Why Evolution?

Lately, I have made a conscious decision to view things through the filter of evolution. Not the scientific process but rather the concept. Using the idea that great changes can be made through the sum of a great many changes as an underlying metaphor. Applying it to a broad number of ideas and scenarios well beyond the boundaries of biology. It’s been done before but mainly they took the idea of natural selection or the survival of the fittest and somehow applied it to the political sciences and, well, we got the Nazi’s out of it. Among other things. The problem with relying on the survival of the fittest, however, is that it is overly concerned with the wrong resources and with the mechanics of the process. However, I am not so much concerned with how the process is achieved as the process itself. But especially with a view towards using it as a model for conflict resolution.

The key thing about the concept of evolution is that it readily allows for the admission of failure. For mistakes. And gives a clear answer about what to do with them. Because evolution is all about change. Increments away from a known state. An array of possibilities limited only by the circumstances of that known state. Each alteration being more of less random the endstate is unknowable. Therefore, each change is of neutral value in and of itself and its effect can only be known from the point of view of its particular endstate.

It’s the effect of change that brings value to the system. When an error is made the question isn’t why it happened but where we can get to from where we are – the same question we start with at our known state. If the change was a good one then it is kept, if the change a neutral one then another change is possible, but if the change is a bad one you can always go back to something approaching the previous state but reverting to a past iteration. Either +1, 0, or –1, in terms of iterations. And when considering a long string of iterations what matters is the sum of those changes.

By considering each decision in isolation yet also recognizing the overall situation, the metaphor of evolution provides a morally relativistic framework for tolerance and diversity. In other words, an easy way for anyone to say to anyone else, “You might be right and I might be wrong. Let’s talk about it.” If not, “Nope, you were right and I was wrong. Now, what can we do to fix it?”

For a start anyways. But to understand how such an iterative, value-neutral, inherently tolerant system can actually be regulated and directed – how to put the theory into practice – I’m going to have to do some more thinking.