Mutation is an accidental change in the genetic structure.
Evolution is the name of a process. The process is carrying forward, or propagation, of the better mutations and rejection of the retrogressive ones. This process is tautological in the sense that being carried forward is the criterion of betterness. This point has to be made, because some scientists claim that there is some kind of selfish attitude in genes or their aggregates.
Evolutionary psychology deals with how the mind of human beings has evolved over the ages. It tries to explain behaviour by saying that it is derived in /this/ way from the past. It is a study of human history. It explains the emotions and even the religious sentiments of humans as something which are part of an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) to cope with life.
The fundamental building block of genetic evolution is reproduction. Reproduction is the test of a gene's ability to survive. Those genes which indulge in more reproduction are better placed to survive in the genetic battlefield. And mutations and re-combinations take place at the time of reproduction, which, as it were, throw the dice again in this game of life. Reproduction is the challenge as well as the response of the gene.
Since propagation is the name of the game, i.e., everything in life is aimed towards propagation (according to ethologists (who study the evolution of human ethos)); one has to deal very carefully with circumstances which change the nature of propagation.
One such herculean change (in the author's opinion) is the introduction of birth control in the 20th century. Procreation is replaced, almost totally, by recreation.
Let us see how this change affects evolution in human beings.
Let us assume the ethological standpoint that pleasure is a symptom of an ESS. But that it is an honest symptom is being challenged by birth control. Genes don't know that there is a rubber sheath between them and their fate.
The best genes are being reduced to their equals by this device. In fact, it has probably even gone the other way round. The poor and the socially un-privileged classes are seen to have greater rates of reproduction and lesser utilization of birth control mechanisms.
So does it mean that a de-evolution, or at least a halt in evolution, is taking place? Better genes get at most an increased chance of pleasure, not an increased chance of propagation.
Birth control in genetics is capitalism, its own calamity. The best genes, the most powerful, are reduced in population still more as the process goes on. The divide between the haves and the have-nots becomes bigger and bigger.
It is interesting to note that the best classes today are the most vociferous advocates of birth control in the poor and the illiterate. Do their genes fear their own demise? Is this future shock? Genes are unable to cope with a sudden technological change which has upset the skills they have honed over a millenia.
In particular, the philosophical, scholarly, artistic, scientific and religious people are seen to be the ones who care the least about propagation of their genes, i.e., reproduction. Are they, therefore, dooming mankind to an absence of population with "higher" faculties they themselves possess?
The changes in the social set-up (due to the spread of technology) in the past few centuries have led to extreme demands being made on individuals if they choose to have children.
Is technology therefore dooming mankind by re-formulating the laws of and favorable conditions for reproduction?
Shun The Condom! You Scholar. And help mankind.
You Saint! Celibacy is good for you, but bad for the world.
Your sacrifice will reflect a thousand years from now.
