The Tao of Darwin, Part I
Good day to you, and welcome to Fascinating! I am your host Rik, from Planet Vulcan. My ongoing mission on Planet Earth: to plant seeds of a way of thinking, a way that is based on an understanding of evolutionary processes, with the ultimate aim of helping to sustain and increase the momentum of Earth’s long arc towards prosperous and happy societies, founded on ideals of liberty and justice.
Senior contributing editor Prego de Nada has been exploring an interesting idea, and has penned the following essay to report what his investigation has turned up.
Prego writes:
If you have listened to this podcast before, you know that the theme is the advocacy of evolutionary thinking, that is, a way of thinking that stems from a contemplation of natural processes. And we contrast evolutionary thinking with the intelligent-design thinking that currently dominates on our planet in academia and government.
The modern form of evolutionary thinking stems from the work of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, who demonstrated, most notably, that what appears to be design in nature spontaneously emerges in the absence of any designer.
And studying the order that spontaneously emerges in nature AND in society, and the processes that lead to such emergence, helps us to more powerfully explain not only what is happening around us, but also helps us to gain profound insight into how we may cultivate the emergence of desirable social processes (and not idealized structures) as our socioeconomic system continues to evolve.
It's the processes that lead to the ever-changing structures, and processes are the only things that we can realistically hope to influence. Indeed, whatever actions we take will create some sort of influence that will enter the stream of evolution, and if what we do is attempt to create ideal structures, we will fail to do so, as the actions we take based on the hope of creating structures just become part of the process.
Darwin and Wallace lived and contributed their ideas only recently, and human civilization has been going on a long time. I asked myself, are there strains of thought from olden times that have some sort of parallel with the contest in our time between modern Darwinian thinking and the medievalist thinking of intelligent-design advocates? And it occurred to me that there is a similarity between Darwinian evolutionary thinking and the ancient Chinese philosophy of Taoism.
So I posed this question my chatbot, “Are there parallels between Taoist philosophy and Darwinian thinking?”
Here is a summary of the bot’s reply:
Yes, there are some interesting parallels between Taoist philosophy and Darwinian thinking, even though they come from vastly different intellectual traditions.
Here are some:
- Adaptation and the flow of nature: both perspectives lead to a conclusion that success as a living being comes from adapting to natural circumstances rather than from trying to impose rigid control. Taosim focuses on effortless action - not resisting the flow.
- Change as a constant: Taoism posits Yin and Yang, opposing forces that are in a perpetual state of balance and transformation. Darwinian evolution also posits constant change in living organisms through genetic variation and environmental influence, and both of these traditions lead to insights into how similar processes exist in other complex systems, such as human society.
- Existence is non-teleological: Taoism teaches that nature unfolds spontaneously without any predetermined goal, and Darwinian evolutionary thinking also leads to this conclusion.
Taoist texts describe life as something to be experienced as it unfolds, and that thinking you can bend reality to your will for a human-defined purpose is delusional.
In Darwinian thinking, there is no such thing as a “perfect” form, and the idea of an evolutionary ladder leading to perfection is nonsense. There are only adaptations to specific environments, and the adaptations that were best for an earlier environment are not likely to be the same as for a new environment.
In both traditions, organization is understood to emerge spontaneously from the behavior of the components of natural systems.
Weakness and strength are complicated in Taoist thinking, and not so clear-cut as you might think.
Weakness can also be strength, and strength can also be weakness. The soft, yielding water in the ocean’s waves in time overcomes the solid rigidity of the shoreline and the shoreline erodes.
And species succeed not through strength alone, but also by adaptability. Bacteria are small and weak, but they adapt quickly because they reproduce quickly, and because their genes flow horizontally as well as vertically. A powerful predator that cannot easily adapt can go extinct more quickly than a small weak thing.
Both traditions suggest that success often comes through flexibility and responsiveness, rather than through brute force or rigid structures.
- Emphasis on naturalness over human imposition: Taoism warns against excessive human interference with nature, arguing that attempts to dominate often backfire.
Darwinian thinking, when applied to ecological and environmental sciences, recognizes that ecosystems thrive when left to their natural processes. Human interference (e.g., artificial selection, habitat destruction, etc.) often leads to unintended consequences.
I recommend you have a listen to the previous Fascinating! podcast, or the related YouTube video, which discuss the Biodome experiment for deeper insight.
Both Taoist thinking and Darwinian thinking suggest that letting nature take its course is often wiser than excessive human intervention. And both Taoism and Darwinian thinking agree on descriptions of how life organizes itself.
Both Taoism and Darwinism embrace the fluidity of existence and emphasize adaptation over resistance. While Taoism applies this to human behavior and spirituality, Darwinism applies it to the biological evolution of life forms. If one sees evolution as a form of "nature's Tao", then the parallels become even clearer.
I then asked the bot, “How does Confucian philosophy differ from Taoist philosophy, and what would be a modern parallel of Confucian philosophy?
The bot replied:
Confucianism and Taoism both originated in ancient China, but they take very different approaches to life, society, and human nature. Confucianism sees structured relationships and moral discipline as essential for a well-functioning society. Taoism, on the other hand, warns against excessive control and instead promotes living in accordance with the natural world.
For example, Confucian philosophy aligns well with modern corporate culture, certain political ideologies, and structured social values. For example:
- Corporate work ethic and hierarchy, including loyalty to an organization and respect for authority on the part of employees; and mentorship and recognition of merit on the part of employers.
- Civic responsibility and strong government leadership by technocrats, for example the way that Singapore has been governed in recent decades, with emphasis on leadership, education and social harmony. Singapore is understood as the brainchild of Lee Kwan Yu, who dominated Singaporean policy-making for decades. However you evaluate the results, both the scale and the magnitude of Lee’s accomplishment were impressive.
- The popular American Country song “Okie from Muskogie” contains a list of the “structured social values” referenced above: “we don’t smoke marijuana in Muskogie, we don’t take our trips on LSD; we don’t burn our draft cards down on Main Street, ‘cause we like livin’ right and being’ free”. Things that “we do” and “we don’t do” make up the lyrics of the song, and there is no doubt that conformity equals virtue.
“Bein’ free” to do what”? one might wonder. “Where is there even any wiggle room in these rules?”
Let’s have a look at the modern state of Singapore, an example of free enterprise within a highly restrictive societal background. The economic success of the modern state of Singapore has been impressive, but it has come at a high price in terms of individual freedom.
You must not spit on the sidewalk or fail to flush a public toilet, or you will be fined, and possibly even caned.
The ubiquitous video surveillance is reminiscent of Orwell’s novel 1984. You are only rarely not on camera when you are outdoors.
You cannot chew gum, or even buy it anywhere in the country. And if you commit the twofer offense of spitting gum on the sidewalk, a grim-faced magistrate will not pass up this opportunity to order a caning.
Forget about free speech, the right of assembly, public protests and petitions for redress of grievances. You will be arrested and imprisoned if you violate some very narrow and discretionarily interpreted guidelines.
If you possess, use, or especially if you distribute any substances classified as recreational drugs you will be thrown into prison, and if the amount you possess is over certain limits, for example more than half a kilo of cannabis, you will be executed on the presumption of your being a dealer if you have that much. Probably true, but capital punishment?
If you are a politician and you wish to oppose the politicians currently in positions of authority, those politicians will sue you, with a high probability of success and an award of damages, for defamation, and you will not only not be elected, but your life will be in ruins.
You can be imprisoned for merely voicing criticism of the judicial system.
Like another song says, “Illusions without freedom never quite add up to bliss”. I think if I were a just-plain-folks Singaporean, I would happily trade off a little prosperity for a little more personal freedom. This is way too Confucian.
To summarize:
If Taoism is about going with the flow, Confucianism is about building the right structures in the hope of ensuring a good life. Confucianism fits well in structured, duty-driven societies, while Taoism resonates with those who seek individual harmony with nature and freedom from societal constraints.
Taking a step back, and considering the ongoing and never-ending contest between Taoist and Confucian thinking, it seems at least possible that there will be a parallel to this process in modern times between Darwinian-inspired evolutionary thinking and the medievalist intelligent-design thinking in our time.
In China, the two philosophies have existed side by side and made accommodations for each other. Many people have lived their lives with respect for the rules of Confucianism, and its accompanying structures, part of the day; and for other parts of the day follow Taoism because of greater compatibility with personal spiritual development and communion with nature.
Will something similar happen with Darwinian evolutionary thinking as it continues to challenge intelligent-design thinking? Will they exist in a perpetual Yin-Yang state of opposition, ebbing and flowing and finding their own niches?
Time will tell.
Thanks to Prego for this essay.
Prego continued his querying of the chatbot, and asked a few more followup questions for which the bot produced some interesting replies. Prego will report on these queries and replies in The Tao of Darwin, Part II, our next episode.
I invite you to have a listen to the next Fascinating! podcast and a look at the next video on our YouTube channel. You can find access to all podcasts and videos on our web page, fascinatingpodcast.com.
Please recommend Fascinating! to your friends if you find the lessons from nature in these essays personally valuable.
Theme music: Helium, with thanks to TrackTribe.
Live long and prosper.
Practice the art of winning without defeating anyone.
Savor your experiences.
Treasure your memories.
Anticipate a happy and rewarding future.
And respect nature’s wisdom.
