≡ Menu

The Evolution of Coercion

Apparently, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on soda is the next phase in human evolution. Or so says Daniel E. Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard. In a recent New York Times’ article entitled Evolution’s Sweet Tooth  Lieberman writes:

We humans did not evolve to eat healthily and go to the gym; until recently, we didn’t have to make such choices. But we did evolve to cooperate to help one another survive and thrive. Circumstances have changed, but we still need one another’s help as much as we ever did. For this reason, we need government on our side, not on the side of those who wish to make money by stoking our cravings and profiting from them. We have evolved to need coercion. (emphasis mine)

So now science is behind government regulation? Yikes. Even scarier is the inference that government is behind human evolution. Listen, these guys can’t even figure out how to balance the national budget, so how in the world can we expect them to spur our entire species toward evolutionary ascent?

Lieberman’s attempt to meld scientific theory with public policy is disturbing. Especially when that theory leads to a nanny state. Or is the nanny state part of our biological destiny? Even more noteworthy is how Lieberman’s assertion undermines the very theory it is built upon.

If we did evolve “to help one another survive and thrive,” Who or What helped us before we could help ourselves?

Most proponents of biological evolution believe the process was random and unguided. How could it not be? Unless there is a Force, a Designer, an Almighty Code written in the stars, we have gotten here strictly by chance. So why do we now need a Guide?

If we are suddenly dependent upon Big Brother to keep us from becoming obese, my question is… where was our Brother’s Dad? Doesn’t that premise suggest that we are inherently dependent on outside forces to guide us — more specifically, Intelligent, Compassionate forces? Not that the U.S. government is any of those things. And how is it that we’ve evolved to need help anyway? That’s like “graduating” from riding a ten-speed to a tricycle. Shouldn’t we evolve upwards not… outwards?

Michael Bloomberg’s ban on soda, and the science behind it, undercuts the basis of evolutionary theorythe very theory it relies upon. Listen, if we’ve “advanced” to the point that we require politicians to stave off our extinction, we’re screwed. Can we really even say we’ve “advanced”? However, if we concede that our species needs outside help, needs superior minds in order to evolve, then we contradict the heart of evolutionary theory as a random, unguided process.

Unless, of course, Bloomberg and Lieberman are the self-appointed Minds who will guide us.

{ 17 comments… add one }
  • Jay DiNitto June 13, 2012, 5:57 AM

    A quick, interesting critique of unguided evolution: if evolutionary biology were true, our minds evolved with wiring aimed towards survival, primarily, and not necessarily truth.

    But anyways, statism (a broad term, but basically the idea that governments are a moral and practical solution for social order) is a misapplication of the human instinct to rely heads of families or tribes for order and guidance. We’ve been conditioned to trust people with our resources and livelihood that we’ve never met, who have never met us, nor know anything about us or our situation. Sounds like a step backwards to me.

  • Kat Heckenbach June 13, 2012, 6:19 AM

    I’ve got a book recommendation for ya, Mike. It’s written by an atheist with a degree in philosophy by the name of David Stove. It’s called “Darwinian Fairytales.” He basically analyzes human behavior and comes to the conclusion that we completely defy the idea of natural selection. I really think, based on many of the posts you’ve put up here, especially this one, that you’d enjoy it :).

  • Bobby June 13, 2012, 6:37 AM

    An interesting idea I’ve heard: Government is the referee of the United States’s ballgame. We’re the players. When all is going well, the referees don’t (and shouldn’t) step in. When the players start breaking the rules, that’s when government has to come in and wag its finger.

    I lean conservative, so I prefer government keep out of private affairs. But I can’t blame some politicians, social groups, etc. for wanting more regulation for business and private life when practices in those sectors get out of order. In this case, we’re looking at a ban on large quantities of soda. I’m no health nut, but I’ve seen both kids and adults these days, particularly those of my stripe who play video games. A ban on excessive amounts of sugar would not be a bad thing, especially when they won’t do it themselves and the rise of obesity will cost us more in health care down the line.

    But I don’t see that as your central point, Mike, so to comment on that: I think you’re spot on. Evolutionary theory is simply a complex, Pink Floyd-ian wall designed to keep God out.

  • sally apokedak June 13, 2012, 6:54 AM

    Well, you know Disney did that Wall-E movie so it makes sense that the government now wants to guard us from junk food. It’s the way we’ve evolved in this country, anyway. The people in Hollywood give us s message and the lawmakers scratch their heads and go, “Hey, yeah. We ought to make a law about that.”

    But I’ve been complaining about this since they made the sear belt laws. What gives them the right to tell me I’m not allowed to disable my airbags and my children have to sit in the back seat of my car? If I want to drive around with my kids in the bed of my pick-up why should they tell me I can’t do that? It’s dangerous? Well, sending kids to public schools is far more dangerous and they haven’t outlawed that yet. Abortion is dangerous and they haven’t outlawed that. Letting your child play with balloons and eat hot dogs is dangerous. Are they going to outlaw those?

    Oh, sorry. You didn’t invite rants, did you? 🙂

  • Lelia Rose Foreman (@LeliaForeman) June 13, 2012, 8:53 AM

    My jaw is on the floor. Oh, no it isn’t, it’s here, gritted tightly. One wishes to howl, but that would not be as articulate as you are.

  • John K. Patterson June 13, 2012, 9:26 AM

    I can see Loki standing above the crowd, a resplendent tyrant, declaring, “You were made to be ruled.”

    C.S. Lewis comments on this in an interesting way: “A tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive….Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

  • Joel Q June 13, 2012, 9:28 AM

    The new TV show HeadGames takes this: “But we did evolve to cooperate to help one another survive and thrive.” as one of it’s main themes to why people do things, both to join groups or do stupid stuff. The show has social evolutionists explain away bad choices/behaviors so people can survive.

  • Jill June 13, 2012, 10:30 AM

    My evolutionary drive is yet again desiring to use Swiftian flappers on all politicians and legislators when they say/propose really stupid stuff. They open their big fat mouths, and they get smacked. It’s freedom of speech with a twist. I’m not taking away their right to speak; I’m just changing that right to prevent obese politicians from gaining yet more weight off their power grabs. They will be healthier for it, and so will we all.

    This is the way the propagandists operate: they make smokers or fat people or fast food consumers feel really, really guilty about their way of life or the way they look–or whatever–so that when they ban or regulate substances, the cowed, guilty populace doesn’t bother with protests and sit-ins. If we give politicians cause to feel guilt with the Swiftian flappers, then they, too, will be cowed into silence. And we don’t need any elaborate scientific arguments, either. Just smacking devices. Simplicity=beauty.

  • Scathe meic Beorh June 13, 2012, 10:51 AM

    I see another Prohibition coming, complete with a Soda Mafia and drive-by shootings at Starbucks and other perceived enemies.

  • albert June 13, 2012, 11:04 AM

    The Evolution
    Yesterday I saw a film the island and by cloning people do not solve wealthy people from having an eternal life by keeping on patching bodies with replacement just for few more years. Because there is a beginning and there is an end of life. For everything that exist on this earth. A seed must die to produce a new generation or product. But the problem with humans is that if we mess about with nature we might end up deformed and what is beautiful today can be monsters tomorrow when I quote the bible there are fraises to make you think twice It says do not marry your father, mother, brother or sister because sin never dies. Explanation – marry means sex with same relatives the answer is having Down syndrome. Believe it or not one has to note that our ancestors were not as stupid at all but there was always someone with special gift on the way through generations. For some reason or other gifts were shown to us for our interest. Today we know we had King and Emperors but with gifts like these we call him a God. Reading on News the paper in the USA there was this Trent Arsnault he is 36 years and a virgin but by donating his sperm He has 16 Children from different women. What do you think if something likes this get out of hand? It has been noted that within ten years if this Children without knowing merry each other in time the USA will have a Epidemic problem I went in some laboratories and what you said is fiction is not fiction at all seeing deformed monsters it made me vomit and sick for almost a month, what I am trying to say do not trust anybody on earth for what they say or practice where experiments are Legally in the dark. I could go on but for today is enough.
    Albert.

  • Jessica Thomas June 13, 2012, 2:28 PM

    Lieberman’s comments sound like a whole lot of BS to me. However, science continues to prove the deleterious effects of refined carbs, and I think the government is in a better place to disseminate proper information than food companies who create “food” that is purposefully addictive so they can get rich while the American people suffer extreme health consequences, including eventual death. So, while I’m glad to see some higher ups in the government aligning themselves with solid scientific evidence, I don’t think they are going about implementing change the correct way. If they want to start somewhere, they should start with school lunches. The government should stop feeding kids poison. Let’s protect our innocents first.

    • xdpaul June 14, 2012, 12:07 PM

      If we wanted to protect our innocents, the government is not the angel to call on- after all, it doesn’t seem sane or in anyone’s interest to ask the poisoner (as you so aptly describe them) to pretty please reduce the dosage.

      • Jessica Thomas June 14, 2012, 1:04 PM

        The government’s not necessarily the best at protecting our innocents, but let’s face it, they have our schools, so in this instance, they’re the ones I’m pointing at.

        • Scathe meic Beorh June 14, 2012, 1:20 PM

          It’s never too late, Jessica, but somebody should have been doing something about this 40 years ago, when it was still a law that children had to attend public school. Now no such law exists, so who is really at fault? The parents. It’s always the parents, and it always has been the parents. Just ask Socrates who, when finding inordinate children on the street, would take them home and berate their parents.

  • John Robinson June 13, 2012, 3:56 PM

    There are certain things the government should do (like building roads and blowing up bad guys), but this creepy nannyism smacks a good deal of Aunt Polly’s behavior in Tom Sawyer: grimly determined to do the best for her nephew, no matter how much it didn’t work and wasn’t needed.

  • albert June 14, 2012, 11:41 PM

    The dosage
    Somebody is afraid he might get poisoned. We have a say; coming and going with a jar in your hand one day it will break, when we talk or blame the government if we do not call this angle what is he getting paid for he is on top of other institutes if necessary he should get them by the Ear and at the same time the money that is spent on thing that are not so impotent the Budget should be more useful to improve more staff and a better services it’s alright if one is well off, there is privet commodities, but the ordinary people whose wages finishes in the middle of the week what are they supposed to do. If I am writing poisonous please find me a cure, be an angle.
    Albert

  • albert June 15, 2012, 12:15 AM

    To Jill
    You are right as you said it quite clear and simple about politicians. They promise one thing and if in return keep their promise mark my word that they take back and empty your pockets. The phrase was, is not what you can get of your country but what you are able to do, these words were said for everybody meaning for all people. But unfortunately not for the men at the top, not all! But to find them these few are surrounded by poison’s snakes. One of the biggest weapon they use is the media for propaganda they even has a ministerial office for this job.
    Albert.

Leave a Reply