The Evolution Of The Theory Of Evolution
During the mid 1800s Charles Darwin upended both the scientific and religious worlds by releasing his seminal theory on biological evolution. Darwinism states that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Since then Darwinism has been a foundational part of our world; science and elsewhere. However social behavior, specifically altruism, has posed a bit of problem for Darwin and his universal theory.
Darwinism And The Paradox Of Altruism
Every altruist has their own motives. Some are emotional, responding to fellow humans in desperate straits, while others are more rational, thinking about the kind of society they’d like to live in and acting accordingly. Does that imply a level of self-interest? Selfless acts often attract accusations of hidden selfishness, suggesting they’re not really altruistic at all. This wasn’t the problem for Darwinism. After all, humans have culture and religion and moral codes to live by — maybe our altruism was more to do with that than biology.
It was altruistic ants that posed a particular problem for Charles Darwin. Natural selection is often described as ‘survival of the fittest’, where fitness is defined by how successful an individual is at reproducing. If one individual has a trait that gives them a fitness advantage, they will tend to have more offspring than the others. This reproductive advantage is then likely to be passed on to their offspring — and then spread through the population. A fundamental tenet of this is that individuals are competing for the resources they need to reproduce.
But as Darwin observed, ants and other social insects are not in competition. They are cooperative, so much so that worker ants are sterile and have literally zero reproductive fitness. They ought to be extinct, yet there they are in every generation sacrificing their own reproductive ambitions to serve the fertile queen and her drones. Through this observation, Darwin suggested that competition between groups of ants — queen, drones and workers together — might be driving natural selection in this case. What was good for the nest would then outweigh what was good for any individual ant.
Group selection, as this idea was known, was not a very good solution, though. It didn’t explain how the cooperative behaviour evolved in the first place. The first altruistic ant would have been at such a huge disadvantage compared to the rest of its group that it would never have got the chance to breed more altruistic ants. The same was true of humans — natural selection was intrinsically stacked against any altruistic individual surviving long enough to pass on their altruism. (The Story of George Price)
This left us a paradox: the evolution of altruism appeared to be impossible (under Darwin’s definition) … yet clearly altruism had evolved. If this couldn’t be resolved, what would it mean for the whole idea of natural selection?
Luckily, a young man called Bill Hamilton came to the rescue with a slightly different solution in 1964. He proposed that altruism could have evolved within family groups, whether genetically or through shared environmental habits, learnings and tendencies. An individual altruist would seem to be at a disadvantage, but that was not the whole picture because other individuals who shared the same genes associated with altruism would all reinforce each other’s ‘inclusive fitness’. We see this in human families also; as parents instinctively sacrifice themselves to protect their children, the upcoming generation. To not do this is considered socially malevolent.
Evolution And The Community
Hamilton’s extrapolation of Darwinism, while seemingly radical — made complete sense. By choosing to open the door to new thoughts on evolution — we’re not necessarily renouncing Charles Darwin, but expanding on his work based on new levels of research and observation. Consider it letting the theory of evolution evolve. Any scientific discovery should be looked at not as an end — but rather the journey down a new road to another level of enlightenment.
The same should be said for social sciences and economic philosophy. We’re still relying on the theories and assumptions of Adam Smith and Thomas Hobbes from the 19th century — with our politics following in lock-step. Why shouldn’t our thinking in this area evolve also. The societal conditions faced by the inhabitants of 1800s are nothing like that we face today in 2022. To assume the models developed then would wholly apply now is naive … if not just intellectually lazy.
“I believe that the community — in the fullest sense: a place and all its creatures — is the smallest unit of health and that to speak of the health of an isolated individual is a contradiction in terms.” — Wendell Berry
If we espouse Hamilton’s idea that evolution can occur in family units as well as in individuals — what’s saying we can’t take it a step further and extrapolate to that of the community unit. In fact, while technically ants socialize as a family, being from the same queen, they also (if not more) act as an active part of a community.
Recognizing that your community is an evolutionary ecosystem is fundamental to its prosperity and even its survival.
If we view our community as an evolutionary unit, then we must address the components that can either contribute to its sustainability or to its demise. A community is really nothing more than the accumulation of individuals and the interactions between these individuals. Every member of your community is unique and adds to its fabric. Everyone has something to offer and everyone should be heard — no matter their age, social standing or any other demographic characteristic. If they are not included in the conversation; they still will be heard — but it may not be in a socially accepted way (e.g. crime, disruptive protests, etc.). Prejudice, bigotry or even indifference hurts not only them, but us as part of the overall community. All of our actions, or lack there of — have collective consequences.
“In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.” ~ Iroquois Confederacy
We must confront the societal questions that threaten the long-term sustainability of our communities — not just the immediate issues affecting the adult population . Far too often communities concern themselves only with protecting the status quo. This may not even be intentional. Informal power cliques continue on; monopolizing public office and solidifying positions of influence, restricting the ascension of new blood and new ideas in the process. For these civic ‘leaders’, they view the pain of changing greater than the pain of staying the same. They govern to advert risk, not to realize opportunity. Public policies, ideals and conventions are there to be preserved — often at all costs. New ideas meant to provide opportunity to new or young residents are resisted if not outright rejected … just because: “if it ain’t broken, then don’t fix it”. Unfortunately for those not in the top echelons of the ivory towers of power — it is broken. This needed new blood will either retreat into the shadows occupying a lower rung on caste system … or move somewhere else where opportunity is more available and their assets are welcome. Neither alternative is conducive to the prosperity and sustainability of the community.
Enter Darwinism!
Those communities that embrace ideas from other diverse sources and talent with different experiences will evolve, sustain themselves and flourish. Those that “hold on to yesterday” will whither away. Their residents will suffer from isolation, and lack of economic and social opportunities — as they put forth precious time and resources resisting rather than embracing. By the time the pain of staying the same becomes more than that of changing … it may well be too late for them.
However hard it may seem for community leaders, they need to be willing to loosen their grip on power and traditional structures. They need to realize that what they invest in the outliers of power and influence today will be the capital that builds the future of their communities in the future. Without this investment — the homes, businesses and everything else they’re trying to hold on to will be yet another example of the dark side of evolution … decline and eventual extinction.
We still need structure; but that structure needs to be flexible and directly participatory. Our current form of local representative governance is seldom more than an ego-driven career path for the few. We need a structure that is more a platform; one of inclusion and participation. This platform must be designed to identify the needs and opportunities of the local community it serves while addressing them using whatever resources are available … whether monetary or talent. Think of this ‘resource maximization’ drawing from the times of our grandparents when neighbors and community members were treated as extended family and relied on as the primary ‘safety net’. This was a time when no one had the luxury of sitting by idly expecting a city council (who meets once a week) to act on their best interest — assuming they even took the time or had the ability to learn what those interests were.
Rhizomes
Our definition of infrastructure needs to evolve if we are to truly take advantage of the power of ‘the people’. The constraints of hierarchy and our “hand everything over” to political representation needs to be subjugated in order for us move ahead. Enter the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, a French philosopher; and Félix Guattari, a French psychiatrist and social activist. These two envisioned an organizational and societal model based on the opportunity-based structure of plant rhizomes, the root-like structures that flourishes ubiquitously under our back yards. Rhizomes look for opportunities to spout and present themselves to the world when and where the conditions are right (e.g. water, light, nutrients).
In my interpretation of Deleuze and Guattari’s model, we replace our existing malaise-ridden civic hierarchy with a network of what we already depend on anyway for the backbone of our communities; our locally-rooted small businesses and NGOs and their informal civic leadership presence. I call this backbone, Front Porches. It’s here situations for civic improvement are identified and executed, empowering residents with unique and relevant abilities to rise to the surface and take the lead, much like a rhizome would when the environmental conditions are right. This Situational Leadership is the basis of the decentralized network that represents the evolution of civic organization. Combine this with a public version of a distributed autonomous organization (DAO) and we have the fodder for a very interesting deep dive, full of dynamic possibilities.
Evolution Through Diversity-Driven Serendipity
Rather than abide by a top-down governance model run by those embedded in the status quo (often of sustained mediocrity) — we must create platforms of serendipity where civic matchmaking happens organically through interaction uncovering commonalities of action between the participants. Think of a synergistic mixing bowl of opportunity; indirect, organic relationship building. From this relationship building leaders could then rise on a situational basis, using their individual strengths — then make way for situational leadership to take over on other issues as they become priorities. This system of fluid situational leadership would take the place of our static hierarchical system that too often leaves us with inept decision makers with no relevant experience of knowledge of the issues they are to govern on.
What if we designed our communities around the idea of maximizing engagement from those in the streets? The more engaged our residents are … the more empowered they would be. They would feel more in control of their health and their futures — and more likely to involve themselves civically. Imagine if a chance to engage, whether it was physical, mental or social was just around the corner. What if our well-being was not dependent on government assistance or the whims of a fickle market driven economy throwing us an occasional bone. What if our neighborhood was our safety net; a safety net of neighbors who knew best in our time of need. What if the streets of our community became melting pots of diversity-driven serendipity — places where curiosity was bred. What if engagement, well-being and self-efficacy was how a community measured itself, not obtuse economic activity too often distorted through the one-dimensional filter of irrelevant statistics. And what if getting up in the morning was a chance to nurture our hope … and engage with others to help them do the same.
Breaking Free Of The Pendulum
It’s easy to just bash our present political economic situation and run the other way, ready to embrace the polar opposite. We saw this with the election of Donald Trump. Anything was better than Hillary Clinton and the establishment. And after we saw what we elected in Trump, we reverted back and elected the emblem of establishment, Joe Biden. We see it in economics with the push back against neo-liberalism … for good reason (bit still). But does the answer lie on the other end of the pendulum with minimum basic income and protectionism in the name of ‘American made’? Does it lie with free college education for everyone, even though it’s becoming more apparent traditional college may not be the best alternative for many? What do we do about those young people who choose not to go to college; just exclude them from the having a piece of the pie for not conforming to an ideal forged decades ago that may no longer be relevant?
We need to be brave and think differently, not just vacillate between Smith and Hobbes — or Marx. Not that those and other icons of the past don’t have positive offerings to contribute — but they don’t live today. Society changes, as do the economic conditions and requirements that molds it. And with that, so must our ways of looking at the best way to patch together a workable societal strategy for all. We need to grab from the past, morph together solutions … and try them out. We need to be agile and create feedback loops. We need to be fluid. Not all will work; but some parts of some of them will. Then we take those and combine them together with new ideas — all specific to our individual locales and often brought to the forefront by our newly embraced outliers. We must constantly evolve. Jeff Bezos from Amazon calls this Day 1. Everything is always in beta — always in search of improvement. Always evolving. Never focusing on maintaining the status quo.
Bill Hamilton showed us how we need to accept alternative ways of looking at our world; even down to the most basic level — Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. I propose we take it further to the community, following the lead of Wendell Berry. While genetics play a vital role in our ability to sustain ourselves … so do the interactions with those we share a physical space with. Any efforts to nurture empathetic and altruistic behavior is evolutionarily beneficial.
It’s not enough to expect others to generate the change we need. We can’t expect to sit back and reap the benefits from it after-the-fact. We all need to be our own local Bill Hamiltons, think differently … and usher in these evolutionary changes ourselves. We must look at our civic responsibility as being more than a periodic trip to the voting booth only to perpetuate yet another ineffective version of status quo’s hierarchy.
…because we haven’t reached a time when “the pain of staying the same has become greater than the pain of changing”?
