reading

INHALTSVERZEICHNIS

1. Prologue

Mechanisms of selection in economy and trade

2. The Evolution of species

Darwinism and Lamarckism

What means successful in evolution?

3. Right from the beginning

The dawn of life

Stable, self reproducing molecular structures

First traces of life on earth

Emergence of multicellular life

The cambric explosion of life

Exkurs: The precambrian explosion of life

The Chordata

Water and Land Animals

The Invention of the Egg (Amniots)

Exkurs: The development of the continents between the “invention“ of the egg (350 million years ago) and the extinction of the dinosaurs (66 million years ago)

The Rise of the Mammals

Exkurs: Paleocene-Eocene-Thermal-Maximum (PETM), 56 Millionen years ago

Old and New World Monkeys

4. History of Human Evolution

How Knowledge on the History of Human Evolution accrues

The (rather useless) ”Missing Link“ Concept

Splitters and Lumpers

The Last Common Ancestor (of human and chimpanzee)

Exkurs: Pre-humans (before Australopithecus)

Graecopithecus freybergi (Age 7,2 million years, site Greece)

Sahelanthropus tchadensis (6-7 million years, site Chad)

Ororin tugenensis (6 million years, site Kenya)

Ardipithecus kadabba (5.6 million years, site: Afar Depression, Ethiopia)

Ardipithecus ramidus (4,4 million years, site: Afar Triangle, Ethiopia)

Australopithecines: The Southern Apes (or rather Humans?)

The Genus Paranthropus

Australopithecus anamensis (4.2-3.9 million years, sites: East Africa)

Australopithecus afarensis (3.8-2.9 million years, sites: East Africa)

Australopithecus africanus (3.0-2.1 million years, sites: South Africa)

Australopithecus garhi (around 2.5 million years ago, site: Ethiopia)

Australopithecus sediba (1.95-1.78 million years, site: South Africa)

Australopithecus bahrelghazali (3.5-3.0 million years, site: Chad)

The Genus Homo

Exkurs: Species oft he genus Homo, who were not contemporaries of Homo sapiens (Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster)

Homo rudolfensis (2.5-1.5 million years, sites: Kenya, Ethiopia, Malawi)

Homo habilis (2.1-1.5 million years sites: Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, South Africa)

Homo ergaster (1.9-1.4 million years)

Homo erectus (1.9 million – 70.000 years ago)

Homo naledi (0.3 million years ago)

Homo heidelbergensis (0.7-0.2 million years)

Homo antecessor (780.000 years)

The Contemporaries of Modern Man

Homo floresiensis („Hobbit“)

Homo neanderthalensis (300.000-30.000 years ago)

What caused the disappearance of the Neanderthals?

Twelve speculative essays to explain the extinction of the Neanderthal

1. Homo sapiens violently replace Homo neanderthalensis (genocide, species-homicide)

2. Volcanic Erruptions

3. Homo sapiens domesticated Animals and cooperated with Wolfs when hunting

4. Homo sapiens could have been more skillful Hunters

5. Sharing of Tasks between Sexes and Age groups may have made the Organisation of Homo sapiens Groups more efficient than those of the Neanderthals

6. Neanderthals could have had lower Cognitive Abilities

7. Homo sapiens collective Believe in Non-objectiviable Entities could have brought about an Advantage for achieving Common Goals

9. Weather and Climate changes in the habitats of the Neanderthals

10. Neanderthales could have become Victims of Plagues

11. Inbreeding was very common among Neanderthals and hampered Fertility

12. Neanderthals assimilated with H. sapiens

Denisova-Man

5. Mechanisms of Evolution and their effects on Homo sapiens

Different Incentive Systems for promiscuitive Behaviour for Men and Women

Mechanisms of sexual Attraction sexueller Anziehung

Neurobiological Background

Examples of Neurobiological Mechanisms that underly Sexuality

Example 1: Control of the Mechanical Components of the Copulation Act

Example 2: Assuring the intrinsic Motivation for Sexual Activity

Example 3: Importance of olfactory Senses for Sexual Affinity

Hormons

Sociocultural Reasons for Restrictive Sexuality

Tightening of Sexual Supply as an Economic and Evolutionary Strategy

Density stress endangering the Eros?

6. The Evolution of Hierarchies

The Lobster Debate

Human Hierarchies in Evolution and History

An Example of a Complex Middle-Age Society

7. Evolution of Technologies

Sedentism of man (Neolithic Revolution)

Domestication of Plants (Cultivation)

The Domestication of animals

Consequences of geographically different pre-conditions for farming and cattle breeding

The Industrial Revolution

Global „The winner takes it all“ Capitalism

The burning of Fossil Fuels

Fire

The age of fossil fuel (since Middle of the 18^th century)

8. Artificial Intelligence and Simulated Realities

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Humans Everyday Live

Right Wrong (Human) and Wrong Right Decissions (AI)

And what if we live in a simulation after all?

9. Evolutionary Development of Competencies, mind and Intelligence

The 4 categories of competence acquisition (Learning) after Daniel Dennett

Trying to measure intelligence

Idiocratisation through Mechanisation

Idiocratisation is a combination of „Nature“ and „Nurture“

10. From Evolutionary Theory to Eugenics

Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) – The Natural Geographer

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) – The Founder of Evolutionary Theory

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) – Darwins Brother in Spirit

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) – The liberal Social Darwinist

Francis Galton (1822-1911) – The Universal Schoolar

Charles Davenport (1866-1944) – Head of the American Eugenic Movement

Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) – The Feminist

Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) – Darwins Bulldog

Julian Huxley (1887-1975) –Humanist and First UNESCO-Secretary General

Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) – the Visionary Writer (Brave New World)

Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919)

11. Eugenics in America and in National Sozialistic Germany

The National Socialists

Mein Kampf (My Struggle)

Nuremberg Laws

Wannsee Conference

Aktion T4 – Extermination of Life unworthy of Life

The fountain of life

Were Germans of my Grandparents‘ Generation Bad Human Beings?

The Hume’s Paradox: How can the Few rule over the Many?

How Human Evolution favours Abuse of Power and Subjugation

The well-meaning Intentions underlying Eugenics

Birth Control in the 21st Century

12. Selective Eugenicsund Eugenics through Genetical Modifications

Negatively Selecting Eugenics (Eugenis by Murder)

Positively Selecting Eugenics (Eugenics through Reproduction Support)

Eugenics through direct Gentechnological Optimisation of the Human Genome

13. Gene-technological Modification of Complex Species

Clonal Growth

Cutting and Merging DNA and RNA Strands

The CRISPR/Cas9 Method

Twin Sisters with a targeted modification of the CCR5-Rezeptor Gene

Dolly (1996-2003)

Risks of Genome Modification for the Individual

Risks of Somatic (not germline effective) Genetic Modifications for Individuals

14. Access to the Resource Genetic Optimization

Linkage to a Citizenship or Nationality

Linkage to Racist Criteria

Immortality – Ray Kurzweil

Use of Human-Manipulation Means for Military Ends

15. Demography and Dying Out

On the extinction of Homo sapiens

Can Mankind Die Out with Dignity and Comfortably for the Individual?

16. Can Eugenics 2.0 be Prevented or Controlled?

Wie ließe sich Eugenik 2.0 regulieren?

Could the United Nations prohibit gene-technological Modifications of Humans?

Eugenics for Adapting to a Rapidly Changing Biosphere

17. Transhumanism - The Status Quo in 2020

The replacement of real social space (by virtual space)

18. The Great Reset

Why is the World Economic Forum interested in the philosopher Harari?

Eugenical Transhumanism as a just project for all of mankind?

19. Epilogue

20. Referenzliste

1. Prologue

At the beginning of the 2006 American film “idiocracy”, which was not very successful, the viewer gets to know Trevor and Carol, a couple of highly intelligent academics of the early 21^st century. They state that the decision to get children is such an important one, that you must not rush into it. You have to wait for the right time, which is not now.

These two prototypes of modern academics are in the next scene compared to Clevon, whose wife Trish just states to be pregnant again, which makes Clevon curse and stamp his beer bottle on the table. He already has „too many damn kids“ and thought she was on the pill, but probably he had confounded here with Britney. In raging jealousy Trish throws the pan after him. In the corner, Clevon’s offspring are displayed in a family tree showing 4 children with Trish and one with Britney

Back to Trevor and Carol. Five years older older than before, they again calmly sit on their well maintained livingroom sofa and head-shakingly state that at the moment they can not have kids, not with the current market-situation. Meanwhile Clevon’s wife Trish has a quarrel with her pregnant neighbour with beer bottles flying, while around them the loud chaos of the unordered lower-class family unfoulds.

Back to Trevor and Carol. Again, five years older older than before, they again calmly sit on their well maintained livingroom sofa and Carol states that they finally decided to have kids, however this does not seem to work out well, probably due to the low quality of Trevor’s sperms. Trevor apologetically shrugs and complainingly asks if Carol’s remark is helping.

Finally, a visibly aged Carol has a sad solo-appearance, in which she announces that Trevor has passed away from a heart attack while masturbating for in vitro fertilization. However, she has some eggs frozen away and as soon the right man comes along…..fingers crossed. By now, the family tree of Clevon’s offspring covers the entire cinema screen.

This 2-minute sequence at the beginning of the film Idiocracy shall illustrate, that human evolution does not automatically reward intelligence. Without natural selection pressure, evolution simply rewards thos who reproduce most, which makes the intelligent become a rare species. After the monstrous crimes that social Darwinism and eugenics had caused in the 20^th century, it is however utterly delicate to point out that mechanisms of natural selection also act on Homos sapiens.

Switching off natural selection or modifying selection criteria (in the case of Idiocracy favouring those with reduced cognitive capabilities who reproduce most) may not remain without consequences over generations. Should mankind then try to intervene into its own evolution?

Mechanisms of selection in economy and trade

The mechanisms of natural selection in evolutionary biology find their correspondence in economy in competitive selection of business enterprises. Single actors in a competition-based economy carry a high risk to fail, which however minimizes the risk of failure for the corresponding branch of the economy. For systems which are not fragile, Nassim Taleb coined the term “antifragile”. Gastronomy may serve as an example for an antifragile branch of the economy. A single reastaurant enterprise is fragile and may quickly fail if it fails to attract clients. At the same time, one finds a good overall supply of restaurants in cities such as Hamburg. These compete with each other, which leads to a broad spectrum of restaurants with diverse kind of food and atmosphere. Although the single individual restaurant enterprise is fragile and might fail, the entity of restaurants, the “restaurant system”, appears very antifragile (1).

Market and market mechanisms with their selection mechanisms are thus an essential element of human trade interactions. Entirely free and uncontrolled markets (unleashed markets) however are also free of any ethical or moral judgement. If 2 market players compete, the one who makes more profit will prevail.

If the product brought to the market is good or bad for society in principle does not play a role. The economist Catherine Austin Fitts gave an illustrative example by comparing 2 tradesmen in America in the late 1940s. Both are expecting the arrival of a delivery at the docks of New Orleans. Sam trades sugar from Latin America that he refines and sells to wholesale merchants with 30% profit. After substracting costs for farming, transport and processing, Sam makes 10% profit. Dave works with a different agricultural product, for which he also imports raw materials, processes them and sells them to wholesale merchants. Dave, however, earns 50-times more für his upgraded product, cocaine. Certainly, Dave also has expenses for farming, transport, bribes and radar-equipment for circumventing coast guards. After subtracting costs from gains, Dave earns around 100-times more than Sam with each delivery. To get a feeling for the implications of these profit differences, one only has to answer to the following questions just using common sense:

Who is better in business? Sam or Dave?

Who is favoured by local bancs? Sam or Dave?

Who donates more to politicians and welfare? Sam or Dave?

Who can afford better lawyers? Sam or Dave?

Who could some day buy the company of the other? Sam or Dave?

Who could count on support from bancers and politicians when swallowing the other’s company? Sam or Dave?

Who pays more salaries of experts, opinion-makers and media-representatives? Sam or Dave?

Which business will thrive, if such developments act over decencies with compound interest effects and which business will consequently gain more influence on society? Catherine Austin Fitts, who came up with this example, explicitly appeals not to seek guidance from experts or the media when answering these questions, but only to follow your own intuition (2).

Which motivation states and governments have to forbid drugs, could also cater for an interesting discussion, however this would lead us too far away from the actual topic of this book. Here, we make do with pointing out the role opium played in the colonial suppression of China under the British Crown, or the British East India Company, to be more precise. In Bengal (India) opium was grown on large scale using slave labour and exported to Chinal by the English in order to buy Chinese silk, spices and tea. As long as opium was not more than a normal mean of payment or a bartering good, prices for opium remained on a normal level. Opium drove a lot of Chinese people into addiction and the Chinese raised import taxes on opium in order to protect themselves from the colonial opium. Finaly the Chinese emperor entirely prohibited the import of opium and Chinese custom officers destroyed incoming deliveries of opium. This led to an increase in illegal imports that even became much more profitable as the prices for (illegal) opium were much higher. The poppy plant providing for the raw opium, however had not become more precious. Not before the prohibition prices increased. Finaly the Brits send gun boats to China opening the “Opium war” of 1839. After 3 years of war the Chinese subdued.

One could object that drug trade per se does not have to be unmoral or unethical and that sugar consumed in high amounts also impairs health. Only the fact that legislators banned certain mind-altering drugs, but not sugar, made drug-trade such a criminal (but at the same time a very lucrative) business. Profit margins in the drug business would not be that high, if it was legal. But let us simply imagine, Dave was an arms dealer, who fuels murderous wars and thus becomes rich and powerful.

Apparently in an unleashed competition, unscrupulousness is a a competitive advantage. If, as in Idiocracy, people with low intelligence reproduce stronger and the economy favours reckless people, in the long run, mankind, will become rather stupid with reckless-unscrupulous people in positions of power. Not a very nice prospect.

Evolutionary selection-mechanisms of free markets lead to inceasing efficiency, when it comes to accumulation of capital. Efficient processes imply an optimized return of investement, meaning highest possible profist at the lowest possible effort. Chains of delivery are coordinated in a way, that a component is delivered to immediately being used, processed and built in, thus minimizing the storage capacity, storage time and storage costs (“Just in time capitalism”). Everything that causes unnecessary costs is being eliminated by optimization. This also applies for planning and use of personnel. An economy that selects for enterprises that pursue the least possible effort to generate profit has not reserve capacity. In the health sector a lack of reserve capacities surfaces if an epidemic occurs. By reducing overcapacities and merging of hospitals, private hospital companies made health care a profit generating endeavour. In normal mode they provide health care and pocket the profits (in contrast to public hospitals, which were planned along requirements of the population). If an epidemic (or the flu season) increases the needs for hospital capacities, the disadvantages of an efficiency-optimised health system: Hardly and reserve capacities, as these are cost-inefficient in normal mode and only cause costs. However, one should think that from the hospital operators point of view, cost efficiency should be given also during an epidemic. Actually, the cost efficiency should now even be increased as capacities (e.g. respirators) are used on a maximum level, which sounds lucrative from an economic point of view. Ironically the provision of intensive care capacities in expectation of a pandemic wave in many countries led to a reduction of normal standard health care with economic losses due to unused hospital beds and collateral morbidity and mortality, for example due to canceled medical procedures. The worldwide issued lockdowns and freedom restrictions due to COVID-19 especially damaged small and medium sized enterprises, which can be regarded as the backbone of a healthy economy that serves the society. At the same time international cooperations and monopolists increased their market power. Moreover, less and less economic transactions take place without digital interface.

In cashless payments a digital interface between the humans involved in the transaction already exists. With the raising importance of delivery services, the digital interface also intervenes in the hand-over of the purchased good. Nevertheless, the human sphere and the machine world are still clearly separated. Concerns about data that were generated in the digital sphere (still) refer to data utilization by humans or networks of humans. As long as abuse of power is carried out by humans over humans, machines remain means for ends. Once machines develop their own ends out of their own intrinsic motivation a shift of paradigms takes place.

2. The Evolution of species

Darwins „On the Origin of Species” which was published in 1859, is regarded as the most important fundamental book of evolutionary biology. Evolution needs time. A perceived expansion of time with regards to the existence of the earth was crucial for Darwins insights. Until the 19^th century, the age of the earth was estimated to be not older than a few thousand years based on religious texts. In the 18^th century, the natural scientist Edmund Halley tried deducing the age of the earth from the salt contents of rivers and seas and concluded that the earth must be considerably older than 6000 years, but was satisfied with this notion without giving his own estimate (3). Consequently, in Darwin’s days, the age of the earth was not yet known. Independantly from external scientific doctrines Darwing must have realized himself, that the existing species on earth must have had more than 6000 years time to develop, if his evolution-theory ought to be plausible. In “On the Origin of Species” Darwin estimated the age of the earth to around 300 million years. As we know now, 300 million years ago was the transition period from perm to carbon. The richt forest and swam flora of this period was the raw material for geological layers that we exploit in our days as coal. Among the animals of that period were amphibiae, who became more and more independent of water. Today the age of our planet ist estimated at 4.6 billion years.

Darwinism and Lamarckism

The French natural scientis Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (17441829) already shaped the idea of development of species. Darwin’s ideas were to some extent in the air. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) would probably also have developed the concepts that Darwin shaped in “On The Origin of Species”, if Darwin had not existed. Without any doubt Lamarcks ideas show a lot of agreements with Darwin. When talking about Lamarchism, it is therefore the differences that are being stressed. Lamarckism claims that properties and capabilities acquired during life can be passed on to offspring. Such an inheritance of acquired properties would in principle shorten the required time for evolution, compared to natural selection over many generations. An illustrative example for explaining the differences between Darwins and Lamarcks theory is the giraffe: Her long neck allows her to eat leaves in heights that no other plant eater of the prairie can reach. According to Lamarck giraffes of past generations would have stretched their necks again and again thus lengthening their neck during their lifetime. This lifetime-behaviour induced lengthening would then have been passed on to the next generation. According to Darwinistic views the long neck of the giraffe is not the result of passing on “training-lengthened” necks to the next generation. Rather giraffes with long necks must have had better survival- and reproduction chances and thus more frequently giraffes with long necks passed on their properties to the next generation than giraffes with a short neck. Lamarck thus postulated the inheritance of acquired “trained” properties to be the driving force of evolution. Darwin, in contrast postulated that different probabilities to reproduce of individuals with their existing properties leading to “natural selection” were decisive.

What means successful in evolution?

To reduce the mechanisms of natural selection that underly evolution to “Survival of the Fittest” is not quite correct. Social Darwinism in its worst manifestations deduced a natural Right of the Stronger from this conceptual oversimplification. This was for example done by the National Socialists to “scientifically” legitimise their atrocities which they justified with the alleged superiority of their own race. Natural selection simply means that there are traits that increase the probability that the genome of an organism is passed on to the next generation completely (asexual reproduction) or 50% (sexual reproduction). These traits do not necessarily have to be traits, we commonly regard as advantageous (e.g. strength, intelligence). Decisive for evolutionary success is only the passing on of the genome to the next generation. Sometimes one hearst that in evolution traits prevail that increase the chances of survival. This may often be the case, especially, wenn survivaltime is assicated with the number of offspring. (A seasonal breeder with yearly offspring will have more offspring, if it lives longer). In some cases, behaviousr can lengthen the life of an individual however at the cost of not-reproducing. For bee drones the copulation with the bee queen is deadly as the sperm containing reproductive organs remains in the bee queen. The abdomen of the drone thus gets ripped apart and the drone dies. Drones that do not copulate live longer (until the next autum), however they do not reproduce.

Critical are thus traits that increase the reproduction probability. “Generation-persitance of the reproductively successful“ might be more appropriate than “Survival of the Fittest“. The term “Survival of the Fittest“ was coined by the English Social-philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Spencer was the first to sonsequently apply Darwings insights to human societies thus being a founder of Social Darwinism.

Paperback:	978-3-347-31842-7
Hardcover:	978-3-347-31843-4
e-Book:	978-3-347-31844-1