Human Nature & the Evolutionary Process, Part 2

Survival of the Fittest?
Because this competitive model has dominated for so long, many people believe that we are aggressive and competitive by nature and nothing can be done to change this behavior. The idea that human nature is inherently competitive received validation in the mid-1800s from the work of Charles Darwin. With his theory of evolution, Darwin presented a vast body of evidence that all life on Earth evolved over millions of years from a few common ancestors. This evolution occurred through a process called natural selection. From his research and observations, Darwin noted that possessing certain traits increased a species chance of survival; a higher percentage of animals with these traits would survive and, through procreation, pass them on genetically to the next generation. For example, when the climate grew significantly colder, animals with thicker fur would survive in disproportionate numbers. In a drought, animals that could survive on less water would endure.

Darwin’s theory promoted the idea of the survival of the fittest. This term is a bit misleading since the individuals possessing traits that increased their chances of survival had nothing to do with developing those traits. The male bird with brighter colors that made him more attractive to females did not control the amount of color in his feathers. The individual members of a species that survived dramatic climate change did not intentionally change their makeup in order to survive. It wasn’t survival of the fittest so much as the good fortune of those whose traits happened to suit the demands of the time.
Inevitably, supporters of a competitive worldview commandeered Darwin’s concept in order to prove that being competitive was natural and superior to all other ways of interacting. This view became known as Social Darwinism. When two animals fight to the death it is easy to conclude that the winner is the stronger, more competitive animal. The twisted logic of Social Darwinism holds that aggressive, competitive individuals are the most suited, and therefore the most deserving, of survival and success in life. Thus competition is viewed as natural and even essential to our progress and development.

Dog-eat-dog competition, seen as human nature, now defines most aspects of business, politics, sports, and even popular culture. It’s the new mode of popular entertainment, from TV’s Survivor, American Idol and The Apprentice, to the slew of programs that reduce “contestants” to the level of aggressive beasts hunting and fighting for survival around the drought-ravaged watering hole. There’s no disputing the potential in almost all species for highly competitive and aggressive behavior. And we human beings are an animal species. But does this prove the inevitability or the superiority, of competitive behavior? On the surface, this can seem to be the case. But if we look more closely, we see that competitive behavior manifests most frequently and intensely when there is a shortage of some necessity, like water, food, shelter, sex or, with the animal called Man, money. Competitive behavior manifests when we are threatened or our survival is at stake, and even when there is an illusory perception of a threat. Nature reveals that when there is no shortage in the necessities of survival, there is less competitive, aggressive behavior. And both animals and man thrive best when they cooperate with one another. This is why most animals form herds, packs and flocks, and why man formed tribes, villages, towns and nations.


Survival of the Luckiest
Sometimes survival of the fittest becomes survival of the luckiest, or even weakest. This was the case for one troop of savanna baboons in Kenya studied by researchers Robert Sapolsky and Lisa Share starting in 1978. Baboons, like chimpanzees and humans, are known to be quite hierarchical and male-dominated, with frequent aggressive interactions. Between 1983 and 1986, the troop’s dominant males, who were observed to be very aggressive, were wiped out by contracting bovine tuberculosis through foraging in the garbage dump at a nearby tourist lodge. The lesser males and the females did not contract the disease because the dominant males prevented them from feeding at the dump. The deaths of the dominant males drastically changed the gender composition of the troop, more than doubling the ratio of females to males, and by 1986 troop behavior had changed dramatically; males were now significantly less aggressive.

Observation of the troop stopped after 1986 and did not start again until 1993. At this time, the same less-aggressive behavior was observed in the troop. This is particularly surprising and enlightening because male baboons leave their birth troop after puberty. Even though there were few adult males from the previous period, the new males showed the less-aggressive behavior of their predecessors. Apparently, the adolescent baboons observing the interactions between the females and the older males of the troop learned that they didn’t have to be as aggressive to get what they needed! The researchers even analyzed blood samples from the troop during this second period of observation and found that the males lacked the distinctive physiological markers of stress normally found in male baboons in other areas.

Another anomaly is the bonobos, a Central African species of Great Ape closely related to chimpanzees and humans. Bonobo behavior is quite different than the average ape or human. Interactions in bonobo society are more egalitarian and peaceful – they typically resolve their differences by grooming one another or having some type of sexual contact. Sounds more civilized to me!

Evolutionary biologist, Dr. Lynn Margulis, has demonstrated that symbiotic relationships are a major driving force in evolution. A symbiotic relationship is one in which two or more dissimilar organisms live together, especially when this association is mutually beneficial. In other words, cooperation is fundamental to the nature of life and the evolutionary process. Margulis and her world-renowned husband, scientist Carl Sagan, concluded in 1996 “Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking” (i.e. by cooperation, interaction, and mutual dependence between living organisms).

Non-competitive Individuals and Cooperation
The instinct to survive is part of our human nature, but a survival instinct is different from a competitive instinct. A survival instinct usually becomes competitive when there is a perceived scarcity and others are trying to get what we need. For competitive behavior to truly be an immutable aspect of human nature, everyone would have to be competitive, and this is simply not the case. We all know people in our lives that are not the least bit competitive. Prime examples of people with a cooperative worldview would include Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rumi, Mother Theresa, many spiritual practitioners of many faiths, quite a few members of the helping professions, and members of several indigenous tribes that still survive around the world. As psychologist Alfie Kohn has noted, “The ubiquity of cooperative interactions even in a relatively competitive society is powerful evidence against the generalization that humans are naturally competitive.” Cooperation is every bit as natural as competition.