PROGENITOR. EVIL IS ABOUT US. LOVE IT SOME, OR LEAVE US. WE JUST NEED TO HELP EVIL EVOLVE OPTIMALLY WITHIN OUR GLOBAL TECHNOLOGICAL ECOLOGY, SO WE CAN GO ON WITH EVEN GREATER MORAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
***
Warning: The most horrendous systems of thoughts, emotions and desires can evolve to rule, exploit, destroy, and exterminate. We call the vast ensemble these systems of thought form “EVIL”. Traditionally, when evoking Evil, humanist thinkers are supposed to tremble, and avert their eyes, or condemn loudly and sanctimoniously, lest they be considered accomplices of Evil itself. We beg to differ, and feel it should be the other way around. Far from being some horror out there in the distance, Evil is at the very core of what it means to be human. And it is ignored at one’s own risk.
***
However, Auschwitz was more about Evil deliberately ignored, by most of the population of a country that had been perverted by intellectual fascism, rather than about Evil expressed and imposed by a few individuals. All it takes for Evil to reign is for good men to ignore it. There will always be some Evil out there. We will explain why exhaustively: such is our biology, and it had to be. But Evil thrives only when left alone, all too long.
In any case, those who “Evil” embarrasses too much should go read something else, because we are going to hurt their delicate feelings. Maybe such sensitive individuals sense that Evil lurks, untamed, not too far away, in the recesses of their own minds, hearts, or behaviors, ready to pounce, at the slightest provocation, so they prefer to burrow their conscience in the sands of unconsciousness, a task that requires an efforts of every instant.
We demonstrate here that Evil was necessary for the apparition of sentient psychobiology. No less. NO PAIN, NO BRAIN. No hell, no heaven, no love.
In other words, Evil, far from being just an archaic nuisance best averted, was crucial for the rise of thinking, and the rise of all we are so proud of. Even to much adulated Love, Evil gave birth. Serious loving means deliberate determination to chop off the hydras’ heads. Besides those of a few lambs.
Evil is an emergent property. Such properties blossom when the whole is more than the union of its parts.
Emergence is a very deep meta property. One alludes to an aspect of emergence, when one evokes “Mother Nature”, a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Indeed emergence is the proverbial whole, more than the sum of its parts. Emergence’s existence is as deep as our knowledge of physics goes: Quantum Mechanics itself rests on it, because its conceptual core, the interference of matter waves, rests on it.
Evil itself served as a ground for that further emergence. Sentience was mostly born to manage what we have come to know as Evil. Love came later. The full appreciation of the good and the beautiful would not have come, but for the Devil’s good offices.
Hey, nobody said philosophy was going to be nice and cuddly all the time. The universe is rough, if one wants to live in it, it is wiser not to deny that. Philosophers have long held that principle of rudeness of the universe as obvious, and they have been hated for it. It comes with the territory.
The demonstrations herein the following essay also make use of, and point out that, biological evolution is not just about the evolution of species, or about the evolution of groups of socially bound individuals. Evolution is not even just about the co-evolution of species, but more generally, evolution is about the co-evolution of entire ecological systems, integrated with their associated psychobiologies. Thus, to complain about Evil being highly successful is to complain about ecological balance being highly successful.
Ecoevolution, and, in particular, Evil Ecoevolution, lay at the opposite side of the explanatory spectrum from the “Selfish Gene” theory. Not only does the “Selfish Gene” becomes a secondary show, but the spirit of evolution as a phenomenon pertaining mostly to entire ecosystems, pretty much throws the “Selfish Gene” theory out of the window, as an object of vivid interest. Ecoevolution is by definition selfish: it’s the whole show, and the public and all the environment imaginable, in one. It can exhibit intelligence, that is adaptation.
Morality evolved as the software for one ecological block. The rise of sentience is a consequence of this greatest of all ecological evolutions, the rise of a particular software. Evil protects the increasing complexity of the ecosystem, with its achievement of rising energy levels, against self destruction. Evil is intimately related the strategies that make possible to turn around the second law of thermodynamics.
Due to Homo’s commanding presence as the top predator and destroyer of all that be, Evil and Sentience evolved as controlling software packages for the entire ecosystem. Evil also boost Sentience, enticing it enough to make it do what Sentience, which is intrinsically social, since it needs to be taught, tends not to do naturally, due to its more loving ground state. Evil is about doing what love cannot do. Evil is about doing whatever is necessary for the perpetuation of the ecology, even though it may violently contradict the natural, normal, daily, loving sociobiology Sentience was educated by.
As the last few lines of this essay will make clear, one should not construe it as an unabashed, unrestrained apology of Evil.
The hunter gets to know the ferocious beast, but it is not just as a lover. Good hunting means good knowing. And then it ends up with the kill. Reciprocally, those who refuse to know anything about the bear, as they wander in its lair, will end up as dinner always.
Ignoring evil is not just a moral hazard, but a form of collaboration with the worst. Those who refuse to know the exact nature of the Evil at hand, or of the Evil that directs their ways, collaborate with it, be it only by feeding it with their work, or their gullibility. There is no innocence in blind benevolence. Blind benevolence is a contradiction in adjecto. Blind benevolence is not just a silence of the soul, it is not just an impotence of the soul, it is a denial of the soul. Whether we admit it or not, some situations that one should never get into require Evil to get out of them. SOMETIMES, HELL IS THE ONLY EXIT THERE IS. True evil, the only one that could have been avoided, is in the details of how we got there to start with.
This observation, that, quite often, devolution into hell can be completely attributed to the apparently innocent situation that preceded it, has very practical applications.
For example U.S. foreign policy, with its very long running, multi generational entanglements with Saudi and Afghan religious fanatics, Iraqi and Pakistani dictators, and even the CIA assisted rebirth of Shiite fundamentalism in Iran (1953), implemented the very condition of a devilish situation. “9/11” has been a (relatively) small piece of hell to pay.
Similarly, if the USA had considered the worst possible consequences carefully, it may have wanted to support its fellow sister republic and parent, France, in a timely manner, rather than to let some of the richest and most powerful elements of American business reality invest in Hitler’s criminally crazy “Third Reich”. True, this gave birth to the 50 year long “American century”. But was this piece of comfort and hubris for a few, worth 100 million killed?
The DEVIL HIDES IN THE DETAILS OF THE CONSEQUENCES. The best moral attitude is to control risk by choosing to expect the consequences to be as nasty as they could be foreseen to blossom, and then proceeding backwards from the overwhelming desire of never visiting such a hell hole.
The best moral attitude is certainly not in claiming that Evil does not exist. Or in claiming that man is Evil (Christianity’s theory of Original Sin), or that, to do away with Evil, the perception of that Evil universe should be extinguished (Buddhism’s Nirvana, the way of the Swastika: see no evil, do no evil). If Evil did not exist, none of us, poor devils, would exist, either. But that does not mean that Evil is good on the face of it (as all too many literal interpreters of the Qur’an have it). Evil is a resort, true, but a last resort, thank God.
***
ABSTRACT
EVIL EVOLVED BECAUSE ECOLOGICAL HARMONY REQUIRED IT.
In the long run of hundreds of millions of years, ecological harmony evolved sentience in the family hominidae. Looked at it that way, EVIL WAS A PRECONDITION TO SENTIENCE (without ecological harmony, sentience would never have had the time to evolve). In its most fundamental way, evil is the dynamic stabilization program for the survival of advanced evolution. (One should remember this when brandishing tough, or even Evil means to prevent nuclear weapons’ proliferation: EVIL IN THE SERVICE OF HARMONY IS NO EVIL. Thus, because an Islamist nuclear bomb is more destabilizing than an Israeli one, it may be acceptable to use evil means to prevent the former, while treating the later with benign neglect. The calculus of Evil is a subtle thing.)
Evil behavior is the part of psychobiology which entices higher animals to enjoy enforcing ecological sustainability by behaving ferociously, and even cruelly. Verily, it is not just species which evolve. On their own, individual species are constrained in how much they can evolve without the co-evolution of other species up and down the life energy chain. At some point, killing plankton becomes a greater crime than killing particular people (because, if all the plankton dies in an acidic bath, courtesy of the USA and its Chinese factory, we all die, and most the species with us.)
ENTIRE ECOLOGIES HAVE TO EVOLVE AS ENTIRE BLOCKS. They could not do otherwise. In particular, MINDS ROSE AS STEWARDS OF THE LAND, AND AS MODERATORS, AND MANAGERS, OF LOWER SPECIES, NOT JUST IN THE SERVICE OF EGOISM OR ALTRUISM of the species that carry them. Conscience, and sentience, did not evolve just to obsess about food, love, sex, reproduction, and even self preservation.
Minds have much more sophisticated purposes than just contemplating the universe. Minds also insure that the reproduction of others does not get out of control. (That is still another evolutionary reason why male lions kill cubs, besides the allegedly well known one that biologists have invented, that they want to foster their genes, or more prosaically, and quite obviously, that they want to become main significant other, and have sex; from our point of view, lions have evolved, not just to love lions, but to kill lions, too; a good proof of this is that, when his own cub is becoming a lion of his own, the dad, far from being proud, will kill him too.)
SEX AND LOVE IMPLY EXPONENTIAL GROWTH OF “TERMINATOR” SPECIES. EVIL AND ITS MINIONS RESTRAIN THE PROLIFERATION OF TERMINATORS BEFORE IRREVERSIBLE ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE IS DONE TO THE ENTIRE BIOLOGICAL SPACESHIP EARTH. In other words, EVIL IS A THEOREM, the demonstration of which nature made. L’ENFER C’EST POUR LES AUTRES (Hell is for taking care of others).
In truth, it’s not just minds, that enforce biological sustainability. Other species, by necessity, were always devised for co-evolution and ecology stabilization. (Too nasty a microbe cannot exist, because it would kill its host, for example, and be a contradiction onto itself!)
Conscience and sentience have a divine purpose. Out of them emerge the Gods, complete with Hell. As we will see, there are very good reasons why all religions have heaven and hell. Reasons that we were too unsubtle to gather explicitly before, but the time has come.
Wanting to know the Gods better, humankind always did, and will always do, because having those Gods are nothing else than the leading principles we need to organize our minds. The Gods keep us company… They are the highest principles we have, humanized so much they become our best friends. And they are not to be spurned. Nor is the Devil. Not only does He makes sense of them, and helps define them by greater contrast, it even gives them life. So I claim.
Hello,
Keep thinking in writing Patrice!
By: multumnonmulta on November 26, 2009
at 4:47 am
“Thinking in writing”: good concept. This is the jump from reality to incompleteness. One of my conjectures is that, deep down, this comes from the theory that will replace, or, more exactly, will complete Quantum Mechanics.
PA
By: Patrice Ayme on November 26, 2009
at 1:31 pm
This is interesting and seems to have promise but it could be clearer.
Also, I doubt you understand Buddhism very well – it’s not a homogenous school of thought anyway.
Man indeed should stop thinking of a separate ‘man within the universe’ – there is ONLY ‘the universe’ or ‘evolving ecology’, as you say.
By: G on May 3, 2010
at 3:16 pm
G: This is just the beginning of my book on Evil. Your questions and enquiries are welcome.
I know very well that there are many schools and interpretations and practices of Buddhism. Listening to the Dalai lama, or Daily Lama, I get sometimes the impression that Jesus is back. It has recently got to the point that it is nearly whatever. I knew some (American) “Buddhists” who did incantations to get better kitchen appliances. Philip Short, a British writer and journalist who for lived decades in Asia, shared my impression that a lot of what happened in Cambodia, the holocaust there, had to do with Buddhism. OK, that does mean that the Nazis, in my opinion, were Buddhist…
Although, they, too were obsessed by pain. In their case to be strong enough to receive it, and also strong enough to inflict it. Both Nazis and Buddhists seem to have privileged one hormonal complex, pain. The Nazis added another: power. Christianism had both, but also love. I think we should have all the hormonal regimes possible, to get to all the thinking possible.
PA
By: Patrice Ayme on May 6, 2010
at 5:08 pm
I don’t know what you mean by hormonal regimes; I think that you have some pretty esoteric weird things confused for Buddhism. The philosophers of the Kyoto School are a good source if you want to look into it properly.
Many scientists are foolish; not all scientists are foolish; science is not foolish. Some stupid Buddists don’t disprove Buddhism. The Bible, on the other hand, disproves itself readily.
By: G on May 6, 2010
at 7:14 pm
Kyoto school? That would be Zen Buddhism, I reckon. I do not know how you have the Bible “disproving itself”. How do maniacs “disprove” themselves? I have written, and was, coincidentally going to write more on my main blog about Jesus as chief hypocrite, exhibiting some quotes… You insist I know improperly about Buddhism, but I have read, and listened, to the Dalai Lama, for example. He is nice, but has not deepened my understanding of anything whatsoever. I like him like a warm, very diluted broth. Nietzsche, although often wrong, has much more interesting things to say, nuggets of new wisdom. OK, the Dalai Lama is not from Kyoto.
Different hormonal regimes lead to different minds. I do not believe one mind to be superior to another, independently of the environment (this is a basic principle of Quantum Mechanics, BTW). But, in some circumstances, some mental regimes, i.e. some hormonal regimes, are superior to others. For example, to be cool and composed is not always the best. Rage can be more appropriate. Just as, when confronted to fully active Nazis, termination (murder) can be the best.
PA
By: Patrice Ayme on May 25, 2010
at 6:58 pm
Read Buddhism properly, then decide. The Dalai Lama does a lot of public speaking and writing for general lay audiences. The original writings of the Buddha are extremely difficult to fully grasp. The Kyoto School is a merging of Western philosophy with later, Zen Buddhism.
Extract here of a great Zen essay:
http://thedailyg.wordpress.com/the-hard-kernel-of-religion-and-spirituality/
All I mean by ‘disproves itself’ is that it’s obviously wrong and self-contradictory, so it’s proved wrong even before anyone appropriates / misappropriates it for ill.
By: G on May 26, 2010
at 4:55 am
I do read the Dalai Lama. He had actually a piece in “Time” recently. It was targeted towards the present American audience, containing, as it did, a statement that would make Europeans scream by the third line, or so. So I am not too impressed.
Before I got savagely interrupted by various events, I was preparing another of my anti-Christo-Islamist mental torpedoes. I agree some people have good religious motives, but they may as well keep them for themselves. What counts are the deeds, not the claims to spiritual superiority. My aim is not to emulate the crowing of dead parrots, but to forge new wisdom.
In any case, thanks for the link, I will read it before I sink Christianity again (Sisyphus is never done).
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
By: Patrice Ayme on May 26, 2010
at 8:25 pm
I think you’re demented.
By: Sadie on December 16, 2010
at 3:33 am
“Demented”? Insults are particularly brief associations of concepts meant to hurt. Thinking is about presenting theories about what is really going on. Insults are easy, thinking is difficult. They ought not to be confused. Insults a spitting cobra can do, creative thinking, only the best people can achieve. Those who can only insult, contribute, at most, to mayhem.
Should you master your emotional jam, I would be interested to know what you mostly object about…
PA
By: Patrice Ayme on December 16, 2010
at 3:43 am
From: Eric A. Fri, Jan 14, 2011 10:10 am
Subject: SOPHIA: HOW EVIL ALLOWED BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION.
Hi. You’ve got some great reading on your Tyranosopher site. I just read about
Christ and cannibalism, and I had no idea the extent it influenced
history. You’re superb with history, and I like the way you think.
However, and here’s the bad news, you need to look more closely at
biology and psychology. (Read “Moral Animal” if you haven’t already.)
Throughout “SOPHIA: HOW EVIL ALLOWED BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION”, there are
numerous assumptions, extrapolations, and square pegs in round holes.
You do have the right idea though, evil did come about through
biological imperatives, or something about how humans originated.
Firstly, you make the assumption that herbivores will always eat
themselves to starvation. This is incorrect. Secondly, you make the
assumption that because some ecologies have predator and prey in
balance, that it is universal. This also is incorrect.
Take two simple examples: elephants, and buffalo. Vast herds are
supported. The American bison numbered in the millions. Both
elephants and buffalo are huge animals, and no healthy adults near a
herd are taken by predators with possible exceptions I haven’t heard
about. All kills are juvenile, or infirm, and at the time of the kill
are separated from the herd. All members of the herd tend to protect
all members of the herd. Predators don’t have a chance generally. I
just recently saw a nature show where a couple of lions had grabbed a
young water buffalo, which ironically got simultaneously grabbed by a
crocodile or two. By the end of the incident, the whole lion pride
had been routed, and the little buffalo was fine. Elephants similarly
defend. I can see no evil in these creatures. They don’t kill their
own, and while competition among males can be fierce, they nearly
always stop short of debilitating damage.
Secondly, just the numbers alone tell you that the buffalo herds are
not controlled by predators. Elephants had no real predators before
man. In fact, they are both controlled by the availability of food.
They migrate. When one area is grazed, they move on to another area,
and before killing the vegetation, which grows back. Goats and sheep
are a known problem as an exception: they graze to close, and kill
the grass. This was behind a lot of the friction between cattle and
sheep ranchers in the past. Also, you can’t use a situation like an
island to make a general case. The size of the herd is defined by how
much food they can find, and how fast they can move to new areas.
Predators aren’t evil. They don’t kill the own species, generally
(tigers might), although they will kill other predator species when
food is scarce or territory is too tight. This again isn’t evil. All
is done in moderation, with just a few exceptions like the shrike,
that kills bugs for adornment and mate attraction as well as food.
Evil is what man does: he kills for the joy of it, hungry or not, and
keeps killing as long as he has spare time. He kills his own species,
and even worse, his own tribe. If you think that the males are
screwed up, consider this: the females have no protection role. In
elephants, aggressive herbivores, and nearly all social predators, the
females have a defensive role on par with the males which includes all
members of the pack. There are exceptions among individuals to these
rules, but the overall effect is clear. Also, love is not just
teaching, it is protecting. Humans don’t love more or better because
they have to care for their young longer, it is because our intellect
offers more imagination in how we love. There is something especially
obsessive about our sex drive though. I’m not sure exactly what, but
it causes problems that we don’t even see in bonobos.
You also make the argument that the Roman empire was successful
because of their ruthlessness. This is also misleading. They were
successful for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the
enlightened way they built infrastructure, and protected the cities
they captured. Their industry and planning was top notch. They also
had democracy, limited as it was. The fall of the empire was also
more complex than just the loss of resolve to induce the most terror.
It was a slow erosion on many levels. Check out the bit where the
aristocracy was slow lead poisoned by their pottery. Their leaders
were going mad. The dynasties that held stability for so long were
dying, and being replaced by things like military coups. I’m not sure
of the full picture, but it wasn’t a simple one.
You are right that evil does have a place in the evolution of
societies, but human societies. It is a very complex role, however.
It is not just about survival.
It would be cool to see what you come up with if you decide to rework
this paper.
-Eric
By: Patrice Ayme on January 14, 2011
at 8:25 pm
Dear Eric:
Thanks for your careful input. You think that my knowledge of the biology and ethology comes short. Well, I have answers to all your points.
1) Ecology was unbalanced, long ago, when man killed, and REPLACED, the top predators. Highly social saber tooth lions were specialized in slashing the thick hides of large herbivores, and were exterminated in North America and Eurasia. Hence the huge herds. European lions and African lions were, and are, capable of attacking young elephants, and even to kill full grown hippopotamuses.
2) Lions will kill isolated, adult buffaloes, but it’s very difficult, and they do it only if really starving.
3) Bulls are extremely dangerous. I lived in the bush in Africa, and buffaloes are well known to be the most dangerous beasts. From the giant solitary bull, to hundreds of forest buffaloes charging in the forest, they are a sight to behold.
In Spain, combat bulls for corridas are brought up in semi wild conditions. They tend to die a lot, because they kill each other a lot. So they are intrinsically ferocious.
To some extent, so are various cervids (I was charged by two elks this fall, in 2 separate incidents, a well known danger in fall, in national parks full of elks, especially for joggers…)
4) My aim is not to “see evil”, but to understand how behaviors arise which the beholder holds to be evil.
5) Lions are notorious in killin each other. Male to male, male to female, male to cubs. at the very least. Lions and hyenas have extreme hatred for each other, and will attack as soon as they think they have a chance to kill.
6) Rome is a vast an long story. More than 21 centuries, looked at it in full. The factors you point at are were important for its success, indeed. However Roman ferocity was a main ingredient in this success. Dig around my site, you will find plenty of examples of it.
Thanks for the appreciation, and the input.
PA
By: Patrice Ayme on January 14, 2011
at 8:26 pm
Fascinating and highly informative essay and debate. I am not up to speed with either of you, but do recall that the famous biologist/entomologist Wilson (who became somewhat notorious for his ‘Sociobiology’) was highly informed on these subjects, to the extent one can be, and seemed to agree with you Patrice, in one of his more recent popular books, that humans were hyper-efficient predators once they hit the scene in full force, devastating entire continents rather quickly, and upsetting all sorts of ecological balances.
Your tales of the animals are vivid and full of the most powerful knowledge.
Thank you.
By: Geo on January 23, 2012
at 10:46 pm