We assume that the mechanism driving evolution is competition, or rather the laisez faire clockwork of interactions known as natural selection. This hypothesis rests on the idea that some better-suited individuals of a given species are afforded more reproductive oportunities due to thier adaptations, which presumes a situation of scarcity. Scarcity would be neccesary in order to offer the less adapted naught but deprivation, rather than merely less food or water or shelter. Less would be subsistence level, not enough for removal from the gene pool.
See where i’m going with this?
I’ve mentioned the myth of scarcity before, and although i’ve tried to allude to it’s importance in human affairs i haven’t mentioned the fact that accepting it as a primae causae for competition severly disables most of the arguments for mechanisms of natural selection. We see natural selection at work only in areas of actual scarcity, like deserts or the ocean floor, volcanic areas and caves, the Arctic or the complex minute ecosystems of bookshelves. Here the environment is less than nurturing, and life has to adapt to survive. These are exceptions to the general rule of thumb here on Terra, which is an unusually temperate and hospitable world with over 3/4 of it’s surface offering not only a living but an easy living for almost any life form. Thus, there is no scarcity of resources, no need to compete.
Yet most creatures do, or rather act as if they need to. This is almost universal.
The obvious fact that a meme as complex as the myth of scarcity is part of the conscious processes of millions of different species, including plants, is too much for me to ask you to contemplate. So ignore that path.
Let’s focus on what mechanism could possibly supplant natural selection as the mechanism for evolution now that it’s debunked, which (like it or not) it is. No, not the grandmotherly compassion of Maha Deva Kali Maa (Jai jai!); full moon on April Fools notwithstanding i am assured that She wants no part in taking responsibility for the infinate permutations of specific petty greed that are involved. So what drives genetic change, other than sporadic mutations?
D’oh. Choices, the obvious choice. It is will that drives individual ambition, which is spurred by species specific ambition. How would this affect the genome, you ask?
Regardezvous, si vous plait o non, the Calico Cat.
It has been observed, even in big cats, that when the biome niche of a given feline is threatened there will be produced a Calico, a female whose locii contain all possible attributes for the species. This mother-of-mothers will produce in turn cats of all stripes, literally.
See, other animals know about genetics too, and practice genetic engineering on a much more intimate level than we do. This explains the evolution of certain traits in the natural record that seem to spring up overnight, like sabre-toothing. This explains how the proto-pachydermata returned to the sea as cetacea, and how a scrawny chimp/bonobo with only one set of opposable thumbs became the bald ape typing this now.
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, kinder, and i posit thus:
Own your self, own your future.
Start with your vote. It’s a small step towards returning to the evolutionary process. Because unlike evolution, devolution really is driven by natural selection. The more evolved will not mix with the common herd, and will most probably be trampled underfoot.
219 years and you STILL don’t have the vote, sucker.
Change the Electoral Genome.
Demand Direct Democracy NOW.