Thursday, December 22, 2011

The Cooperative Gene

I have discovered a new guideline for evolution:  Cooperation.  This can be seen all throughout the timeline of evolution.

We are all aware that Richard Dawkins and his asswipe self has dogmatically declared that only the selfish gene exists, and that this is somehow justification to be cruel aholes, even for self-aware, sentient beings such as humans.

But I do not agree with this.  Look around you, observe your community, watch and read the news every day.  You will see that when humans act in selfish, cruel, abusive ways, this harms everyone around them.  Same deal with behavior that might not necessarily be cruel or abusive, but it is phenomenally careless and it is bad decision-making.  It does not even necessarily benefit the person exhibiting this behavior.

I have said it before, and I will say it again.  We have evolved to the point that we can consciously, purposely decide whether we want to continue letting our so-called evolutionary destiny (i.e., biological imperatives) determine our fate -- or to choose our fate for ourselves.

Now to return to how cooperation drives evolution, rather than selfishness driving evolution.

Cooperation drives evolution, from molecules that needed to form large, common aggregates, to societies that work together as a cohesive whole.  These are safer, more advanced, more compassionate and better for humans than disjointed flurries and tumbleweeds of "every man for himself."

The more centralized and localized a molecule's energy can be directed, the better.  Subtle nuanced ways.  There exists a very delicate balance between weighing the needs of specific aspects of targeted electronic behavior vs. the needs of the entire population.  The smallest transgression will cause a tumble and fall down a slippery slope.  For example, delocalization of electrons across a small molecule will stabilize that molecule.  However, macromolecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA are the basis of living organisms.

E.g., a society needs to work together and be socialist, with evenly distributed responsibilities, to a limited extent.  At the same time there needs to be a head of state and society, a working central government to keep things running smoothly.  "Every man for himself" does not work for permanent civilization.

We see the same theme with a cell.  The more compartmentalized a cell is, the more advanced it is.  Compare eukaryotic cells (meaning "true cell") to prokaryotic cells (bacterial, therefore primitive and not "true" advanced cells).  The more advanced "true cell" has specialized organelles and machinery that are tasked with the various metabolic, digestive, respiratory, and storage needs of the cell.

A sponge or coral reef located deep within the darkest trenches of the ocean is more like an aggregate of several million cells, rather than a true single organism with cells working on concert. It is classified as one of the most primitive members within the kingdom Animalia.

The presence of neural material -- this arose as a way for the entire multi-celled organism to be connected and organized.  This is a highly efficient way for the various far-reaching parts of an organism to communicate (exchange information) with each other.  For example, plants and fungi are not nearly as complex in structure or physiology as animals are, even though they are multi-celled.  They have no neurological tissue.  There does not exist the lightning-fast method of communication from one part of a plant to another.

A cockroach is slightly more evolved than any given plant.  Because of this (or perhaps "therefore" rather than "because"), the cockroach has delocalized neural ganglia, spread throughout its body.  By contrast, higher species more evolved than the cockroach, have most of the neural capacity concentrated in one area.

However, a very important point must be noted.  Cooperation [[[   altruism, collective common, the greater good, the collective community, the benefit of the comm ]]]]  the concept of doing what benefits the greater community only works if *everyone* contributes.

Cooperation does not work if there are severe discrepancies in inherent ability.  it only works if all the people [individual members of the population] are intelligent in the broad sense, and more importantly if they are roughly equal in intelligence.  it also only works if all people feel an inherent ethic, an obligation to the community.

It does not work if there are vastly ___ [[ different, contrasting, conflicting??? ]] cognitive capabilities between many members of a population.  you can't have one segment reaping and sucking all the benefits of so-called "cooperation" while another segment does all the work of empathizing and cooperating.
disparate, contrasting

This is demonstrated with division of labor in an interacting population.  As history progressed, fields of study became more engorged and corpulent with knowledge, driving the need for specialized skills in the trades.  Certain types of work were delegated to learned experts in their given fields.

Before this, one family might have taken care of all of its own needs -- farming livestock, farming vegetational nutrition sources, food preparation, building a house, providing warmth... and sometimes teaching children to read and write.  As you might imagine, oftentimes all of the former responsibilities of root survival were such that parents were unable to teach their children the latter three R's.  Generations passed where large percentages of the population were illiterate.  But in the modern age, there is shared responsibility between all the members of a settlement.

Centralization, that is, accumulation in one place drove interaction.

As specialization increased within many different fields, this drove members of a population to cooperate and interact with each other.  They were forced to trust other members of the community with certain tasks.  Specialization and centralization drove cooperation.

Centralization drives unification.  Rather than having to do everything for themselves, a family could take advantage of specialized skill sets offered by the community at large.  And in turn, the family would offer their skills to the community.

The selfish gene?  We have evolved enough so that we no longer have to allow any sort of slavemonger selfish gene to make our decisions for us.  We do not have to be ruled by the selfish gene.  You've heard of post-modern.  Here's post-evolution.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment