The Social Evolution (2)

                                                            

The term survival of the fittest in the Darwinian evolution refers only to the survival of the species as a whole and never to the individual.to be broader it more likely refers to the next generation that would be more adaptive in nature to its surroundings.I did not try to establish the similarities between social evolution and biological evolution,but tried to say that they are both overlapping and highly interdependent.

In today's society individuals have become highly interdependent in such a way that an individual survival is highly impossible.The division of labor is on is something that is taking place in all aspects of society.And is something that is inevitable.In my view social evolution will take place proportional to the division of labor.As the division of labor increases the interdependence will increase to such an level that individual survival will impossible.So I would say that division of labor is inversely proportional to the survival of the individual.Evolution will always be aiming at the betterment of the ways of survival of the individual.And we got to know that there might be negative steps that may be taking place in the society or the surrounding in the process of evolution.For example though humanity has been marching towards an better future wars were and are inevitable.they have caused millions of death within the species and by the species.Evolution can be just referred to as change taking place(in a positive direction but may take a negative path).

Now we have to think of the consequences.The industrial revolution which was one of the greatest changes that took place int he society has led to various consequences like pollution and many more.It has put the whole of earth's population in threat.What has the evolution caused in this case?That is a disaster coming up!These will be referred to by me as the unexpected end undesirable consequences that come by during the process of evolution.We have to tackle these problems or we will perish like those beautiful looking creatures which have become valuable fossils today.      

Social Evolution (In a Broader Perspective)

Venki in his article, Social Evolution, has established a good relationship between the social and biological evolution. The route that he has taken to make these observations is similar to that of Herbert Spencer’s “Utilitarian Approach” and “Individualistic Approach” in the sense that the crux of his article lies in the thought that individuals come together for the ease of their survival.

One should know that there are enough evidences to prove that the social behaviour of man is innate and not just based on the utility aspect of such interactions. To prove this on an individual level one has to observe the relationship of a child with its mother. A child's brain is too immature to understand the benefits or limitations of this relationship but he/she still indulges into this primary relationship of a mother and child. This observation of mine even if paralleled to animals stands firm as this relationship exists in most of the mammals.

The primary difference which is overlooked in the article of social evolution is that it is related to society and not individual. A society grows diverse in its means of livelihood and becomes increasingly interdependent as a result of the burden of the surplus population on the limited means of livelihood also not to forget it leads to specialization among individual groups, focused on a particular sector. This can be given a utilitarian cover but only on a primary level of thought.

If the evolution of society is to be viewed from the stand point of an individual it will take the cover of a utilitarian approach. To overthrow this very stream of thought only did Auguste Comte insist on viewing the society to be based on the primary level of family and not individual. The society and its evolution if viewed from the perspective of an individual do not give us the basic characteristics features of it instead, miss leads us to a very narrow perspective about it and if viewed from the perspective of family alone does it give us the basic characteristics of it like curbing our natural instinct in a manner which is socially accepted.

Social Evolution as I have mentioned earlier is made along with the progress of its size. As a Sociologist it is essential to be aware of the surroundings but the manner or method of observation is of higher importance.

 The Social Evolution

  Evolution in both biological and social sense did not start with Charles Darwin and Auguste Comte.It came into the minds of humans as soon as man started to think of his origin.Darwin was the first one to write about it in the biological sense.But we have to remember that the father of sociology,Auguste Comte himself looked at the society as a result of evolution. Herbert Spencer who lived in the time of Darwin in 1852 coined the term "survival of the fittest " seven years before the release of The Origin Of Species. 

 Is social evolution some thing different from biological evolution? I think this topic has to be given importance in the modern time.This study will surely bring sociology out of the "abstract" tag.

  The first question here is "Is the social behavior only related to man?".This can be answered by observation of other species.If you have watched Animal planet or Discovery you would not doubt what I say.The process of living in society did not evolve after the human evolution .It was practiced for millions of years by various species of animals.This was because it was the most important process of survival for many organisms.

  Then was man the first one to live in a social group? It is clearly evident from our surroundings that even ant lives in a social group.So it is evident that living in socially interacting groups was a primarily necessary for the survival of the animal.The process of group hunting in many species is a great example that it was necessary for its survival.

   

  The question "Is social evolution related to biological evolution?" is weird to me.It is clearly evident from our surrounding that we are products of evolution.The difference lies in that social evolution does not take place over a long period of time when compared with biological evolution.The process of social evolution should not be considered something far apart from biological evolution.

  The relation is clear because the relation within herds of other species of animals are patterned.The proofs as I said are around us.So I think its time to study sociology with biology(the closest relative for sociology in Comte's hierarchy of sciences).