Focus on the Group or the Individual

Core sentence:
Humans are evolutionarily driven toward self-preservation, but unconsciously recognize that the interest of the group increases their chances of survival.

TREBLA:
Above we have considered the human species as part of the total system. Sometimes one gets the impression that human beings would be responsible for the total system. But if we look at the behavior of human beings, it seems that evolution, as mentioned above, has only wired humans to strive for their own survival and consequently, if all humans do this, for the survival of the group.

ALEX:
How does the balance lie between striving for one’s own survival and supporting the group?

TREBLA:
A person focuses on himself and on the group to which he belongs. What is his relationship with the group? Does he value the group as a concept or as separate individuals within the group?

In elementary school a person is part of a group and tries to be accepted by the group, that is to say by most individuals in the group. Then he goes to high school where he becomes part of a new group, and again he will do his best to be accepted by the members of that new group. Is the bond with the first group from elementary school still so strong that it remains permanent? That could be the case, but in general he will do his utmost to be an accepted member of the new group.

The same will happen at university or at work. It may even be that he emigrates to another country, and again there will be a group in which he tries to integrate.

Therefore we can hardly deny that the focus lies on oneself and on being part of and being accepted by a group; thus more or less independent of the specific individuals in the group. The person tries to optimize his chances of survival and therefore “understands” that, given the way he is wired, he must be a member of a group. Evolutionarily he is not so developed that he can survive alone like a tiger; he needs a group to help him do so. And of course this also applies reciprocally to all members of that group.

In all of this we must realize that this applies to the average person; evolutionarily there will be a distribution of different behaviors, since one person has more difficulty changing groups than others or tends toward a somewhat more solitary way of life.

ALEX:
What is his relationship with animals, nature, and the Earth?

TREBLA:
Let us assume that there are more “Earth-like” planets in the universe, with all the necessities to provide humans with a comfortable environment. Do we love our Earth and animals so much that we would never migrate to another Earth, even if conditions here were to deteriorate drastically?

If we migrate to the other planet, do we, like Noah, take all the animals with us? In many cases this is practically impossible and one would limit oneself to oneself and the closest loved ones. I expect that once conditions deteriorate — or even before that — we will migrate, perhaps together with our loved ones, to the other planet and begin as if we were emigrating to another country, and that, as we mentioned earlier, despite the Earth and its animals.

So again the focus lies on the survival of the individual person and secondarily on his desire for a specific group.

ALEX:
Don’t you think that people take animals with them for very different, but evolutionarily understandable reasons?

Some will take pets; others a collection of reptiles; still others livestock — for example as a precaution, as a food reserve. At first sight this may look like personal preference or sentiment, but perhaps everyone unconsciously plays a role that serves the interest of the group.

Take attachment. The tendency to form attachments with others gives humans the advantage of cooperation and living together in groups. Attachment to animals also had evolutionary value: dogs helped with hunting, domesticated animals made migration unnecessary, and pack animals such as horses facilitated agriculture and transportation.

Even bringing a collection of reptiles may seem peculiar, but it can be functional. Someone with knowledge of poisonous animals, for example, knows that the poison of a toad can be used to make an arrow more lethal. Such specific knowledge could prove crucial in a survival situation.

And the people who bring livestock? They choose security. Risk-averse behavior can in many circumstances guarantee the survival of a group — just as in other situations recklessness can make the difference. Each behavioral variant can provide a survival advantage at the right moment.

TREBLA:
You may be right, but ultimately, when the survival of a person is at stake, that person will generally make decisions for his own survival. If he does not do so, he will perish, and only those who primarily make decisions in their own interest will survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. This will probably cause a shift in the average survival instinct in which self-interest becomes more strongly emphasized.

ALEX:
I think we humans have much in common, but that on an individual level we still vary greatly.

Among ants the queen produces different types of ants: caretakers, workers, guards, etc. Physically these types of ants also differ from one another, although they all have the queen as their mother. I think that with humans it is more or less the same.

A number of basic abilities are generic to humans, such as the ability to copy behavior, to see, to hear, to speak, to walk, etc. Here too there will be exceptions, because it might once have been useful if someone, for example, was deaf or blind, but I suspect that a group cannot have too many such individuals, since in most situations this is more of a disadvantage than an advantage.