In an earlier article, I explored the idea of Natural Selection and how the value of an individual could be an important factor in it’s survival in a group. What I didn’t mention was where this perspective fits into current views of science on evolution. As I understand it, there are essentially two angles; one that has the individual’s own well-being as the primary driver for one’s actions, and the other, where the group’s well-being is the driver.

What would you do for a Klondike bar?. I am not sure how far I’d go myself, though they are quite tasty. The fellow in this particular ad is forced to hang out with his mother-in-law and – gulp – massage her toes. This, at least in the current context (though I’d venture it’s also universal true), is an unpleasant ordeal for the individual. He is able to live through it because he gets the reward. He has sacrificed his well-being and dignity in return for the prize. This is the core of the Individualist view. What’s in it for me?

There is the possibility of extending that idea to include one’s immediate group or close relatives. I am talking wife and kinds here, mostly. So, the dude above might massage his mother-in-law’s toes even if there was no juicy snack for him at the end of this dark and dreary tunnel. He might do it if, perhaps, his very rich mother-in-law would contribute to his child’s college fund. While this might not necessarily be of direct benefit to himself as an individual, it is of benefit to his kid. Thus, it is of benefit to his “family”. So, the individual is able to make sacrifices for his immediate group. This is as far as it goes though. There will be no toe-massaging to help get some money for cousin Andrew’s new HD TV.

This view is one that underestimates the importance of socialization and group dynamics; family and love (as much as love can be applied to animal communities) i.e. it’s all about self-preservation.

This means, for instance, that for a person to give away their wealth or time, they would have to get something back (either directly for themselves or for their immediate group). We see this all the time. People might get rewarded with status, political favors, praise etc. However, we also see people give of themselves in situations where there is no clear benefit. They might get a “buzz” from it…that is the reward. I suppose one could argue that this doesn’t translate to something for nothing, as they get the feeling. However, what we are examining here is evolutionary. Why would the human body or brain generate the hormones that stimulate the aforementioned feeling from doing such an activity? Especially since this feeling – one that ensures that the individual is likely to do more of the same – is of no “benefit” to the person? That’s the kicker. It just doesn’t add up.

And so it goes. We find that it is frequently the case that no gain can be isolated that is primarily for the individual, or just for the individual’s family or descendants. Instead, the gain is for others in the wider group. It is the same for people who go off to help out in poor countries, or campaign for a better planet. In each case, the effects and benefits are on a larger scale – the group in question could even be all of humanity. This sort of behavior flies in the face of the individualist idea of “me first”. It would seem that the behavior of the individual has not always evolved for completely selfish reasons; but also for the good of the group.

A different example of this might be a person who is chronically ill. Investigations have shown that patients who need help the most, but are really unhappy, are least likely to get it. This is because depressed patients repel doctors and nurses with their attitude. They moan, complain or just aren’t that great to be around. They are downers. They actively accelerate their rejection by such actions. By implication, they accelerate their possible demise. Once again, we can look at this from an evolutionary perspective. Such behavior would be justifiable if there was something in it for this individual. Perhaps, more resources for his family after his death or something to that effect. However, most of the time at least, this isn’t the case.

Studies have shown that most people who are this way are the least likely to have close family and friends. They tend to be loners. Thus, their death is of little profit to any would-be relatives. The gains to be made are for the whole group i.e. less resources would be wasted on the individual who was no longer contributing meaningfully to the group. Instead, they seem to execute a sort of “self-destruct” program, hastening their own removal from the picture.

This is in contrast to another group of patients who, though in a similar situation as regards sickness, are better able to handle themselves i.e. they are nicer and easier to deal with, even as dying patients. Such people tend to have more family and friends. Such people tend to get more attention and help because they are still “good to be around”. Their attitude and demeanor ensure that they are more likely to get the help they need from care-givers. And they also tend to live longer. Once again, this is contrary to the individualist view. There are more people who would “gain” from the death of such a person, yet this person’s behavior ensures that they are around longer.

It seems to have more to do with value and contribution. Humans, like most animals, are about the group. People who have loads of friends and family tend to be better off than those who don’t. As an extension, groups with individuals that work well together tend to do better than those that are less so. If you look at behavior from the perspective of the group rather than the individual, you can see that the group would clearly favor individuals that offer more value to the group as a whole. There are loads of examples of these, if you can be bothered to check them out. You have the Human Immune System, where killer cells that are successful in attacking invaders get more resources and reproduce more, while the less successful die out, starved of resources. You have cell-suicide (part of Apoptosis) where cells that are “broken” in some way unwittingly send out signals that cause them to be killed or starved to death, or to even poison themselves, as they are no longer of any use to the body.

What’s really interesting is how Advanced Neural Networks work off the same principles, as explained by Howard Bloom in his books. A Neural network consists of a number of nodes which combine together to achieve a function (the central nervous system is an example of a biological Neural Network). These networks have ways of learning and optimizing to get the best performance in solving problems. Essentially, individual nodes that work better towards solving the problem receive more connections and continually get more energy sent their way. Those that don’t receive less and less. They are not approached often, as they are dumped in the bunch that just don’t measure up. There isn’t much of a fuss about this; it’s just the way it is.

It would seem that we all have selflessness in us, whether we like it or not. This doesn’t mean each individual has to sacrifice himself for others. I think it’s more of a question of fulfilment and value. The idea is that you have to live life and play your part in your group (family, work, school, fraternity). As long as, internally, you feel a “sense of accomplishment” about your life and your contribution – whatever that means to you – then you should be alright. You would be a person of value. You would thereby be adding to the value of the group. If you feel like you are of low value, then your nature will begin to “exercise selflessness” and work towards removing you from the group, in general terms.

I think it was put best in the Bible… “To he who hath it shall be given; from he who hath not even what he hath shall be taken away”.

Natural justice can be pretty brutal, if you ask me.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)