Richard Dawkins on Hitler and the Tenuousness of Human Existence
I was intrigued to read an excerpt
from Richard Dawkins’ new book, An Appetite For Wonder: The Making Of A Scientist, in Salon.com that offers some
interesting counterfactual observations underscoring the tenuousness of human
existence.
Dawkins asks:
“How can we know whether the course of a life would have been changed by some
particular alteration in its early history?”
After discussing a series of
decisions made by his parents (to move him from one place of residence to
another; to enroll him in a particular school instead of another), he moves on
to ask whether such decisions would have permanently altered his development or
whether “life has a tendency to converge on a pathway, something like a magnetic
pull that draws it back despite temporary deviations.”
To answer the question, he argues, “The hypotheticals that I posed are
relatively large. Take something utterly trivial yet, I shall argue, momentous.
I’ve already speculated that we mammals owe our existence to a particular
sneeze by a particular dinosaur. [Earlier in the book he writes: I have put it
before, if the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree had not
happened to sneeze and thereby fail to catch the tiny, shrew-like ancestor of
all the mammals, we would none of us be here. We all can regard ourselves as
exquisitely improbable. But here, in a triumph of hindsight, we are.]
He then goes on to employ the classic
scenario of the contingency of
Adolf Hitler’s existence, noting “What if Alois Schicklgruber had happened to sneeze at a particular
moment – rather than some other particular moment – during any year before
mid-1888 when his son Adolf Hitler was conceived? Obviously I have not the
faintest idea of the exact sequence of events involved, and there are surely no
historical records of Herr Schicklgruber’s sternutations, but I am confident
that a change as trivial as a sneeze in, say, 1858 would have been more than
enough to alter the course of history. The evil-omened sperm that engendered
Adolf Hitler was one of countless billions produced during his father’s life,
and the same goes for his two grandfathers, and four great-grandfathers, and so
on back. It is not only plausible but I think certain that a sneeze many years
before Hitler’s conception would have had knock-on effects sufficient to derail
the trivial circumstance that one particular sperm met one particular egg,
thereby changing the entire course of the twentieth century including my
existence. Of course, I’m not denying that something like the Second World War
might well have happened even without Hitler; nor am I saying that Hitler’s
evil madness was inevitably ordained by his genes. With a different upbringing
Hitler might have turned out good, or at least uninfluential. But certainly his
very existence, and the war as it turned out, depended upon the fortunate –
well, unfortunate – happenstance of a particular sperm’s luck.”
Dawkins does not go on to probe the consequences of
Hitler’s failure to be born, but merely by invoking the premise, he seeks to
emphasize the sheer randomness of human existence.
Whether or not this is an assertion that gets us
very far is open to question. We
can marvel at the mathematical improbability of it all, but then again, there
are close to seven billion such improbabilities alive on the planet right now,
and billions more who have lived at one time or another beforehand. Facing the numerical magnitude of so
many real lives, it seems somehow besides the point to overly emphasize their
improbability.
As for Dawkins’ invocation of Hitler: despite qualifying
his claim about the contingent nature of the “evil” sperm that led to Hitler’s
birth (among the billions of others that might have produced
“other” presumably less evil children for Alois Hitler), it seems to me that
his conclusion, that “If his father had sneezed at a particular hypothetical
moment, Adolf Hitler would not have been born,” ultimately distracts us from the
circumstances (political, social, economic, etc.) that helped make Hitler into
Hitler and lulls us into the complacent belief that had he not been born, the
world would have been spared a mid-century catastrophe.
Comments