DEMOCRACY VERSES DICTATORSHIPS

+Edward O. Wilson is a scientist and writer for whom I have a great deal of respect. In fact, you might say I admire him. Therefore, it was shocking when I read that he seems to believe that the individual preference will “always” dominate over group preference. As a biologist, I understand and concede what he is saying, which is that there always will be both individualism and altruism. However, I think that he was looking back and not forward. People who are familiar with +firetreepub.Blogspot.com recognize that I believe altruism and all it implies will eventually come to dominate greed.

Altruism is the basis for group behavior and relates to humanization; in fact, it is the basis for it. In terms of politics, it means to me that altruist democrats are on a trajectory to win ultimately over bestial or selfish conservatism. Groups will win over individuals.

Greed is perhaps the most fundamental personality trait traceable to biological zero. Selfishness is the basis for Natural selection and survival is the reward. A plant rootlet, for example, that can extract more nutrients from the soil will live better than its neighbor will; that is Darwinian survival of the fittest; purpose is not involved. It just is. Therefore, greed has historical precedence.

Obviously, groups form and survive. Gregariousness is physiologically related to contentment; a “rest and digest” state of being for the individuals and groups. Similarly, individuals and groups manifest the feeling of “fight and flight”. People act like flocks of birds or schools of fish. It is innate and not something learned. Scientists have proved there is a flood of oxytocin, the so-called love hormone, when people join a group and cortisone floods the blood stream when frightened. Call aggregates of people kin groups, bands, tribes, states or nations but cooperation allows individuals to survive; therefore, altruism or group formation benefits those who form the unit because it contributes to survival.

In addition to group formation, altruism plays a part in human interactivity. Some speak of reciprocal altruism often using ape grooming as an example. One member of the group does something nice for a neighbor and expects favors in return.  If not paid back in kind, revenge is in order. Expectation of return in kindness could be interpreted as greed and lack of reciprocity could be termed non-fulfillment of greed. If the recipient of the kindness returns the kindness, more acts of kindness are committed. The result is satisfaction. In addition, if I give you a coconut and two bananas, I expect a coconut and three bananas in return; one extra banana for being kind segues into barter. Obviously, memory plays a big part in group formation and cohesion but so does understanding. You cannot have groups without individuals is true but group dependency is driving us toward humanization or visa versa—groups with shared and complimentary tasks and responsibilities are critical to survival. It logically melds into the story of our natural history because it is the story of our natural history. It all has to make sense even in a city of millions of people.

Dr. Wilson shocked me his statement that all societies were egalitarian until settlement replaced wondering and my shock turned to amazement when he wrote that agriculture followed settlements. Recently I have read similar statements by other authors but never expected a man of Wilson’s scholarship to echo them. To me these two statements are fundamentally illogical; they do not make sense. Even the lowest of animals have pecking order and in a complex society, social order is critical. The only reason a group would stop wondering would be if sufficient resources existed—they are not likely to set around waiting for the resources to develop around them. Leaders and followers surely existed in nomadic groups as well as in settlements. Humankind did not need agriculture or settlements to establish a pecking order as these authors implied. However, these statements are unlike his statements about selfishness winning over altruism, which could make sense even if they lead to a breakdown of society. Genetics plays a part in politics. I think that individualism, greed, selfishness, and conservatism are different facets of innate traits only countered by a set of altruistic traits, the forces of empathy or kindness. Wilson’s belief that individualism or conservatism will inevitable triumph over the group or liberalism shocked me because of what it implies about society. I think he is wrong. Groups reinforced by a growing humanity will always be dominant, in other words, democracy will continue to be dominant while dictatorships will continue to fade away.