Reproduction

At the end of my chapter on sex I disputed the arguments of those that try to explain human behaviour in terms of genetic evolution. I don’t know that I was very convincing as it was added to the post as an afterthought. However, I do stand by my point that evolution fails to explain our behaviour when it comes to sex, and by extension, love. And having read what I have written already, I’m sure that you’ll understand my strong issues with the notion of reducing the mental state and behaviour of ‘love’ to some sort of exquisitely intricate process of natural selection. Human life includes instances of a great many different love- and sex-behaviour types occurring within a single genetic makeup. If our actions were governed by genetics and biological impulses they would surely be considerably more predictable. There is a way to bring reproduction into the question of love and sex without abandoning the role of consciousness, experience and individual decision making in governing behaviour to vague genetic ‘drives’. A discussion of evolutionary drives may be interesting and even fruitful in some areas but when we’re talking about the movements of the human consciousness, of your consciousness, genes only play a role in boundary setting – in providing the conditions for environmental stimulus to act in. Our study is concerned with engaging with a phenomenon that takes place within human consciousness and what happens to human consciousness when the phenomenon takes place. Sure, biochemical reactions are hardwired – they are part of what constitutes consciousness. Of course, I could say that love is just electrical impulses biochemical reactions and on some level I would be correct; but only on the same level that I could call a book paper and ink. I would be technically correct but categorically wrong (i.e. I would be answering the question using the wrong category). So what I am saying is that evolution and genes are one way of talking about and explaining the form of human existence but fall very far short of explaining the content.

‘Environment’ or ‘nurture’ is what has most effect on our day-to-day decisions, on the content of our thoughts and probably even play just as much a part as genes on what kinds of thoughts that we find ourselves able to have. Still, there is an evolution process at work even in our mental landscape and our knowledge of this is, to me, a more understandable explanation of our desire to reproduce and the role of love and parenthood in reproduction than a mere ‘survival of species’ abstract. Just as all love is in some way about affirmation of selfhood, so too is reproduction (more so, even). People do not reproduce because they care about their species continuing on the planet for a few hundred years more. If they make a choice at all then I suggest that they do it because on some level they want to reproduce themselves. Reproduction, along with all forms of love, is driven in a large part not by the hardware of existence but by the software – not by a process of genetic evolution but by a process of memetic evolution.

In Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’ he introduces memes. Memes are a concept intentionally linked with genes. Just as genes represent units of code that make up our physical nature, memes are units of knowledge. Genes are passed on down generations while Memes can be both passed down generations (through culture) as well as spread throughout a single generation. Not only this but they mutate and adapt within a single organism or, more precisely, within a single mind. For a detailed explanation of the theory of memes and its implications I strongly recommend that you watch this fantastic TED lecture by Dr. Susan Blackmore.

To summarise though, Dr. Blackmore points out that wherever you have:

- Copying

- Variation

And

- Selection

You must get design without the need for a creator. This is the equation at work in Darwinian genetic theory and it is the equation at work in memetic theory as well. Our DNA and environment is the arena in which genetic evolution occurs. Our minds (and interaction between two or more separate minds) are where memetic evolution occurs. I would go on to suggest that somewhere around the selection part of the equation is where the moment of love occurs as well.

The human public sphere is formed of copying – memes are that which is copied – like a packet of data copied from one hard drive to another. Where the hard drive analogy breaks down is that a hard drive-to-hard drive copies data exactly, whereas mind-to-mind almost invariably generates imperfect copies – causing the mutation of memes.

For early man, the meme of how to catch a fish is passed on through demonstration – copying the motions involved in this skill through observation and practice. The fish catching meme may well mutate and evolve over time just as genes can and, ideally, the more useful version of this meme will replicate more successfully. In early man memetic evolution, on the whole, would have been driven by utility. However there are always peculiar memes, like putting flowers in your hair or painting on a wall that serves little immediate purpose but nonetheless spread effectively. This is because the selection process of memes does not exclusively take place in the arena of survival as it does with genes. Upon the development of language we became able to copy many memes from person to person without the need of demonstration or even direct contact. So as survival for any given human becomes more and more assured, regardless of what brain space they devote to each meme, and as memetic reproduction becomes increasingly divorced from the actual process of physical reproduction (it’s easy for me to pass my ideas on to your children) – memes become able to evolve in ways that are not directly or necessarily ‘useful’ for their carrier. As a result we create became able to copy memes that are not demonstrable, or demonstrably good. Memes about feelings, about morality, about God, about fashions, about breakfast cereal jingles. Nonetheless, for better or worse, these memes make up a large part of the decision-making parts of our brains. Acquiring more and transmitting the ones that we find ourselves using becomes a large part of our existence. Comparing, copying, sharing memes is where moments of love happen. This new category of reproduction may have arisen out of evolutionary drives that we tend to associate with love (but are not love) such as: affection, protection, fidelity, desire to physically reproduce. I would suggest that love itself either arisen from or evolved as a result of the transition from man as gene machines to man as meme machines.

An interesting side-note here, relating to a question that I have been asked that may warrant a chapter in itself is ‘Can animals fall in love?’ The answer, given what has already been said is yes – but only in as much as that animal can recognise another being as a conscious being and only in so much as that animals mind is capable of being a space for the copying of memes. The ‘power of love’ (the degree to which feelings of love might override other behavioural drives like ‘get food’) in these animals probably lies on a sliding scale that correlates to the power of their brains to deal with many memes and therefore recognise not only ‘others’ but differences in others.

When I think about having children I don’t tend to think about my contribution to the gene pool. The thoughts that I have, the ones that affect my conscious decision to have children are those that relate to how I’m going to bring them up. What am I going to teach them and how am I going to teach it? How will my views on how to live work alongside my partner’s views and my society’s? Or to put those same questions in another way – will I love my children and will they love me in return?

Some elements of life I hope to lead by example, others by talking and other areas are probably best left for the child to figure out on his or her own – to provide a space for variation; a space for the new. We, as a society, now consider these to be the most important questions to ask before you engage in reproduction – not “Can you create another organism that is capable of survival?” but “Can you create another being that is capable of appropriately copying, varying and selecting ideas within the artificially predefined boundaries of society?”

People have purely biological desires to physically reproduce their genome as best they can, yes, but those desires are increasingly secondary to the conscious desires to do so only when they are able to provide a framework for controlled copying of good ideas about how to live. Whenever someone hears their biological clock ticking and wants to reproduce but decides because of their particular circumstances that it would be better to go childless – it is a triumph of memes over genes. That person contents themselves with other kinds of reproduction – other kinds of love.