I'm going to have to handle this delicately . . . .
According to the Selfish Gene theory all of us, from a biological standpoint, are merely sophisticated machines constructed to insure the immortality of our genes. Over time, genes that produce machines better at surviving are successful in carrying on. Out of this arises familial love; because we share much of our genetic make-up with our relatives we have an inherent desire to protect them and care for them. However, so the theory goes (and I'm not attempting to refute it, this idea has literally changed my life) at the end of the day the purpose of our bodies is to prolong the existence of the genes that make us up.
This extends to all animals with the important exception of "hive" or "social" insects and corollaries in other animal families such as the naked mole rat. These species, typified by having not only queens responsible for reproduction, but a litany of other non-reproductive roles, do fit into the Selfish Gene under the caveat that they are essentially one organism. They share the vast majority of genetic information and essentially have become a cooperative team for the purposes of accomplishing the same goal that the individual organism accomplishes in other species.
It has been suggested that the Selfish Gene theory leads the believer to a sense of pointlessness. It certainly chips away at one's sense of self-worth; and is utterly the opposite of the idea that one is god's precious snowflake.
However, taking the concept of the hive animal, I propose a compromise. (someone is going to crucify me) I propose that, arguably with a feat of semantics, take on the label of hive organism. I think we may be trending towards this as it is, and certainly by taking several million steps back it certainly appears that mankind is working together towards one big. . . well, towards one big something or other. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
In the hive there is one reproducer, (the queen)constantly churning out spawn with very little genetic variation. Every other member of the hive has a specified, assigned role that is absolutely required for the stability of the community. It could be suggested that these animals live exclusively in carefully controlled environments because it limits the amount of roles required and thus simplifies overall organization. Thrust these hives out into the open and new roles may form (though it's more likely the community would simply die from the exposure). What I'm suggesting is that we consider mankind a hive of an infinitum of roles and an unlimited number of reproducers. I agree that this seems to directly contradict the idea of the hive animal, but listen. . . .
The hive animal works to support the proliferation of one set of genetic information. With a leap of semantics one could argue that mankind is, in general, working together to support the proliferation of one subset of genetic information. That is, the set of genes that make us unique and make us human. The 1% that differs from chimps, whatever. Our diversity in roles helps to insure that we are nearly impervious to any threat. Our revolutionary approach (at least amongst hive animals) to spread the role of reproduction is merely our understanding that it is simply another role and the undisputable fact that diversity (in the peripheral genetic information) is better for the hive in the long run.
Two major arguments that I can see coming against this immediately, and my half-assed answers to them:
1)With enough hot air you could extend this to any animal:
Not true. No other animal has constructed the institutions, language, infrastructure or government that we have. No other animal shows similar levels of cooperation (except for . . .hive animals).
2)Hive animals have one or two roles, easy to organize. If we have an infinity of roles, are you suggesting that there is some kind of organizing factor within us?
Absolutely not. I think that a set amount of skills have developed (scientists, artists, etc) that help us survive. At this point it's a crapshoot whether or not an individual will have skills relevant to the community. However, as any given skill exists somewhere in the gene pool, it's bound to surface particularly if it proves useful. Diversity insures new combinations that will, in turn, proliferate if they're proven useful
In short, do I think humans are hive animals? I'm not sure. And I'm not suggesting that I've proven anything or even neccessarily argued something I whole-heartedly believe. What I do think is that there are tendencies in us toward this behavior (and it should be noted that hive behavior is not only a highly convergent behavior, but it also occurs in mammals). Also, an adoption of a modified hive-like behavior may be truly beneficial.
Anyway . . .I put this out here to discuss it.
(824)
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't think it would make concrete roles for people. This would be more of a way to twist semantics. I would think that everyone's role WOULD BE living to their potential. Some people only have the potential to be janitors, some people to be Newton. And like I said, the roles are really just a broad attempt to cover as many bases as possible. If one individual does all that they can or want and do not contribute, well maybe that behavior would eventually be phased out by the hive and natural selection.
I don't think this neccessarily means we're stuck where we are, and in fact rising above expectations contributes to society in it's own special way.
(ps I sent you an e-mail)
Crucify?
Hive mentality falls out of any situation where the actions of the individual largely affect the whole. Humans have never worked alone, and we specialize more by the day. One person’s failure no longer affects only their well being. So the hive is willing to leave behind a lowly worker for the sake of triage. The hive doesn't think twice about eliminating the apathetic and the parasites. And the hive will actively split to excise those groups which do not conform to the organizational structure best for it.
What have I ever taught humans to do?
A good term, eusociality. At least keeps one's mind off of crawling insects.
As you've guessed, I didn't mean that this was a biological fact, but a lesson to learn.
The thing is, can we admit to ourselves what our roles are? How long do we get to prove ourselves? Can we be forgiven for our lack of contribution in the interim?
It raises a lot of questions . . . .
A janitor is contributing. In general, I think whatever task it is that we take seriously is contribution. The part of this whole thing that is hard to admit is that someone needs to be the janitor, and the short-order cook, and the truck driver. And these spots would be best filled by individuals that are satisfied in them. Just as the role of someone like Newton is best filled by someone who is satisfied in that position. Unfortunately, many of us are not satisfied with being a janitor. Indeed, many of us are so dissatisfied with that that we refuse to be anything.
To develop a "hive mentality" perhaps people would find greater satisfaction in more realistic positions. How could this be accomplished? By changing the societal value of wealth and fame, by rewarding (interpersonally) individuals who do their best (no matter what "job" they have), by distributing information and knowledge as far and as thoroughly as it can be, by increasing the efficiency of our daily needs (more digtal=less paper=less need for janitors), gradually reducing the reproduction rates of people born into extremely unfortunate situations (or, much more difficult, improving these situations).
I guess, at the end of it, I think we could design a society (perhaps an isolated utopia? on a spaceship or another planet?) in which people could be satisfied in their daily lifes and strive for improvement, while simultaneously improving our environment and how it interacts with us psychological, emotionally, intellectually and interpersonally. Because I don't think these things naturally work against each other.
Post a Comment