Summary Of Pinker's Evolution Argument

One of the most important ideas in Pinker’s evolution argument is perhaps summarized as following: “evolution is about ends, not means; becoming smart is just one option” (1997, p.153). Indeed, Pinker pays much attentions to paint evolution as neutral as possible. From the outset, he explains evolution is a neutral process that does not favor the survival of any species and the creation of any special functions. However, a popular misconception is that evolution, as if it is created by the hand of god, aims help species to become better, more advanced, and even happier. A similar view puts humans as the poster child of evolution, if not the center of universe: the creation of intelligent species is the ultimate goal of evolution. But those
In other words, humans do not have to acquire intelligence, and other animals can acquire intelligence as well; however, in the history of evolution, while obtaining intelligence is not the cost effectively deal for other animals, it is for humans. Understanding evolution as a “blind programmer” (1997, p.36) is indeed important as it significantly influences the interpretation during the reverse engineering of the mind. Had one assume evolution is a force with favoritism for humans, one might feel compelled to justify emotion or other qualities with more humanistic characters and less rational ones. Yet a neutral view of evolution and a selfish label of the genes compels Pinker to see our adaptations as they are, allowing Pinker and readers to obtain a much more reasonable motives for adaptations. More important, this quote changes my perspective of humans and nature. Even though I studied biology and evolution, I have never been so aware of the neutrality and unbiasedness of evolution until now. I had followed the popular emphasis on intelligence, believing that humans, with intelligence, must have a manifested
People accuse Pinker of ignoring the humanistic values of the society (such as love and selflessness) and defending status quotas (such as oppressive gender relationship of the past). Their accusations are unfounded as well, because Pinker is carefully to distinguish humans from their genes.
“Well into my procreating years I am, so far, voluntarily childless, .. . By Darwinian standards I am a horrible mistake, a pathetic loser... But I am happy to be that way, and if my genes don’t like it, they can go jump in the lake. (Pinker, 1997, p. 52).”
This is the most entertaining example of the many efforts Pinker display to differentiate humans and genes. Indeed, Pinker makes it clear that genes only provide the hardware for humans’ computational minds, and how to use this computational minds is entirely up to humans. Humans, by no mean, can blame that genes are puppet masters who dominate their entire lives. Genes might be selfish, but humans do not have to be. Genes might want propagation, but humans do not have to reproduce. Genes might suggest humans to love, but humans must consciously make the choice to love. As demonstrated by Pinker himself, genes do not determine everything, and humans do have a choice. This might be seemed as a support for human will. More importantly, this is a refusal of the determinism of nature. Indeed there are arguments that because something is human nature,