The Theory of Human Constants and the Theory of Natural Selection

Introduction

The theory of natural selection is one of the most fundamental scientific frameworks for explaining the change and adaptation of living organisms across generations. This theory, in its classical form, explains how differences among individuals, the inheritance of certain characteristics, and differences in survival and reproductive success can lead to changes in the frequency of characteristics in populations.

The Theory of Human Constants is of a different nature. Its main subject is not explaining the mechanism of biological evolution, but rather examining relatively stable human inclinations and how they interact in individual, social, and historical life.

Despite this difference, there are important points of contact between the two frameworks, because many human inclinations can be examined in connection with human evolutionary history, adaptation to the environment, and the problem of survival.

1. What is Natural Selection?

Natural selection is a process in which hereditary differences among individuals in a population, under conditions that affect the success of survival and reproduction, can become more or less frequent in subsequent generations.

This concept is fundamentally about change in populations and generations.

Therefore, it should not be confused with any kind of social or cultural change.

2. The Difference in Subject Matter of the Two Theories

The theory of natural selection primarily deals with the mechanism of biological change.

The Theory of Human Constants focuses on the organization of needs, inclinations, and human relationships at the individual and social levels.

In other words:

Natural selection asks why certain biological traits persist in populations; the Theory of Human Constants asks how human systems are organized around survival, connection, meaning, and order.

3. Survival and Natural Selection

The clearest point of contact between the two theories is the concept of survival.

In changing environments, traits that increase the likelihood of survival and reproduction can, under suitable conditions, be subject to natural selection.

In the Theory of Human Constants, "survival" has a broader scope and is not limited only to biological survival.

In this theory, survival can also include security, resources, health, environment, infrastructure, and the ability to rebuild after crisis.

4. From Survival to Connection

Human is a social being.

A significant part of human success in various historical environments has depended on the ability to cooperate, transfer information, provide mutual care, and create social networks.

From this perspective, "connection" can be understood as one of the domains that has deep connection with the conditions of human social life.

But this connection is not merely a consequence of natural selection; rather, it has been shaped throughout history by culture, learning, and institutions.

5. Meaning and Going Beyond Survival

One of the important differences between the Theory of Human Constants and purely biological explanations is the attention to "meaning".

Human does not act solely to survive.

Individuals and societies may strive for values, beliefs, identity, ideals, and goals that may even come with short-term costs.

Therefore, not all human behavior can be directly explained by immediate benefits to survival or reproduction.

6. Order and Social Life

Collective life is difficult without some form of order, rules, and coordination mechanisms.

Family, group, organization, state, and civilization all create forms of social organization.

The Theory of Human Constants examines "order" as one of four fundamental domains.

But how each particular form of order emerged is a matter that can have multiple biological, cultural, historical, and political factors.

7. Gene and Culture

Unlike many species, humans have a very broad capacity for social learning and cultural transmission.

Language, technology, norms, knowledge, and institutions can be transmitted from one generation to another.

As a result, explaining human behavior through biological inheritance alone is insufficient.

The Theory of Human Constants primarily focuses on this cultural and social level.

8. Cultural Evolution

Culture can also change over time, and some cultural patterns can spread more widely than others.

This process is sometimes examined using concepts such as cultural evolution or cumulative cultural evolution.

Here the Theory of Human Constants can pose a different question:

Are more successful cultural patterns those that can create greater adaptation between survival, connection, meaning, and order?

This question is a testable hypothesis, not a pre-proven conclusion.

9. Biological Adaptation and Social Adaptation

Adaptation in biology usually refers to traits that contribute to reproductive success in a particular environment.

But in human societies, social adaptation can occur on much shorter time scales.

Laws, technologies, organizations, and collective behaviors can change in a matter of years or even months.

This temporal difference between biological and social adaptation is very important.

10. The Four Constants as a Product of Natural Selection?

Are survival, connection, meaning, and order themselves products of natural selection?

This question should be approached carefully.

Some biological capacities related to cooperation, connection, social learning, or the recognition of organized patterns may have evolutionary roots.

But from this it cannot be directly concluded that the four constants of the Theory of Human Constants, as a four-fold system, are the direct products of natural selection.

This claim requires independent research.

11. The Problem of Biological Reductionism

One of the important dangers is reducing all human behaviors to biology.

If we say that every human behavior is only a result of natural selection, the role of culture, history, institution, language, and social learning is ignored.

The Theory of Human Constants can stand against such reductionism, because it examines human behavior in the interaction among multiple factors.

12. Survival is Not the Only Determining Factor

Even at the biological level, survival alone is not a sufficient criterion to explain all behaviors.

Reproduction, kinship, cooperation, competition, sexual selection, environmental constraints, and social interactions can all play a role in explaining behavior.

Therefore, the constant "survival" should not be equated with the entire logic of natural selection.

13. Cooperation and Natural Selection

Cooperation is one of the important topics in the study of social evolution.

Cooperation can have advantages for individuals or groups in different circumstances, but its form and sustainability depend on multiple mechanisms.

In the Theory of Human Constants, cooperation primarily falls within the domain of "connection", but it also relates to survival and order.

This overlap shows that the four constants are not independent of each other.

14. Competition and Cooperation

Human social life is a mixture of competition and cooperation.

Competition over resources can lead to conflict, while cooperation can increase collective capacity for providing resources and dealing with threats.

In the framework of human constants, the important issue is not merely the existence of competition or cooperation, but how the relationship between them is regulated.

15. Natural Selection and the Emergence of Social Complexity

Humans have transformed from a biological organism to a being with language, culture, technology, and complex institutions.

But social complexity cannot be explained by a single process.

Natural selection can explain part of the biological foundation of human capacities, while social learning, cultural evolution, institution-building, and knowledge accumulation also play a role in shaping human societies.

16. Natural Selection and the Four Constants

One can propose a conceptual relationship between the four constants and human evolutionary history:

Survival relates to adaptation to the environment.

Connection relates to social life and information transmission.

Meaning connects with cognitive, symbolic, and cultural capacities.

Order relates to the ability to create stable behavioral and institutional patterns.

But these relationships should be regarded as research areas, not as proof of the evolutionary origin of the four constants.

17. Human Constant and Biological Trait

A "human constant" should not be confused with a genetic or biological trait.

For example, the need for connection may be very stable in humans, but the form of connection has changed from language and family to digital networks.

So stability here may relate to a fundamental inclination, not to a biologically constant form of behavior.

18. The Role of Environment

Natural selection always gains meaning in relation to the environment.

A trait may be advantageous in one environment and costly in another.

In the Theory of Human Constants, the status of the four constants is also dependent on environmental conditions.

Water crisis, war, new technology, climate change, or economic transformations can alter the relative importance of each domain.

Therefore, both frameworks, though using different language, show the importance of interaction with the environment.

19. Environmental Change and Change in Human Response

Environmental change does not necessarily mean immediate change in fundamental human inclinations.

The environment may change but the need for connection may remain, and only the form of response to it changes.

For example, connection shifts from local communities to global networks.

From this perspective, the Theory of Human Constants distinguishes between the stability of inclination and change in response mechanisms.

20. Natural Selection and Social Institutions

Human institutions are not directly equivalent to biological traits.

Law, state, market, university, and social organizations form through historical and cultural processes.

However, one can ask whether some human biological capacities have been foundational to the formation of such institutions.

This question requires cooperation among evolutionary biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and political science.

21. Are the Four Constants Adaptive?

One of the testable questions is whether systems that can create a more dynamic balance among survival, connection, meaning, and order perform more successfully in response to environmental changes.

If such a relationship is observed in independent data, it could be one of the important connecting points between the Theory of Human Constants and adaptation theories.

But even so, one should not conclude that natural selection is the direct cause of all these relationships.

22. Difference in Time Scale

Natural selection is primarily studied at the scale of generations and populations.

The Theory of Human Constants can be applied at very different scales:

Individual,

Family,

Group,

Organization,

Society,

State,

and civilization.

It can also examine short-term changes of crisis and transformations spanning centuries of history.

This difference in scale is one of the most important distinctions between the two frameworks.

23. The Danger of Retrospective Interpretation

One of the important problems in connecting the Theory of Human Constants with evolution is the danger of retrospective interpretation.

It is possible to construct an evolutionary explanation for an observed human feature without having an independent and testable prediction.

To avoid this problem, hypotheses should be defined as precisely as possible before examining the data.

24. The Possibility of Cooperation Between the Two Frameworks

The best approach is not necessarily competition between the two theories.

Natural selection can provide information about the biological and historical foundations of the formation of certain human capacities.

The Theory of Human Constants can raise questions about how these capacities are organized in social and historical systems.

In this case, the two frameworks can complement each other at different analytical levels.

25. The Position of the Theory of Human Constants Relative to Natural Selection

The Theory of Human Constants is neither a replacement for the theory of natural selection nor should it claim that the four constants are proven by natural selection.

The scientific relationship between them should be examined in the form of specific hypotheses.

One of the important future questions is whether some of the inclinations related to survival, connection, meaning, and order have identifiable evolutionary roots and how these biological capacities have manifested in various forms in the process of cultural and institutional evolution.

Conclusion

The theory of natural selection and the Theory of Human Constants operate at two different levels.

Natural selection is a framework for explaining biological changes in populations, while the Theory of Human Constants provides a framework for studying fundamental and relatively stable human inclinations and their interaction in individual and social systems.

The important point of connection between them is the issue of adaptation, survival, sociality, and the relationship of humans with the environment.

However, one should not directly equate the four human constants with four products of natural selection. The role of culture, social learning, language, institutions, and history in shaping human behavior is very important.

Therefore, the relationship between the two frameworks is, more than a proven conclusion, an important area for interdisciplinary research.

Key statement: "Natural selection can explain part of the biological foundation of the formation of human capacities, while the Theory of Human Constants focuses on the organization of these capacities in four domains (survival, connection, meaning, and order) and on their interaction in social and historical life; therefore, the relationship between the two frameworks should be examined as an interdisciplinary and testable research program."