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)

• Related posts on Musings
• Marlaine's Musings » Blog Archive » Boo! Who's There? Death and …
• Mariana Musings (10-26-09) « Abyssal's Blog
• Pesky anonymous nagger!

• Related posts on Nature
• Psychic Sterling Sinclair Nature Photos of the Day, October 24 …

The idea of Natural Selection is intriguing and, oddly, quite logical. It’s like a less ridiculous version of the TV Game Show Takeshi’s Castle. This show, in addition to being ludicrously funny, highlights some of the key concepts of this natural – if not completely accepted – phenomenon. Basically, you have a large group of contestants who have to overcome a series of challenges and finally defeat the boss to win. All the challenges have a significant amount of luck involved. In fact, some of them are all luck. However, players stand a better chance of getting through if they are fit, agile and have good co-ordination. One can imagine that those that make to the end would hold some valuable information that might increase the chances of success for future contestants. Well, that could be so if it wasn’t a crazy TV show.

Thinking about how organisms adapt and develop new characteristics to deal with their environment is just a little bit mind-bending, if you really get into it – and most people don’t. Basically, every life-form (including the homo-sapiens) is in a fight for survival. This stuff is hard-coded somewhere deep, like in DNA or something. The ultimate goal is the survival of the species. It means defeating disease, predators, as well as the environment. In order to do that, each species has to adapt – i.e. become better suited – to the conditions around them. Those who can’t, die. Simple. Each individual in the group plays her own role. Some cope better than others. Some get trampled on. Some just sort of get by. Some rise and become leaders. The process by which these individuals come to prominence (or obscurity, for that matter) is not necessarily fair. It might be that they luckily survive some viral attack, or they are of a larger size than their peers, or perhaps they are of a more aggressive disposition. In any case, these individuals survive. They can therefore pass on their genes to offspring who, with some luck, inherit their survival traits. This, in turn, is good for the group as a whole. This is my understanding of Natural Selection, in a nutshell.

There is competition for resources in all living systems. With our complete domination of the earth (unless you consider cockroaches…the little buggers will probably be here long after we’re gone), our current view of this is really concentrated on competition with each other. In the old days, Bo the caveman and his homies were too busy trying to survive to worry about holy wars. One can imagine that, after a somewhat lackluster childhood, Bo became special as a man because of his uncanny ability to bash-in Sabre-Toothed Tiger heads. Thus, nobody messed with him. He was important to the group. He could protect the shepherds while they foraged their sheep (or whatever they had back then). He was kept away from dangerous trips to the canyon to get water; the one where many fell to their deaths. He was well fed, so he could keep up his strength. Best of all, Bo got the best women, as ladies – even back then – love to rub shoulders with a celebrity. Plus, they all wanted to be his baby-mama. By the time he was killed at the ripe, old age of 34 (trampled to death by a woolly mammoth while napping in dangerous territory after a particularly tasty meal), he had serviced every female in the group, including the big chief’s missus. Even in death, Bo’s legacy lived on, as quite a few of the next generation were his.

That is “Survival of the fittest”, sort of. This example had more of a social framework perhaps, but it’s still the same principle in nature. That principle seems to be that systems feed more resources to those who are useful; those who are successful at surviving. The more value one provides, the more resources one is likely to get. Wasting supplies on failures or inefficient individuals is bad for the group. Best let them fade away while fellas like Bo get more. Fellas like Bo are survivors. Fellas like Bo contribute more to ensure the group stays around longer. So, in general, the group redirects resources from the less useful to the more useful, where necessary. This whole process has a kind of brutal justice to it. It’s cruel for the Individual but powerful for the survival of the group/species/organism.

Another really good example comes from the immune system of the human body. This is another topic that is really fascinating to learn about. You couldn’t find more drama in day-time soap operas. I won’t get into it here, but we’ll say that there are a variety of Cells along with Antibodies that are involved in protecting you from invader micro-organisms that would do you harm. The group we are most interested in here are B-Cells; one of those that float around waiting to be alerted to the presence of these invaders so they can attack them. When this type of cell is alerted, and subsequently “activated” (like a dog set on a target by giving it a scent to follow, for instance), it starts to reproduce by cell division. All these kid-cells descend on the poor unsuspecting visitors and attempt to destroy them. Now, those that are strongest and most successful, for whatever reason, continually get fed resources to keep going. Those that are weaker are out-competed and die. This is related to a process called Apoptosis. Apoptosis also ensures that cells that are infected automatically send out a signal that marks them for death, whether they want to or not. These cells are wiped out by their own brothers before they can spread infection further (Some invaders have found ways to stop this signal from going out, causing infections to spread and wreak havoc on the human, as the killer cells have no way of telling that these cells are “hot”). Also, cells that are unable to carry out their functions properly for whatever reason are not spared either. Either the “environment” notices and stops supplying resources to the cell, or the cell basically kills itself, by a form of poisoning, for instance. In any case, the body does not waste further food supplies on weak links.

I have simplified the above process quite a bit, but it’s the best I could do without boring you to death. The point is that nature, both internally and externally, favors success. Being successful, in nature anyway, generally leads to more success. Failing, on the other hand, means a tendency towards the bottom of the pile…death. There is an experiment which was done some time ago where they put a group of rats in a cage and periodically subjected them to electric shocks – it goes without saying that being a rat must really suck. They also put a button in the cage that, when pushed, would stop the shocks for all the rats, for that particular wave. Basically, early on, some rats found the button while the others didn’t. Those that did immediately went for it whenever the shocks started, and were able to temporarily provide relief for the entire group. Those that didn’t have that option took the shocks, one can imagine, helplessly. The longer-term results were interesting. The helpless rats had very high levels of stress, understandably. Their immune systems suffered. Their reflexes suffered. They didn’t even have the ability to attempt escape when ample opportunity was given to them. They were completely resigned to their fate. The other ones, in contrast, where considerably better off. Even though they received just as much in the way of shocks as the others, the fact that they had the succeeded in doing something about it had great effects on them. They stayed sharp. They lived longer. They also attempted escape when given the chance. Their bodies (psychology, hormones etc) provided positive feedback in response to success and equipped them for more of it. As for the others…well, their nature turned on them. This experiment was tried on other animals with similar results.

Humans now live in much more complex systems and groups. Being “Successful” in any of the groups isn’t just about staying alive anymore. Failing to succeed also doesn’t mean death. That said, similar rules still apply. Take for instance, a simple example of an attempt at success in the “Corporate World”. You start, hypothetically, at university where you have to take a particular course. If you pass, you are welcomed in. You have proven success. Those who can’t make it (for whatever reason…laziness, illness, poverty, stupidity) are chucked out. As you move forward, the system continually rewards you for more success. There are more connections, more partnerships in this space; relationships that will keep the good stuff coming for years, giving you the tools to make your ability to succeed even greater. Internally, your confidence soars with each new victory, ensuring that you have the stamina to keep going. So, even if you have one or two set-backs, you still have enough juice to keep you churning for a while. If you fail, however, you can become an outcast from this class. Making it becomes harder. The system rejects you. Psychologically, repeated failure could take its toll on your confidence. Even when you try, people around may see your lack of conviction in your eyes, in your demeanor, in your body language. They aren’t likely to give you the time of day. Thus, you could sink further. You could end up screwed, both by the environment, and by yourself. Death might not be the consequence, but exit from the system, this situation still is.

This is the world we live in. It is, in a way, as nature intended. There are many things that can separate success from the failure in our systems…geographical location, ancestry, looks, innate intelligence or lack thereof etc. Some people seem to have more traits that allow them to excel, in addition to having the social background that mean that the odds may be heavily skewed in their favor. The good thing about evolution is that Man now has much more power to reject the status quo, if he chooses to. He can consciously try to improve himself and perhaps get to places that were previously out of his reach. He can analyze, learn, plan and work his way to his chosen goal, in spite of the environment he is in. He can nuture the more subtle parts of his nature to find fulfillment that isn’t tied to an external goal.

Heck, he can even abandon the system altogether and go off on his own path.

Before I continue, I would like to clear up a few things. No, I don’t work for Apple (neither am I looking for a job with them). No, I have not been commissioned to do marketing for them (Hint, hint, Apple. I can be reached at donald@masteryourfate.com. Paypal donations accepted). I am just another professional – no, human being – who has been seeking that Holy Grail for the Mobile Life (which I’d like to think I am living, but that may just be me and my illusions of Grandeur): A device which will allow me to truly reproduce, at least partially, ALL of the important processes which I can do on my computer. I have now found it. Thus, I feel compelled to share this/bore others with this fact. Why? Well, because I can. Here’s a list of the features I require for daily life:

- Emails and Internet…decent speed
- Audio/Video Player
- Camera (Video and Audio)
- News
- Forex Charting/Analysis apps
- Wordpress Blog/Twitter updates
- A bunch of other miscellaneous applications

My search has taken me to the highest of mountains and lowest of valleys (ahem), through days filled with fear and longing, and sleepless nights without internet access, wondering if my trades had gone wrong and wiped out my trading account. No more. No more, I say.

It has been a long and winding road to get here. Once I had accepted that I “needed” one of these mobile/PDA life enhancing thingies, I had to get one. Need is a powerful thing. I usually discover that I need things close to birthdays and Christmas. At this point, my long-suffering missus is brought up to speed a couple of months out. By the time it’s a month till the event, my need has reached fever pitch. The missus now has to sanction the acquisition of the item of desire (a PS2, an XBOX, an XBOX 360, numerous mobile phones, even a car…now we add the iPhone 3GS) before I spontaneously combust.

So I got a Blackberry first. It was great for checking active email accounts (all 6 of them). The internet was a bit dodgy though. The screen was also way too small. it just didn’t feel like the internet in my hand, you know? So, I jettisoned it after some months (I forget the excuse…but it was clearly life or death). I got the T-Mobile G1 a month before Xmas. That was fun for a while. The internet was better (though T-Mobile’s 3G network is not great). I was also exposed to a new world of applications. I lusted for greater power though. I still had to carry an Ipod around. Android (the Google Mobile operating framework) shows a lot of promise, but the better phones and applications are years away. Ok, maybe the end of the year; but that’s like light-years in the mobile world.

Then recently, a colleague suddenly acquired an iPhone. I was assaulted with sweet temptation from all sides. In due time (like a couple of days), I caved and went out and got one (Anyone want a T-Mobile G1?). All I can say is WOW! Check out a typical Monday:

- Wake up to alarm (iPhone).

- Listen to some relaxing Enya (what I listen to is my business) as I preapre (iPhone in dock)

- Listen to podcasts as I drive (FM trasmitter in car…the VW iPod adapter is rubbish)

- Use iPhone App “Simplex FX” to do some Forex Technical Analysis on Charts during the day. Take notes if I notice anything interesting. Flashes of inspiration can be put on blog. Internet use is a cinch.

- Take iPod to gym and listen to more podcasts and my spanish learning thingy

- Miscellaneous tasks, of which they are many on the iPhone

- Playback some of my personal statements (e.g. “I am the Greatest”) before I go to bed (voice recorder on my iPhone)

- Sleep until I am awakened by alarm

- Rinse and repeat till infinity.

I can be away from my PC for days and still function. It’s the best life-partner a guy could ask for (apologies to my wife)! I can honestly say that my quest to make the world a better place now has a boost…ahem.

600 Americans die falling out of bed year (Time Magazine, Nov 2006). I guess I’ll be sleeping in from now on…

Seriously though, statistics like this belie the true facts. They can over-generalize and leave you with the wrong impression; in this case, the impression that trying to get out of bed can leave you dead which, while true, is a massive exaggeration. In truth, most of the people who meet their demise this way are much older or much younger than the average. Basically, it’s still okay for you to risk getting out of bed.

So it’s really about the idea of risk and whether the rewards of attempting something are worth the potential cost. The issue of risk has never been more relevant than it is today. I mean, we are slowly recovering (knock on wood) from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930s. It’s been bloody and painful to watch and experience it first-hand. Thus, it’s timely to bring up that old lovable-rogue, Risk. Why? Well, because he is mostly to blame for the BS we have all had to endure over the last year or so…if you believe most people. There are others in the line-up as well; Greed, for instance. However, Risk features prominently somewhere between cause and effect here.

I remember watching the United States’ Congress grilling the “Wall Street” CEOs after it was revealed that most of their philosophy for management seemed to be about maximizing risk and hoping for the best. Okay, not really; but most of these clowns were a bit rubbish, really. In any case, I was a little sad because I could see the effect such a spectacle (almost a public hanging, sort of) would have – not on the CEOs themselves; they might now be a little bit constrained in their current environment, but they will soon find other ways to express their dare-devil tendencies…or just retire with their massive bonuses – on those regular people at home who watched it; those who were reeling from the new harsh reality of living in tough economic times after years of prosperity; those who might decide that this was proof that taking risks is just not worth the trouble.

As I alluded to in the opening sentence of this article, risk-taking is inherent in our lives. There’s the whole having to get out of bed thing. There’s driving to work under the assumption that other drivers will be reasonable folks, not psychotic murderers out for blood. There’s eating out at a restaurant not knowing what the chef (or his prankster assistant) has put in your meal. I’m nitpicking here, I know; but it’s interesting how human beings can give a much higher risk weighting to one thing, completely ignoring the statistics, because of perception. For instance, I read an article in Time Magazine a little while ago that pointed out an interesting fact. As of the date of that article (Nov 2006), precisely no one in America had been killed by Avian Flu, which was busy inducing barely restrained panic in people. However, the common flu contributes to the death of over 36,000 Americans a year. Talk about misplaced fear (er…I have never taken the flu shot either, and Swine flu freaked me out completely earlier this year as well).

This phenomenon could have something to do with the “Devil you know” concept. The relatively unknown always seems scarier than the things we are familiar with. Aside from that, we tend to fear suffering, in most cases more than death itself. I mean I have thought to myself that I would like to go quickly when it’s my time (Not often. I’m not morbid! Honest!). Thus, we tend to have a greater fear of a long, drawn-out demise e.g. from AIDS; even though Heart Disease kills 50 times as many people (once again, American statistics).

This brings us back to the risks in finance. The idea is simple: if you screw up your finances, you are looking at possibly a very long, drawn-out period that would be spent answering for that. You might also have to drag your family along for the ride. It is not a pleasant thought. So, we would all do well to plan carefully and ensure that we don’t ruin ourselves. Security is the watch-word here, for ourselves and those we love. That said, how much security is too much security? I mean let’s try to be objective about it. In life, it seems that if you risk a little bit more, you raise the potential for gaining more…as well as losing more. So, there has to be a “middle-area”, right? Somewhere where the potential loss is not so big that we can’t get back on the horse again if the venture fails. Well, there is, in my opinion.

Those Wall Street CEOs…they had the right idea, before they put it on steroids. In order to effect real change, some risk-taking is required. That is how industry works. Google has launched an OS and Microsoft is stepping into the Search game again. Each of these is a risky venture, with the potential for much bruising down the line; but the game must be played. The concept of “security” might be enough to preserve the status-quo for a while, but progress requires shaking things up a bit. That’s part of the reason CEOs (not necessarily these chumps we talked about before…you know who you are!) get to earn as much money as they do; they have developed higher risk-tolerance, and an ability to “stick their necks out”. One might argue that it’s easy to do this if you’re already financially secure (as most of these folks are; darned bonuses!), but these ladies and gentlemen demonstrated those qualities long before they made it to the top. You see it at work, with the people who are more willing to take on responsibility with the risk of “screwing up” hanging over them. If things don’t work out, they might have to move jobs, but if they do, jackpot!

The idea of huge risks in “doing one’s own thing” is a also bit dated. This article on Time.com points out for instance that there isn’t nearly as much risk involved in entrepreneurship as one might think. It really comes down to planning. For instance, that’s what Business Plans are for. There’s also more opportunity to start with small things (not the 200 dollar “investment” in Blackjack in Vegas. I learnt my lesson from that one). Risk-tolerance is like a muscle. It needs exercise. You can flex it with inconsequential things at first, then up the stakes a little.

The most important thing is not to give into the knee-jerk reaction that comes when a little (okay, BIG)something like a recession comes along. One must not lose one’s objectivity in such situations. Investigate; do the research yourself. There are things that one can only learn by trying. The experience (along with prejudices and failures) of others can only carry anyone so far.

Besides, putting yourself out there makes you more alive. That’s partly what life is all about, you know?

You do yourself no justice if you don’t.