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 …

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.