the human condition
What does the truth-producing methodology tell us about the human condition? It is embedded, as is all life, in the process of evolution as described by the modern synthesis of Darwinism.
Incidentally, it should be clear that in the 150 years since publication of “The Origin of Species” all objectified data has only served to confirm Darwin’s basic theory and deepened our understanding of the dynamics at work in nature based on that theory. Such controversy as currently exists results from the conflict that arises between objectified truths and the un-objectified claims of various ideologies. That is, it is a rhetorical rather than substantive controversy. It is a minor irony of history that two of the most virulent opponents of Darwinism are Stalinism and some of the more lurid forms of Christianity, worldviews that otherwise have little in common, except a common commitment to their un-objectified ideological assumptions.
What are the dynamics in evolution that drive the human condition in all of its varied forms? There seem to be two fundamental impulses at play.
First, there is the general evolutionary desire to succeed; each person wants to prevail in her/his circumstances. The dynamics of evolution produce variety, and ego is an expression of that variety. Moreover, from the point of view of evolution there is no preferred way to be human. Success or failure of an organism is environmentally determined; attributes that lead to success in one environment (which includes culture) could be the cause for failure in another. From the viewpoint of evolution, all existing organisms are “winners”; the “losers” are all dead. Therefore, any existing individual has a potential evolutionary value. This being so, the concept of superior or inferior human beings has no meaning in an ultimate sense. The human species is always a work in progress, so we can never say what the preferred attributes are, since we can never know what a future environment will require. From this, the conclusion must be drawn that all humans are of equally unknown evolutionary value. But they are not equivalent, and it is precisely their non-equivalence that is their evolutionary value, since that non-equivalence is the raw material out of which future survival capabilities can be fashioned.
In addition to that general evolutionary dynamic, there is an almost equally strong species dynamic in humans, an impulse to fairness. Why this should be is easily seen from a Darwinian perspective. Human beings are social creatures as a legacy of evolution. Our social nature is as indelibly a part of the human condition as our upright posture or language. It arises from the fact that our survivability in the general environment is dependent on mutual support. However, within the group environment, allowing one ego advantages over other egos could put those other egos at a survivability risk, and each of those other egos has a general evolutionary imperative in seeing that doesn’t happen. Evolution has resolved these issues by pre-wiring the human mind/brain (in the same sense that language is pre-wired) with a concept of fairness.
We can characterize the manifestation of that concept as a “fairness assessment apparatus” in the human psyche. This concept seems to be rooted in the notion of reciprocity. That is, as we rely upon others for our own maintenance, we thereby incur an obligation to aid in equal measure in the maintenance of others. From an evolutionary perspective, observance of fairness ensures that mutual support is mutually beneficial. Incidentally, mutually beneficial has a specific meaning in Darwinian dynamics. To be mutually beneficial does not require that all group members have equality in material goods or social prestige. It does, however, require that such inequalities that arise from the implementation of social rules do not significantly compromise the reproductive or survivability success of those on the lowest end of the social spectrum, as compared to other group members. In addition, the equity of work requirements and leisure availability for all segments of society is fundamental to the fairness principle. This requirement is the evolutionary definition of fairness. So there is an evolutionary impulse to fairness and the human psyche has evolved an intuitive “fairness assessment apparatus” to implement that impulse.
From an evolutionary viewpoint, variety in ego expression is subject to the following constraints:
- No expression will be allowed that violates those fundamental rules required for social existence.
- No expression should be allowed that violates fairness.
With regard to the first constraint, there is nearly universal agreement as to what these rules are (prohibition of in-group murder, theft, etc.), since in their absence the minimum social stability required for group living does not exist and, therefore, social life is not possible. However, with regard to the second, there is wide variation in cultures as to what constitutes fairness. If the dynamics of human evolution have produced an impulse to fairness, why don’t we see the evolutionary definition of fairness as a universal trait of cultures? Specifically, how does it come about that cultures can apparently successfully violate the evolutionary purpose of the fairness concept?
I have characterized the attribute of fairness as a species dynamic, but the truth is that attributes can’t be expressed at the “species” level. The only way they can be expressed is through an individual. So what I have called a species impulse to fairness is really a sort of averaging the effects of the operation of the attribute across all of its individual expressions. How an attribute is expressed in any individual is dependent on the genetic lottery and a particular environment. Nature produces variety and that variety will produce different gradations of integrity about fairness across individuals. But an impulse for fairness is detectable at the species level; therefore those gradations must average out into a kind of Bell curve.
The species impulse to fairness is present in the vast majority of human beings since it is the foundation of our social nature. However, since the expression of fairness is a Bell curve situation, there will be some people at the extreme end of the curve who will have a very diminished sense of fairness or virtually none at all (sociopaths). Therefore, it is clear that fairness will be under continual assault in any human society. This happens since a diminished sense of fairness does not necessarily imply other capacities are diminished. Such an ego may be otherwise clever enough to understand that others expect the idea of fairness to govern within the group; it simply has a distorted understanding of how the concept applies to itself. Obviously a considerable evolutionary advantage can be had if such an ego can create the illusion that it abides by the fairness concept but, through deception, has actually subverted the concept for its own benefit. So it is apparent that attempts at violation of fairness will be a persistent feature of all human social institutions since it arises from the evolutionary dynamic to produce variety. We know why attempts at violation of fairness should occur, so the question is why, in the presence of our evolved fairness assessment apparatus, they should ever succeed.
The modern human brain evolved over a period in which humans existed in small stable hunter/gather groups. It seems apparent that evolution has honed the brain to be alert to the violation of reciprocity in this type of group environment. Indeed, in long-term face-to-face relationships, human beings are remarkably perceptive in detecting social deception and taking appropriate action. The definition of fairness is a function of group consensus, and in the simple social circumstances in which the fairness impulse evolved, that consensus was easy to reach. In a small group in which everyone is well known to everyone else through constant personal interaction, the opportunities for successful long term social deception are slim. In these circumstances, our fairness assessment apparatus worked.
But human social circumstances evolve, and the social environment in which our fairness assessment apparatus was perfected is not the social environment in which we now live. The invention of agriculture and the rise of technology allowed an exponential increase in group size, with the consequential introduction of bureaucratic hierarchy and extreme specialization. Since, from an evolutionary viewpoint, this happened in the relative blink of an eye, the time required for an evolutionary intuitive adjustment in our fairness assessment apparatus to the new circumstances was not available. We still have an impulse to fairness, but how it applies in the changed social landscape is no longer simple. This radical revamping in group social engineering caused problems.
First, there was the loss of the ability to assess everyone in the group’s fairness on the basis of a sustained face-to-face relationship. To function effectively, the fairness assessment apparatus requires not only that you are aware of what the other person says and does, but also how that other person responds to what you say and do. That is, mutual interaction is required. In a hunter-gatherer environment, fairness assessment is simple since all group members are known to each other, and on the basis of that personal knowledge they are able to determine who abides by the fairness definition and who is trying to game the system for personal advantage. However, with the exponential increase in group size and the consequent introduction of bureaucratic hierarchies, that mutual interaction was lost. Members of the group no longer had any information about the hierarchs based on a personal relationship (the peasant doesn’t socialize with the king) and therefore lost the ability to make intuitively accurate judgments about their fairness.
Next, the increasing complexity of things arising from extreme specialization severely compromised our ability to make accurate judgments of their relative value on an intuitive basis. Again, in the hunter-gatherer environment, the number of skills is small and it is easy to make an assessment as to their relative value for enhancing the long-term success of the group. It is intuitively obvious who the most skillful hunters or gatherers are, and the rules for fairness can be crafted to exploit that expertise for the group’s benefit. However, in an environment of extreme specialization, that capacity for an intuitively accurate judgment has been lost. For example, what is the relative value of a baseball player and a teacher of history in enhancing the long-term human survival? Similarly, how do we judge the relative value of a Nobel Prize winner in physics and the president of General Motors? Is a bishop more or less valuable than a real-estate salesman? However such judgments are made, they can no longer be accurately made on an intuitive basis.
Therefore, once we move beyond our social sphere of personal acquaintance, it is apparent that our fairness assessment apparatus has been effectively compromised by our evolved social circumstances. Also, we know that attempts at social deception will be a persistent feature of all human social institutions and organizations, since it arises from the evolutionary dynamic for variety as noted above. Our impulse to fairness still exists because it is a fundamental attribute of the human condition, but it can no longer be accurately satisfied “intuitively”. However, if the deceivers can create the illusion that social rules are “intuitively” validated by the conventional wisdom, they can create the belief among group members that the fairness issue has been satisfied.
It is this dilemma that provides the opportunity for distortion of the fairness issue. It is the continued reliance on a fatally crippled intuition that presents the opportunity for successful deception.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution