HUMAN NATURE is a complicated area of study because people
have such strongly held beliefs about it.
Their beliefs about human nature are wrapped up tightly in their emotions,
which inform their “meaning of Life.”
The uniquely human existential crises that have produced world religions
offer their own misguided views of human nature. That’s why most people feel they are experts
on the topic, even though they might be just as “experienced” with human nature
as they are with regard to the molecular structure of the antibiotic they are
taking. Even if they can detach
themselves from their emotional investment in “human nature,” it is still a
very difficult area of study. Is there a
way to study a human in a cultural vacuum? If there were, have not the
generations of human culture already shaped to some degree our genetic
expression? And what about individual
differences? It is true that we all need
relatively “clean” food, but some people can handle “dirtier” food than
others. Pain may be bad, but what level
of pain a person can endure can vary widely from person to person. And pain tolerance can impact what kinds of
activities someone pursues.
This kind of awareness about knowing our nature is relevant
when talking about competition and cooperation, and which is "natural" to humans.
There is a lot of research about the advantages of cooperation; indeed,
it seems to have been critical to our survival as a species because we are not
that physically robust. In thinking
about this continuum of cooperation-competition, it is helpful to conceive of
it not as a fixed trait, but as a constantly available repertoire of possible action. Capitalist culture, for example, is
continually demanding a competitive response, so the members of that culture
behave accordingly. But, if an
individual behaved in that way within the context of their nuclear family, it
would cause immediate and terrible disruption. (Parent to child: I know you are only 5 years
old, but you need to earn your keep because I don’t want to spend my
hard-earned money on you. Only by
investing in myself will I be able to achieve greater success (excess) and you
might get some trickle-down beverages and scraps of food.) A more cooperative response is needed within
the family to keep the family intact. We
feed, clothe, house, and nurture each other, which supports everyone’s well
being. I have never met a homemaker who
charges the rest of the family for dinner or washing the dishes, and there’s
probably a good reason for that.
This flexible approach to human nature is advantageous
because it frees up the time spent on trying to decide which side is “right,”
and it means that the fork-in-the-road is not something long past, but
constantly re-appearing. We didn’t,
individually, or as a species, decide to be competitive and now we’re stuck in
that mode of behaving. One may have been
ruthlessly competitive yesterday, but today is a new opportunity to respond
more cooperatively.
Recently, I read an article about the 100 richest people being wealthy enough to end world poverty.
And just after that, I read about Robert Axelrod’s simulations of social
behavior and how cooperative strategies outperformed competitive ones within
groups. If cooperative behavior were so
rewarding, and hence, self-reinforcing, then why would these richest 100 people
come to have such power? Wouldn’t we
just have known better so that such disparities never happened in the first
place? It would not be sensible to have a socio-economic system that demands competitive strategies.
I think this problem relates to another problem of human perception. Humans tend to focus on immediate rewards and
punishments. It is probably why the
Native American Iroquois valued thinking ahead for seven generations, as an
applied mental exercise. Such a cultural
compass helped mitigate the effects of an immediate reward/punishment
paradigm. They understood that their
actions now would create ripple effects for many generations to come, and it
was their responsibility to ensure wise decisions were made.
While the impoverished do not have the luxury of thinking
ahead that far (they might not survive this generation!), the richest 100
certainly have that opportunity. Of
course, they are rich because they have worked the game in such a way to get
those immediate benefits. Their behavior was reinforced. Further, they may not
be aware of the many ways that shortsightedness undermines their well being. They are blind to the long-term consequences,
and aware of only the benefits, so by their calculation, their behavior is
entirely rational and beneficial. By not addressing the momentum of increasing ecosystem
collapse, there will be less clean air, water, and land. Catastrophic natural disasters such as fracking-induced
earthquakes or “super storms” may claim their lives, or those of their
families. Social instability increases
their insecurity since ownership rights only have meaning in a society that
recognizes and permits those rights.
They, or their families, may be victims of random or intentional
violence. Social and technical
infrastructures on which they rely may be destroyed (striking food workers,
highways crumbling due to insufficient funding, airplane bombings from
“terrorists, contaminated drugs from counterfeit manufacturers trying to
increase their earnings, arts and entertainment venues closing because everyone
needs a “practical” business degree). People sickened by the excesses of competition
causes a pandemic of neurotic disorders.
Lastly, it takes a special kind of desensitization programming
to grow thick enough skin to not be affected by children being dismembered by
wars and violence, desperate homeless faces looking for a meal, and miserable
workers employed at these richest 100-owned companies who would rather leap to
their deaths than spend another day enslaved by corporate fascism. Sure, humans can adapt to callousness, but
like a painkiller that numbs the pain, does not callousness dull the mind? In other words, they have to anesthetize
themselves to live in a world of pervasive degradation. Their own well being is ultimately
compromised by their lack of foresight.
Enlightened by this broader understanding of causality, the
view of “self-interest” goes from Standard to HD widescreen. With a clearer picture of how society is
interconnected, and how ecosystems are housed within a giant galactic Russian
doll, the richest 100 can make better decisions about how to wield their socially
granted power. If they don’t, society
will turn against them wresting power from them by force. The shift to a global
cooperative strategy is not a missed opportunity, but a current opportunity, one that should be seized immediately. Human nature, with its extraordinary
flexibility, allows us to respond differently--and wiser!--for generations to
come.
