Think of humanity as a body and each person is a cell. If some of my cells can suddenly do wacky things that threaten the entire body. That’s not evolution, its cancer.
Evolution is a result of environmental pressure. Mutants ARE the pressure not the result of pressure* and that’s why humanity develops ways to stop mutants. Sentinels…etc…THAT’S a lot closer to evolution (because its a slow process that builds on itself) then some guy who can shoot beams out of his face standing next to a guy who can turn to steel.
*Mind you, that’s in a micro-sense. Just looking at Earth. IF mutants are the result of some pressure we can’t see, some galactic threat and humanity IS the cell and not the body…well…then now the human-mutant war is more akin to an auto-immune disorder.
Now if you want to argue that Earth is the body, humanity is a virus and mutants are anti-bodies, that’s fine. Earth tried natural disasters and plagues and such and is getting pretty desperate to rid itself of humanity. Still puts all that “Homo Superior” bullshit to the sword.
That’s kind of one-sided, isn’t it? The X-Men are mutants who (a) can do wacky things, and (b) save the lives of unmutated humans: rescuing people from a burning building, putting killers behind bars before they can strike again, and even stopping everything else from ‘catastrophic weather’ to ‘nuclear war’.
“Think of humanity as a body and each person is a cell.”
Why would I do that? Of course you’re not going to conclude that Mutants are the next step in evolution if you chose a simile completely unsuited to discussing evolution because it’s tailored to the “cancer” position.
What would evolution look like if start by “thinking of humanity as a body and each person a cell”?
X-men type mutants in fantastic fiction are an extreme version of a layman’s understanding of both mutations and evolution. They are much more “the next step in evolution” than they are cancer.
The Toxic Avenger mixes the two, but is still very much “the next step in evolution”.
Wheres the ecological pressure to create millions of beings with wildly varying powers of which several can destroy the entire planet? That’s not evolution.
By the way, if anyone here dropped X-Men comics a while back…you NEED to pick up Jonathan Hickmans brilliant new pair of X-Men 6 issue series. They just concluded and they set up the X-Men for the future.
If you’ve never read Hickman before…think of a sober, futurist Alan Moore.
But it makes the ‘cancer’ analogy so poor a fit. It’s more like if a doctor runs some tests and looks over my charts and tells me that I’ve developed some kind of growth, and when I panickedly interrupt to ask whether it’s terminal he explains that (a) it might not kill me, and (b) it’s already lowered my cholesterol from an unhealthy level to a healthy one, but (c) yeah, it may eventually kill me, though (d) it seems to have cured some other disease that, apparently, was about to kill me.
It has pros and cons, is my point; there’s maybe a cost-benefit analysis to be run, the way you wouldn’t usually react to a ‘cancer’ diagnosis.
Evolution doesn’t have a goal, it just is. Now, do Marvel Mutants have a reproductive or survival advantage? That’s the important part of evolution that you’ve left out.
But even that’s not a great analogy, because it’s so far outside normal experience. Like, at present, we refer to a tumor as ‘malignant’ or ‘benign’ — but when we say ‘benign’, we don’t really mean ‘beneficial’; we really just mean ‘not malignant’; we don’t, as a rule, talk about a given tumor as being a net positive: we don’t typically use ‘benign’, or any other term, to mean that in a ‘tumor’ context.
To say “tumor” is to already imply that it’s not a net benefit.
The metaphor has to be something that, upon hearing it, you’d say, well, that raises a question instead of answering one: is it a net positive, or a net negative? Even if, upon weighing the evidence, you wind up concluding it’s a net negative, you should still leave the other possibility open at the start. (Say, keeping a gun in the house: you can argue that it’s a net negative, and you may well be correct; but you’re not, from the beginning, impliedly ruling out the idea of a net positive.)
As in: they can cure what ails you; also, they can really mess you up. Heck, they can kill you! But some folks think they’re terrific, and pay lots of money to keep them on hand, because they’re so big a help when it comes to allergies or heart conditions or erectile dysfunction or whatever. But, granted, some other folks are quick to tell you about lives that were ruined because of the stuff. (And, of course, the same guy can make both points: maybe he knows an addict who died from an overdose, and maybe he also knows someone who’s only still alive thanks to their kidney pills.)
Its not a terribly important part so I’ll give it away. Mutants develop pharmaceuticals that have massive benefits for humans. They offer these in exchange for humans giving them…something…
Well, as long as we’re mentioning stuff like that, let me mention the double-edged sword that’s the mutant called Forge: he’s, uh, caused problems for humans. Also, he’s developed stuff that can be useful to humans (and, as you say, sometimes he’s offered it up in exchange for other stuff; and the benefits have prompted folks to make said trade). As I haven’t read Hickman’s run, I don’t know if Forge is the guy developing those pharmaceuticals; I do, though, figure you can put him in any such story and make it a question: does his mutation lead to more harm, or to more good? Is that mutant a net negative for humanity, or a net positive?
Even if the answer winds up being ‘negative’, the point is that it is a question.
In the Marvel universe, it actually does…the Celestials guide it.
Mutants aren’t really the ‘next step’ in the Celestials plan, but they are a part of it - they’re the manifestation of Homo sapiens specific part in the plan. The Celestials created 3 human species - humans (Homo sapiens sapiens and H. s. superior), Deviants (H. descendus), and Eternals (H. immortalis), each with a different role of mutation - Deviants always mutate, Eternals never mutate - theoretically…the gene responsible for Deviant mutation can sneak into the Eternal line, resulting in Thanos - but have super powers inherently, and humans have the potential to have powers, but don’t always express it (the possibility also expresses itself in non-Mutant superhumans).
I was going to bring that up-thank you. “Mutant” when it comes to human development means something entirely different in the Marvel universe than it does here-Different Worlds, Different Rules.