Are Vets Better than Natural Selection?

MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel

ARE VETS BETTER THAN NATURAL SELECTION? “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race..." Charles Darwin SUMMARY 

No.

MARTIN WHITEHEAD BSc PhD BVSc CertSAM MRCVS I wrote a letter to the Veterinary Times in November 2009 and in it I made the following statement: “...I’m really looking forward to watching the professional elite try and explain why vets can do a better job than the ruthless system that has worked brilliantly for more than three and a half thousand million years. In fact, I can’t wait.”

Suffice to say, I have not been disappointed. In fact, by asking the following question, Martin Whitehead, BSc, PhD, BVSc, CertSAM, MRCVS, has exceeded my wildest expectations: “Who is to say the present results of evolution would not have been better if some high quality artificial selection had been involved in the process?”

Clearly Martin hasn't spent much time looking at any bulldogs recently, or indeed.or any time at all actually trying to understand the similarities between natural selection and artificial selection: "But the variability, which we almost universally meet with in our domestic productions, is not directly produced by man; he can neither originate varieties, nor prevent their occurrence; he can only preserve and accumulate such as do occur." Charles Darwin

Indeed, this question has left me so shocked and stunned that I have decided to let Charles Darwin answer it (as well as demonstrate how misguided it was): "Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends...He does not rigidly destroy all inferior animals, but protects during each varying season, as far as lies in his power, all his productions [the veterinary profession is the living embodiment of this aim].

Under nature, the slightest differences of structure or constitution may well turn the nicelybalanced scale in the struggle for life, and so be preserved. How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man! how short his time! and consequently how poor will be his results, compared with those accumulated by Nature during whole geological periods! Can we wonder, then, that Nature's productions should be far "truer" in character than man's productions; that they should be infinitely better adapted to the most complex conditions of life, and should plainly bear the stamp of far higher workmanship?"

Clearly Martin Whitehead can, despite the reality of nature's dedication: "It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life."

Charles Darwin

1

MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel

He even resorts to a defensive strategy that's as old as the debate itself (and as commonly employed as as well): "As for the relative merits of artificial and natural selection for domestic animals: most of the major domestic races, including the dog and cow, no longer live in natural environments. Under such circumstances, who is to say that natural selection will do better for these animals in the long run than well-thought out artificial selection?"

A quick look at the results to date should rapidly answer that question of course, but for those who are still failing to grasp the impact of such factless assumptions, or indeed the factlessness of such factless assumptions, here's Mr. Darwin again: "Hence it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature. I have in vain endeavoured to discover on what decisive facts the above statement has so often and so boldly been made."

If Martin Whitehead thinks he can do a better job than natural selection though, I can only wish him the best of luck and sit back to apprehensively await the results.

He even manages to suggest, and I really can't believe this, that our worst results are no worse than those of natural selection: "...why is a bulldog or a high-yielding dairy cow any more "genetically or physiologically grotesque" than many of the results of evolution by natural selection?"

I would suggest that it's because they're full of objectively pointless welfare threats. Yes, nature sometimes generates some pretty odd results, but no, those that survive are never ever pointless: "No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor. If a fair balance be struck between the good and evil caused by each part, each will be found on the whole advantageous. After the lapse of time, under changing conditions of life, if any part comes to be injurious, it will be modified; or if it be not so, the being will become extinct as myriads have become extinct." Charles Darwin

Having said that, and this is the most remarkable thing of all, in reality, the objectively pointless welfare threats selected for by man aren't actually objectively pointless at all: "What natural selection cannot do, is to modify the structure of one species, without giving it any advantage, for the good of another species..." Charles Darwin

The truth is that because people prefer paedomorphic mutants and almost suicidally productive animals etc., and because vets have turned their survival into a lucrative revenue opportunity, these monstrosities have actually been at an advantage over their healthier relatives (i.e.

Bulldog's that don't have squashed faces are selected against). They have evolved because we prefer veterinary dependent animals that suffer instead of independent animals that don't (how could vets make a living from those?).

This man has a certificate, two degrees and a PhD though, so he's quite entitled to defend himself by passing ethical judgement on a 3.5 billion year old success story: "I am as awestruck as the next person by the results of natural selection [even though he thinks it may have benefited from a bit of help from humanity; i.e. he's not awestruck], but regardless of whether it has "worked brilliantly" - as Mr Watkinson put it [I did. I'm actually awestruck] depends entirely on one's criteria for judgement..."

2

MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel

I will pause here for a second to point out that nature's criteria for judgement is the 'survival of the fittest'. It's totally objective, utterly ruthless and it means that only the best adapted animals survive (please note, and as previously discussed, this does not mean they're perfect; it just means they're as perfect as they can be). Judging natural selection by any other criteria is subjective by definition therefore.

Anyway, he continues: "...If those criteria, as is the case for most vets, include the lifespan..."

Stop.

Given that natural selection is based on the destruction of most offspring and the ruthless destruction of inferior animals, your criteria for judging natural selection will instantly be rendered objectively useless if they're based on lifespan. No ifs, no buts. Lifespan is not an objective criteria for judging natural selection: "If those criteria, as is the case for most vets, include the lifespan and quality of life [that's more like it] of some of these sentient individuals that have resulted from evolution, then the results of evolution driven by natural selection most certainly can be improved on..."

(Pause for effect) "...for example, by the use of..."

Is it going to be the veterinary treatments that he and the rest of the veterinary profession sells to make a living? Of course it is: "...for example, by the use of analgesics, vaccine, antibiotics and surgery, as amply demonstrated by both human and veterinary medicine."

All I can say is, if vets think bulldogs and dairy cows are as good as some of the products of natural selection, and if lifespan is a major priority, it's no wonder animal welfare problems are bad and getting worse.

"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race..." Charles Darwin

I hadn't expected anybody to help me explain the problem so easily I must admit, but Martin Whitehead clearly needs to read On the Origin of Species before concluding that he even understands natural selection, never mind that he's better than it: "...Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art."

In summary then, having thoroughly enjoyed watching Martin Whitehead try and explain why vets can do a better job than the ruthless system that has worked brilliantly for more than three and a half thousand million years, I’m really looking forward to watching him try and explain why Charles Darwin was completely wrong.

In fact, I can't wait.

“There’s nothing more dangerous than a shallow-thinking compassionate person.” Garrett Hardin 3