Survival of the Friendliest(nautil.us)
nautil.us
Survival of the Friendliest
http://nautil.us/issue/46/balance/survival-of-the-friendliest
49 comments
About every 18 months someone in the popular press feels the need to point out "exciting new research" that shows that nature isn't really red in tooth and claw, but that evolutionary biology even seems to show that cooperation and even altruism can be adaptive! Except that's hardly news. Darwin himself pointed it out. It's nice that we keep confirming it and exploring its complexity, but could we just stop being so shocked by it? If nothing else, explain that the problem is that people have weird preconceived ideas about evolution, not that evolutionary theory keeps getting revised.
It keeps coming up because I believe media is a self-fulfilling prophecy for civilization. As much as we keep being reminded of this truth, we are also SOLD the idea of competing by consumption and status. Social media breeds this mentality more and more while also making the world more connected. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance happening on a global scale like never before right now.
This isn't just a social media mentality; it's a capitalist mentality and an American mentality.
True. I tend to see the world through the lenses of media and technology more and more. I feel they have the largest influence over us. I agree that is this a byproduct of capitalism and America as well.
In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt argues that it's not about altruism, it's about parochial altruism. Niceness is okay. Niceness aimed narrowly at your own gang is fantastic.
He mentions that it isn't new, though. I thought it was a neat observation since it was new to me.
He mentions that it isn't new, though. I thought it was a neat observation since it was new to me.
Because we need to keep reinforcing this in order to override the already established frame that it's dog eat dog and that we shouldn't pay for the healthcare of others or pay taxes etc.
> dog eat dog
Or "law of the jungle". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_jungle
Or "law of the jungle". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_jungle
The same phrase "survival of the fittest", which was so much misinterpreted, could be fixed by adding one extra word: group, family, clan, team, company or country. "Survival of the fittest family" or "fittest group" implies both competition and cooperation to an equal measure. But I love the shock value in "Survival of the friendliest". Good title, and good to drive this point again and again through the mind of the public.
As usual, another title selection that has been passed through the finely tuned media/techno filters for maximum shock value. Survival of the Fittest Group is actually more to the point.
Except that group selection isn't a non-controversial idea in evolutionary biology, and shouldn't be causally invoked unless you're prepared to get into multi-level selection theory, kin-selection and haplodiploidy, replicator theory, cultural evolution, etc. The idea that this is simple or obvious really needs to be resisted.
>"We’ve taken these metaphors for evolution to heart, reading them to mean that life is a race to kill or be killed. “Darwinian” stands in for “cutthroat,” “survival of the fittest” signifies survival of the ruthless."
This is a complete perversion of the intent Darwin expressed with the term "survival of the fittest". Here it is conflated with "survival of the strongest", but that is not what Darwin meant. His point was that any species more able to adapt to change, and thus maintain their level of "fitness" to an ecological niche would be dominant.
This is a complete perversion of the intent Darwin expressed with the term "survival of the fittest". Here it is conflated with "survival of the strongest", but that is not what Darwin meant. His point was that any species more able to adapt to change, and thus maintain their level of "fitness" to an ecological niche would be dominant.
Closing sentence:
>For those most invested in the old-school Darwinian view of the survival of the fittest and violence as virtue, then, the message is clear: Just relax.
Reminds me of the Oppenheimer quote:
>It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so
>For those most invested in the old-school Darwinian view of the survival of the fittest and violence as virtue, then, the message is clear: Just relax.
Reminds me of the Oppenheimer quote:
>It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so
"Survival of the Fittest" was not Darwin's idea. The phrase was coined by Spencer, who misinterpreted Darwin's work. It has since been used primarily to either further misunderstanding or to apply Darwinism to realms like society and race, generally to distasteful or even horrific result. It's a reliable marker for writing that will irritate people who've actually studied evolutionary biology.
Open Source Software Communities relate to this too. Possibly a fairly obvious point to many. :)
There seems to be evolutionary (fitness?) pressure, helping shape the Communities, software, their norms, etc.
* In areas without proprietary competitors, new proprietary entrants seem to be rare.
* In many areas previously dominated by proprietary software, the Open Source alternatives are now often credible if not preferred.
This evolution of increasing fitness seems to be continuing.
If Open Source Software represents the "mammals" :D of the software ecosystem, what do the walled gardens (app stores, etc) represent?
There seems to be evolutionary (fitness?) pressure, helping shape the Communities, software, their norms, etc.
* In areas without proprietary competitors, new proprietary entrants seem to be rare.
* In many areas previously dominated by proprietary software, the Open Source alternatives are now often credible if not preferred.
This evolution of increasing fitness seems to be continuing.
If Open Source Software represents the "mammals" :D of the software ecosystem, what do the walled gardens (app stores, etc) represent?
I don't know -- photosynthesing organisms that generate primary resources?
Which resources are then indirectly consumed by OSS (at least its "free as in beer" variant), acting as a parasite in your analogy :) The money has to ultimately come from somewhere, you know, or the music stops.
What would software devs do if all the oh-so-evil proprietary software disappeared? Exchange FOSS PRs with each other, until they die of hunger?
Which resources are then indirectly consumed by OSS (at least its "free as in beer" variant), acting as a parasite in your analogy :) The money has to ultimately come from somewhere, you know, or the music stops.
What would software devs do if all the oh-so-evil proprietary software disappeared? Exchange FOSS PRs with each other, until they die of hunger?
> I don't know -- photosynthesing organisms that generate primary resources?
Not sure. On one hand, the walled garden approach does seem to have some benefits when done well, of drawing in further resources/development.
> Indirectly consumed by OSS
Yeah, that could definitely be the case sometimes too. When OSS Communities use offerings present in these walled gardens (eg Affinity Designer, a good vector graphics app for OSX) to further what they're doing.
Not sure if parasite is correct :), but it seems reasonable there's some interplay between the produce of the walled garden(s) and the external ecosystem.
From the OSS Communities perspective, I'd kind of expect (but am not really sure) that many of the resources used in the walled garden apps come from OSS. eg things like gzip, various other libraries, perhaps graphics (etc).
And as a note, I don't personally believe all proprietary software is oh-so-evil. ;) The companies which develop software choose to act however they do, evil or not. The "evil" is in the actions of the companies, regardless of the OSS-or-not nature. That's just my understanding of things thus far anyway. :D
Not sure. On one hand, the walled garden approach does seem to have some benefits when done well, of drawing in further resources/development.
> Indirectly consumed by OSS
Yeah, that could definitely be the case sometimes too. When OSS Communities use offerings present in these walled gardens (eg Affinity Designer, a good vector graphics app for OSX) to further what they're doing.
Not sure if parasite is correct :), but it seems reasonable there's some interplay between the produce of the walled garden(s) and the external ecosystem.
From the OSS Communities perspective, I'd kind of expect (but am not really sure) that many of the resources used in the walled garden apps come from OSS. eg things like gzip, various other libraries, perhaps graphics (etc).
And as a note, I don't personally believe all proprietary software is oh-so-evil. ;) The companies which develop software choose to act however they do, evil or not. The "evil" is in the actions of the companies, regardless of the OSS-or-not nature. That's just my understanding of things thus far anyway. :D
They would make money by using open source tools to implement specific projects for companies and end users. The fact that Node and Mongo exist is of no use, if you don't know how they work together. It takes work and experience to use the open source tools at their fullest.
Make money from "specific projects" that are free open source software? O_o
I think you missed the part where a vital piece of the ecosystem, namely proprietary/non-free software, no longer exists.
I think you missed the part where a vital piece of the ecosystem, namely proprietary/non-free software, no longer exists.
This passage seems to be deliberately looking the other way:
> Our evolution has been profoundly influenced by our selection-buffering behaviors. For instance, the appearance of some modern human features appears to be correlated with a rise in energy consumption, linked to the introduction of meat in our diet.
Does buffering ourselves from selection by hunting and eating animals not subject them to more selection?
> Our evolution has been profoundly influenced by our selection-buffering behaviors. For instance, the appearance of some modern human features appears to be correlated with a rise in energy consumption, linked to the introduction of meat in our diet.
Does buffering ourselves from selection by hunting and eating animals not subject them to more selection?
> peace treaty among interdependent nation
It is more commonly referred to as the prisoner's dilemma.
This is a strange article, and I'm curious who the author wrote it for. It's certainly not written for biologists familiar with the research she refers to.
It is more commonly referred to as the prisoner's dilemma.
This is a strange article, and I'm curious who the author wrote it for. It's certainly not written for biologists familiar with the research she refers to.
It happens at every level... we as organisms are made from smaller collaborating organisms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfNEHl44hc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfNEHl44hc
This is a really great little video (with references!). The article seems to acknowledge this evolutionary path when it says
"Billions of years ago, another ancient cyanobacteria was engulfed and “domesticated” by an ancestor of plants. It shed most of the genes it needed for an independent existence and became what we now know as the chloroplast. In return for a safe environment, these chloroplasts performed photosynthesis for their hosts, fueling a new form of life that eventually spread over much of the Earth."
This seems to be talking about the same hypothesis, but I'm not enough of a biologist to be sure.
"Billions of years ago, another ancient cyanobacteria was engulfed and “domesticated” by an ancestor of plants. It shed most of the genes it needed for an independent existence and became what we now know as the chloroplast. In return for a safe environment, these chloroplasts performed photosynthesis for their hosts, fueling a new form of life that eventually spread over much of the Earth."
This seems to be talking about the same hypothesis, but I'm not enough of a biologist to be sure.
I don't see a contradiction between "fittest" and "friendliest", at least in certain contexts.
Even warfare is a highly collaborative activity. Everything about preparing and engaging in the most violent activity known to nature is governed by cooperation. Training, logistics, tactics, strategy, all of these things are greatly aided by working together.
In the wild, the only creatures that can hunt alone are apex predators, of which there are only a handful in any given ecosystem. Every single other species has to band together to eat and protect themselves.
That we ever thought anything different is just silly.
In the wild, the only creatures that can hunt alone are apex predators, of which there are only a handful in any given ecosystem. Every single other species has to band together to eat and protect themselves.
That we ever thought anything different is just silly.
> That we ever thought anything different is just silly.
Despite having the hindsight of history, people still try to apply Darwinian theory to the social realm at almost every chance...the rat race, climbing the social ladder, or pointy-haired managers invoking quotes from _The Art of War_ or some other general even though they haven't been in any real type of physical altercation or conflict
Social insects, pollinating plants, slime molds, pack hunters, etc. It seems to me that the history of life is the history of cooperation as the default state punctuated by selective pressures shocks usually due to a loss of some type of vital resource. Even our smallest functional unit, the cell, is most likely an example of cooperation between the eukaryote and mitochondria. All of our cells cooperating with our microbiome to make us who we are
I've come to the conclusion that humanity's greatest asset over other species is our unparalleled ability to cooperate in large scales societies using collective fictions like religion, justice/virtue, and the corporation to give us the motivation and structure for organization. The cognitive revolution kick started this and led to the agricultural revolution and the scientific revolution Yuval Noah Harari's A Brief History of Humankind is a fantastic read exploring this topic. He also did a MOOC on the same subject, but I don't know if it's still available.
Despite having the hindsight of history, people still try to apply Darwinian theory to the social realm at almost every chance...the rat race, climbing the social ladder, or pointy-haired managers invoking quotes from _The Art of War_ or some other general even though they haven't been in any real type of physical altercation or conflict
Social insects, pollinating plants, slime molds, pack hunters, etc. It seems to me that the history of life is the history of cooperation as the default state punctuated by selective pressures shocks usually due to a loss of some type of vital resource. Even our smallest functional unit, the cell, is most likely an example of cooperation between the eukaryote and mitochondria. All of our cells cooperating with our microbiome to make us who we are
I've come to the conclusion that humanity's greatest asset over other species is our unparalleled ability to cooperate in large scales societies using collective fictions like religion, justice/virtue, and the corporation to give us the motivation and structure for organization. The cognitive revolution kick started this and led to the agricultural revolution and the scientific revolution Yuval Noah Harari's A Brief History of Humankind is a fantastic read exploring this topic. He also did a MOOC on the same subject, but I don't know if it's still available.
You might also be interested in Peter Turchin's War and Peace and War -- which depicts social cohesion as the measure of social health, and internal competition among like-minded members of a society as the beginning of the end. (This is confirmed repeatedly by history, especially Chinese history; I'm also reminded of how corruption and lack of internal cohesion doomed the post-Roman British kingdoms in their should've-been-a-cakewalk defense against the Anglo-Saxons.)
Competition is likely what doomed the Roman Republic as the fall of Rome did not happen with the barbarians at the gate. I remember that the rules stated Consulship was only suppposed to last for one year, but certain people became consul 7 times in a row, another guy 3 times, then the triumvirates formed, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Roman soldiers were made up of warriors who had never seen Rome and didn't give an eff about the Republic or the Empire, etc.
All too often, we are taught in school the great man, big event view of history, like Alexander was some superhuman solely responsible for the creation of his empire (No one ever brings up the biggest, the Mongol Empire).
All too often, we are taught in school the great man, big event view of history, like Alexander was some superhuman solely responsible for the creation of his empire (No one ever brings up the biggest, the Mongol Empire).
Remember that the Caesars saved Rome from collapse; Octavian (Augustus Caesar) was one of the most influential and successful people in history. For the fall of the Western Empire, see The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, but even then remember that the Roman Empire continued in the east until 1453.
I don't know why you condemn the Great Man theory while talking about Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan -- two of the clearest-cut examples of how the Great Man theory isn't entirely wrong.
I don't know why you condemn the Great Man theory while talking about Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan -- two of the clearest-cut examples of how the Great Man theory isn't entirely wrong.
Ghengis, and the Mongol Empire in general, is the most exceptional empire in history. What I mean by exception is that it broke all the rules...circumstances that doomed any other empire didn't have the same effect on them.
I'm not going to discount Alexander's successes. From all sources, he was very talented, if impulsive, cavalry calendar
Greece's climate and proximity to the coast made it one of the wealthiest areas in the world at the time due to exports of olive oil and wine. This allowed the free citizenry to be outfitted with the finest armor available at the time. That the Hoplites were free citizens, and not slaves, endowed them with a greater amount of morale than a number of other militaries at the time. Also, I believe his father was the one who created the phalanx formation. Put simply, he inherited the greatest fighting force at the time while being extremely well-funded.
The Great Man theory isn't entirely wrong, Napoleon springs to mind as another person who had an outsized influence on history. It's just that much of the history taught in US schools is about singular individuals and dates. They don't really go into the overall conditions of the times and that history is also the result of the decisions of everyday people like you and I
I'm not going to discount Alexander's successes. From all sources, he was very talented, if impulsive, cavalry calendar
Greece's climate and proximity to the coast made it one of the wealthiest areas in the world at the time due to exports of olive oil and wine. This allowed the free citizenry to be outfitted with the finest armor available at the time. That the Hoplites were free citizens, and not slaves, endowed them with a greater amount of morale than a number of other militaries at the time. Also, I believe his father was the one who created the phalanx formation. Put simply, he inherited the greatest fighting force at the time while being extremely well-funded.
The Great Man theory isn't entirely wrong, Napoleon springs to mind as another person who had an outsized influence on history. It's just that much of the history taught in US schools is about singular individuals and dates. They don't really go into the overall conditions of the times and that history is also the result of the decisions of everyday people like you and I
In the wild, the only creatures that
can hunt alone are apex predators
Or housecats, for that matter.
Are cats not apex predators?
Being incidentally killed in a fight with another animal doesn't make you prey, btw. Prey means you are hunted as part of the diet of another species.
Being incidentally killed in a fight with another animal doesn't make you prey, btw. Prey means you are hunted as part of the diet of another species.
The Wikipedia page on cooperative hunting says that some 85-90% of hunting is done solitary, so I was totally wrong on that one.
House cats are commonly eaten by hawks and coyotes. I'm not sure to what extent that's true of small wild cats.
Wild cats are commonly eaten by wolves.
Putting this in the category of "almost seems like common sense, but I never connected the thoughts to come up with this".
Let's look at house pets for example - many dogs still exist because of their friendliness towards humans (we feed and shelter them). Same with certain breeds of cats.
I wonder what would happen to this ecosystem if say, humans went extinct someday? It's pretty easy to imagine we'll be the cause of our own demise so any of these animals relying on us to survive would probably go with that, but if we disappeared tomorrow I'd be curious to see how they would survive.
Let's look at house pets for example - many dogs still exist because of their friendliness towards humans (we feed and shelter them). Same with certain breeds of cats.
I wonder what would happen to this ecosystem if say, humans went extinct someday? It's pretty easy to imagine we'll be the cause of our own demise so any of these animals relying on us to survive would probably go with that, but if we disappeared tomorrow I'd be curious to see how they would survive.
There's been cases of pets eating their owners who suddenly passed away. When push comes to shove, the beast will come out.
It's a corpse at that point.