I Wonder What Darwin Would Think of the Modern Connotation of the Word "Darwinian."

I want to begin this discussion with a seemingly unrelated aside.  In medicine, there is a diagnosis called "fibromyalgia."  "Fibromyalgia" isn't a real condition.  It's just a diagnosis.  It was invented in the 1970s to account for some of Frederick Wolfe's patients, who complained of pain, but had no objective findings.  Of interest, Dr Wolfe years later recanted his invention of this diagnosis, because it quickly enough got out of control.  "Fibromyalgia" is essentially self-diagnosed on the exclusive basis of subjective complaints.  Objective findings disqualify the diagnosis.  There is no treatment.  It's just a word, and it has no meaning.

"Fibromyalgia" is not the only medical diagnosis that was invented, has no real meaning, and for which there is no meaningful intervention.  The history of medicine contains a number of such fanciful diagnoses.  But a proportion of the public (patients) and providers have latched onto this one.  Dr Wolfe's reason for having recanted about the diagnosis was that increasing numbers of people with decreasingly consistent "symptoms" were being given the diagnosis.  (And, for what it's worth, increasing numbers of willing doctors were playing this game with their "patients," and getting paid for it.  They institute treatments that are not approved and that are going to cause more harm than good.  Dr Wolfe had wanted to find a medical-sounding way to sympathize with his patients' unhappiness, but he realized he created a monster.)

So, back to Darwin.  I am currently reading his The Descent of Man.  Darwin was talking about evolution, and many humans would probably like to think of their evolution, if they believe in it, as an ascent, not a descent, and Darwin does talk about descent from "lower forms."  But Darwin used whatever term he wanted.  He clearly recognizes the superior characteristics of humans from those animals from which they descended.

Much of this book is about anatomy, although he devotes a good deal of his elaboration to sexuality, and how individuals choose each other for reproduction.

But I was particularly struck by an almost passing comment on page 37 of my copy.  "Man in the rudest [it's not clear what Darwin meant by 'rudest'] state in which he now exists is the most dominant animal that has ever appeared on this earth.  He has spread more widely than any other highly organized form: and all others have yielded before him.  He manifestly owes this immense superiority to his intellectual faculties, to his social habits, WHICH LEAD HIM TO AID AND DEFEND HIS FELLOWS [emphasis mine], and to his corporeal structure [anatomical advantages]."  Other parts of this discussion, especially on my page 41, talk about functional anatomical advantages, particularly of the upper extremities and hands, in terms of killing prey to eat them, or even for self-defense.

We commonly use the word "Darwinian" as if it referenced an ongoing competition, or fight, among members of a species, or among humans, for dominance.  But it is Darwin himself who tells us that's not at all what he meant.  We just invented a meaning for Darwin's concept of evolution.  He very clearly understood that many kinds of animals have social structures and social needs, and he tells us clearly that an important advantage among humans, more than among other animals, he says, is their reflex to "aid and defend [their] fellows."

According to Darwin, anyone who thinks "the winner takes the spoils," or other ways of putting it, represents the superior value of human nature is wrong.  Combative, or perhaps even competitive (except competition for a mate*), humans are not the adaptive part of this great species, as Darwin considered it to be.  They are anomalies.  Their victories are their losses.

To come back to medicine, Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin developed the polio vaccine.  They sold the rights to it for $1, so everyone would have unrestricted access.  Alexander Fleming developed penicillin.  He gave the rights away for free, for the same reason Salk and Sabin charged $1.  Humans who divide, and take advantage, are not winners.  They're failures and losers.  Or so says Charles Darwin.  (There's been talk recently about one medication -- I don't remember what it is -- that costs $13 to make and is sold for $1300.)

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was a very intriguing book.  But it relied on the idea that some people are meant to lead, succeed, and conquer, and others are meant to toil at low levels (for the benefit of those "above" them).  It encouraged the idea that no one should complain about or criticize this class/caste system.  Modern-day capitalists rely on Rand as their permission to dominate and even mistreat those "below" them.  It's possible to say that Darwin had his way of understanding things, and Rand had hers.  But Darwin would not agree with her. 

*I heard on the radio yesterday a story about an Indian/South Asian woman who lived in this country, and wanted to marry an Indian/South Asian man.  So she advertised on applicable dating sites, and made very specifically clear what she required (tax returns, etc).  She got surprisingly very many responses, and didn't accept any of them.  No one was "good" enough.  But one response came from an Indian/South Asian man who lived in Switzerland, did computer work, was cruising around on these dating sites in his spare time (mostly, it seemed, out of boredom), and saw this frankly ridiculous set of requirements.  He responded to the woman, not with any of the documentation she demanded, but to ask her if this was a joke.  She responded to him that it was not.  They continued to communicate, he continued, in effect, to make fun of her, and they finally decided to meet, out of weird curiosity.  She had lived in the midwest, but had just gotten a job in NYC, and he agreed to come there to meet her, her having said she was available only to meet him at the airport, before her 2:00 "date" and her 4:00 "date."  He had no other reason to be in the US, and he told her he had no place to stay.  She eventually grudgingly said he could stay at the apartment she shared with others, and she continued looking for "Mr Right."  And he continued to make fun of her process.  These two eventually "found" each other, and they've been married for about 30 years, I think she said.  She said her favorite activity in the world is arguing with him, about anything, and she treasures his intellect.  So much for competing for a mate.  Or knowing what you're really looking for.  (I tell people all the time that if you ask anyone why they chose someone else for a spouse or a boy/girlfriend, they'll tell you something.  S/he is smart, has a good sense of humor, is caring, is good-looking, or something.  But they'll never tell you the real reason, because it's unconscious, and they don't know it.  In the case of this Indian/South Asian couple, she's very scrappy, which appealed to him for who knows what reason, and he gets the joke and has fun with it, thereby imposing rational boundaries on her quirkiness, which she presumably unconsciously realizes.  If everyone knew everything they have to know, the divorce rate in this country would not be 50%, and I'd be performing surgery, waiting tables, selling shoes, or cutting grass.)