As winter approaches, it has already begun to feel like a time for reflection. Perhaps this is because it is the season of festivals, both secular and religious. The most important of these festivals are, Christmas, of one of the most important religions of the world, and of course Diwali, arguably the most widely celebrated festival in India. But in a more local context there are also, was also the just concluded, Kut harvest festival, the upcoming Ningol Chakouba, the Sangai festival and in the neighbouring state of Nagaland, the famous Hornbill festival. We have no intention of delivering a homily on the approaching festivals as well as those just gone by, and we are not even qualified to do it. However, the winter mood inevitably drives many, and we join them, to reflect on some of the many mysteries and intricacies of life – most particularly human life. A National Geographic feature some time ago on “sex” provides a pad to launch a rumination on one of these mysteries. The theme of the feature was based on Charles Darwin’s theory of “Natural Selection” and how this is part of the natural process of propagation of species, and how sex is the most perfected mechanism nature designed to effect this “Natural Selection”. The assumption is that instinctively, sexually reproducing life forms (which is nearly the whole of the animal kingdom and a greater section of the plant world), tend to mate with partners who are perceived to have the best genetic characteristics needed for survival and propagation of species. A lot of zigsaw puzzles of mating behaviours of animals seem to fall in place, from viewpoint of this theory. Even in the case of human beings, this seems to explain why there is so much concurrence on the general perception of certain types of body figures and vital statistics, as attractive. But there are problems, and as is almost always the case, the problems give more food for thought than the successful explanations.
One of the problems, as the National Geographic documentary pointed out is the peacock, incidentally India’s national bird, known for its colourful feathers and its characteristic strut. Charles Darwin is said to have remarked that the sight of a peacock was always extremely painful for him. Although said probably in jest, the remark is understandable, for how else can the peacock’s cumbersome feathers be explained in terms of the Darwinian theory of natural selection. The feathers make the bird extremely clumsy, making it easy prey for predators; it hampers its food gathering manoeuvres therefore reduces its survival chances; it is a dead weight during flight therefore making the bird expend more energy to traverse distance etc., and the list of disadvantages the bird suffers because of its tail can be much longer. in short, it is not a survival accessory and should have been long eliminated by the theory of Natural Selection. Consequently, peacocks with the most feathers should have died out leaving behind the less feathered but fitter and agile amongst the species to carry on the survival struggle. The fact has been just the opposite. For reasons that cannot be satisfactorily explained in scientific evolutionary terms, the peacock’s chances of finding a suitable peahen to mate with depend precisely on the fullness and brightness of its strut. The National Geographic feature demonstrates this by studying and noting the diminishing success rates of peacocks with feathers pruned in varying degrees, in finding a mate. What then has the peacock’s feather to do with evolution? The feature merely presents this as a frontier for science, but such questions seldom fail to transport the enquirer to the realm of religion.
But it is in human behaviour that more profound evolutionary problems are encountered. The enigma is most engrossing when it comes to the question of the human qualities of love and compassion. Even if these are also the qualities of others in the animal kingdom, there is one that distinguishes the human species – its capability of transferring parental love to non-offspring. That is, the phenomenon of adoption. In modern times, the practice is also growing. There are more evidences of the forces of Natural Selection continuing to determine human behaviour. The human emotion of compassion is one of these. The pressure of Natural Selection is supposed to be to eliminate the weak and unfit in a species so only the strong and fit lives on. Humans have turned this logic upside down, and feel protective about the weak and lame, the handicapped and mentally challenged. So is this a signal of the dead end of the road for Natural Selection and propagation of own genes. Would this prove to be a disadvantage for the human species in evolutionary terms. Perhaps, but the National Geographic features only calls this a brave new world for evolutionary science. Whatever it is, whether it ultimately dooms or uplifts the human species further in evolutionary time, there can be no doubt this will still be a reaffirmation of the magic of human life that makes it worth the while.
