Half-Finished Poems

 

Today morning
after a long time
or maybe
it was just a month,
but still,
it felt like
a long time,
that I returned and took a peek at
some half-finished poems.

Hallelujah,
it was good to be
back home again.

I can almost hear you say "Amen"

 

Trumpeting survival of the fittest works as long as one is winning

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Welcome to the land of plenty. Let the ‘Survival of the Fittest’ sort out the matters in the human and societal realm. Let the best person among us win and amass the wealth and natural resources that are out there for taking. It is also ok for the best person who wins to be the master of those who lost but can still be useful for certain purposes; doing so is a win-win proposition for the winners and the losers.

And that is the inscription one reads when entering the land of Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is a socio-political theory that applies the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest, derived from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to human societies. This ideology suggests that human societies, like biological species during their evolutionary phase, are governed by competition, with the strongest and most capable rising to positions of power and influence, while letting the weaker ones fall behind, and if necessary, could be considered expendable.

Origins of Social Darwinism

The origins of Social Darwinism can be traced back to the late 19th century.

While Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was primarily biological, some scholars and thinkers extended these ideas to social and economic realms. One of the key figures in this intellectual migration was Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher and sociologist, who coined the term “survival of the fittest.” Spencer argued that just as organisms evolve through natural selection, human societies progress through a similar process. He believed that competition and self-interest drive societal change and progress, and that government intervention should be minimal to allow these natural processes to function.

Another significant contributor to Social Darwinism was Thomas Huxley, a biologist and ardent defender of Darwin’s theories. Although Huxley had reservations about the social applications of Darwinism, his arguments indirectly supported the idea that human society could be understood through the lens of evolutionary theory.

In contemporary times, Social Darwinism evolved and manifests in various forms, often in subtle ways that are not so obvious. One of the most prominent modern forms is the belief in meritocracy, where individuals shall be rewarded based on their abilities and achievements, echoing the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest.

Proponents of Social Darwinism

In contemporary times, proponents of neoliberalism, such as economist Milton Friedman and political figures like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, have been linked to Social Darwinism’s principles through their advocacy for free markets and competition. While these individuals may not explicitly label themselves as Social Darwinists, their policies and ideologies resonate with the theory’s core ideas.

The current thinking of the Republican Party in the United States (that is also being mimicked in other countries), particularly in the context of economic and social policies, often emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility and free-market principles. Many Republicans advocate for limited government intervention in both the economy and personal lives, believing that such an approach fosters innovation and self-reliance. They argue that a free-market system, where businesses and individuals operate with minimal regulatory constraints, leads to the most efficient and prosperous outcomes for society.

Recently, Project 2025 emphasized principles akin to Social Darwinism by advocating for minimal government intervention in economic and social spheres.

Is it possible that the notion of Social Darwinism may be flawed?

Could Social Darwinism be Flawed?

To see why the notion might be flawed, let us consider its counterpart in its original setting.

In nature, “survival of the fittest” operates in a relentlessly brutal manner. The notion of fittest works in the context of the environmental conditions and the goal is to increase the chance of survival and reproduction. It also focuses entirely on present environmental conditions and does not have a notion of what future may behold. The natural world also lacks the capability for consciousness and operates without any foresight or empathy.

Humans (thanks to evolution and the notion of survival of the fittest), on the other hand, now possess unique faculties such as consciousness, agency, and have the capability to empathize, perceive and plan for the future, recognize inequalities, and provide support to those in need. Human societies are also influenced by structures (laws, governments, finance) and hierarchies that nature lacks.

The proposal of blind application of “survival of the fittest” to human societies ignores these nuanced complexities and assumes that competition alone can be a viable proposition. Furthermore, it also ignores the critical role of the circumstances into which individuals are born setting the stage for what their future and future options could be.

In essence, the fundamental difference in the application of survival of the fittest lies in the fact that while nature operates without an agency, humans (thankfully) have that ability to do so. Humans, if they choose, are also capable of creating equitable systems that balance competition with compassion.

How About Softer Versions of Social Darwinism?

There is no denying that competition does work in promoting excellence and innovation.

Starting from rudimentary self-replicating molecules, over three billion years the survival of the fittest has traced a stunning journey and has created us. But now that it has brought us here and has gifted us with remarkable capabilities, should its application continue along the same path, or could its implementation be adjusted to the reality we are in.

While traditional Social Darwinism emphasizes ruthless competition and minimal government intervention, several approaches adopt core ideas but strive for a more humane and balanced implementation. These softer versions incorporate social safety nets and opportunities for all individuals, creating a more equitable society while still encouraging innovation and competition. Some examples of these follow.

The Social Market Economy (Soziale Marktwirtschaft), primarily associated with post-World War II Germany, blends free-market capitalism with social policies that address inequality and provide support for the less fortunate. This approach maintains a competitive market system but ensures that all citizens have access to basic necessities such as healthcare, education, and social security. The goal is to combine economic efficiency with social justice, fostering an environment where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.

Inclusive capitalism is another approach that seeks to reconcile the benefits (and as evolution has demonstrated, competition has benefits) of a free-market system with the need for fairness and inclusivity. It advocates for the idea that businesses should not only focus on profit but also consider the broader impact on society and the environment. By promoting fair wages, ethical practices, and investments in community development, inclusive capitalism aims to create a more sustainable and equitable economic system. This model encourages competition but recognizes the importance of corporate responsibility and shared prosperity.

These softer versions of Social Darwinism seek to balance the benefits of competition with the need for compassion and support. By acknowledging the complexities of human society and the inherent inequalities individuals can (and do) face, these approaches promote a more realistic and just system. They aim to create an environment where innovation and progress can flourish, while ensuring that no one is left behind.

Have softer version worked?

The answer is — Yes. There are several instances where these more compassionate approaches have shown promising results in various nations.

One notable example is Germany, where the Social Market Economy has been instrumental in ensuring both economic prosperity and social welfare. Since its inception, this model has helped Germany maintain a robust economy while providing comprehensive social benefits to its citizens. The balance between free-market principles and strong social policies has fostered a healthy environment for innovation and competition, while simultaneously reducing inequality and ensuring access to essential services.

In the Nordic countries, inclusive capitalism has been successfully implemented to create equitable societies characterized by high levels of social trust and economic stability. Nations like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have embraced policies that promote fair wages, corporate responsibility, and investments in education and healthcare. These countries have managed to achieve high standards of living and low poverty rates, demonstrating the effectiveness of inclusive capitalism in creating sustainable and inclusive economic systems.

These examples illustrate that by incorporating social policies and corporate responsibility into their economic systems, nations can create environments where both competition and compassion coexist. These approaches not only drive economic growth but also ensure that the benefits of prosperity are shared more broadly across society.

A Summary and a Suggestion

Competition is beneficial, but when left unchecked, it can be brutal and unforgiving. The irony lies in the fact that competition and the concept of survival of the fittest, operating without direction or agency, have brought us to this point. These forces have equipped us with capabilities that we can now harness to refine the very process moving forward.

Should we not seize this opportunity?

While there may not be perfect answers to tempering the concept of survival of the fittest and balancing free competition (which, due to positive feedback loops, can create runaway inequalities) with caring for those who, for various physical, cognitive, or psychological reasons, may be less adept at competition, there may be good solutions.

Given that we have the ability to foresee the future and the agency to change our current practices to set goal-oriented directions, should we not avail ourselves of that opportunity? Furthermore, should we not rely on our current understanding of how the environment we live in is evolving and how our actions might be altering its trajectory?

It would not be such a loss if we arrived in the future with a bit less progress, but with a better assurance that our future generations will be there. Wouldn’t making that choice be the better option?

I say the answer is yes, and in my mind’s eye, I can almost hear you say, “Amen.”

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

One Plus One is Two and Rest Just Follows

 

A very small cause which escapes our notice determines a considerable effect that we cannot fail to see, and then we say that the effect is due to chance.” — Henri Poincaré

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: We think about the intricacies of life and death, meaning of existence, consciousness, an agency guiding the creation and evolution of the universe, but in the end it could all be as simple as some self-evident facts — limits on resources, randomness — having some inevitable consequences of far-reaching significance.

From on a few simple (or simply obvious), yet undeniable facts, inevitable outcomes arise that have the power to significantly influence the workings of the universe.

One simple fact is that energy as a resource, and available for consumption, is limited.

Living on the Earth’s surface, we rely on the Sun as our ultimate energy source. At the core of the Sun, the immense pressure from the outer gas layers pushing inwards increases the temperature and density sufficiently for two hydrogen nuclei to fuse into a helium atom. This fusion process releases energy, raising the temperature at the Sun’s core further to counterbalance the inward pressure of the gas.

Disregarding the complex physics of stellar processes, all that matters in the context of discussion here is that ultimately the energy produced by the Sun’s fusion process, which radiates outward and reaches Earth’s surface, is finite.

The finiteness of energy, being an undeniable fact, has far reaching consequences.

In an energy limited environment let us assume that biology exists. For now, let us leave behind the question of how biology came about and just assume that it is there.

Basic tenets of biology are a will to survive and to procreate. If either characteristic is not there we will not be talking about biological forms. There will be nothing to talk about because their existence will be ephemeral.

Survival and reproduction require energy. To secure energy, and to secure it better than the neighbor can, biological forms have evolved sensory mechanisms to gauge their environment. They also developed physical (mechanical) artifacts to procure energy and developed the chemistry necessary to convert the energy available in the environment they live in into the form that is suitable for them.

How did they managed to develop such mechanisms is because of one of the inevitable outcomes of the interaction between two simple facts — energy is limited and randomness. Whenever the two are together, an inevitable outcome that we are going to highlight below is going to happen.

Within biological forms random fluctuations in their physical, cognitive, psychological characteristics occur. This is because the process of procreation (or replication) is not perfect and during the process random errors creep in. Errors in gene replication are expressed as physical characteristics (the phenotype). Some phenotypes help secure more energy that is available in the environment, leading to better chances for survival and reproduction. Over generations, the habituation of the advantageous phenotypes leads to the emergence of a new species that is better fit for securing resources and has a better chance for continued survival.

That is the mechanism of natural selection.

The basic and undeniable facts that (a) resources in the environment are limited, and (b) the influence of randomness permeates, if biology is to exist, the inevitable consequence will be an arms race to secure resources and the principle of the survival of the fittest will emerge.

Once there, driven by the natural selection that prefers phenotypes that are better suited at securing energy available in the environment, has far reaching influence on how biology evolves.

Because of natural selection, starting from the biology of self-replicating molecules, a couple billion years later, here we are a biological form that has consciousness and has the agency to break the guardrails set by the process of natural selection that help it get there.

Put three facts together — a rudimentary biology in a resource limited environment where randomness in the replication process is expressed as phenotypes that help better secure available resources — the principle of natural selection has to emerge to take the rudimentary biological form on a stunning evolutionary journey of getting better and better at exploiting available resources that are sourced from the Sun.

That, in a nutshell, is the history of how we got here

In this process no external agent is required. There is no blueprint needed. There is no preconceived end goal in the mind of an agent.

There is no gardener out there with shears in hand pruning growth and giving it a form and a shape.

A form like you see in the manicured trees that line the boulevards and streets in European cities was never planned, and yet, there is beauty in what has evolved.

Repeat the process and start once again from rudimentary biology and the evolutionary trajectory will be different. The environmental conditions in which the evolutionary arms race is taking place could suddenly change and what was an advantageous phenotype may no longer be so.

We think about the intricacies of life and death, meaning of existence, consciousness, an agency guiding the creation and evolution of the universe, but in the end it could all be as simple as some self-evident facts — limits on resources, randomness — having some inevitable consequences of far-reaching significance.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Distorted Perceptions of Time

 

Time flies an arrow, and fruit flies like banana!

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Time warps strangely,
 like distorted reflections
 in a hall of mirrors.
 
 A month slips by in a blink,
 gone before it’s lived.
 
 Yet years in the past
 feel as though,
 between then and now,
 I have lived an eternity,
 wandering through
 folds of time.

There is indeed something distorted about the percepts of time.

With much fanfare, we celebrated the start of a new year and in a blink, it is already the month of February. If I were to say that the month of January just flew by, it would not be an overstatement.

The pace of time seems to depend on their proximity from the present. Moments that are close to now seem to pass quickly. On the other hand, years in the past (that are distant from now) seem to move at a much slower pace. It is similar to sitting on a train, where the electric poles adjacent to the track rapidly pass by, whereas the trees in the distance near the horizon move at a leisurely pace.

There is also a perception that those past years occurred in a different era. It feels as though centuries have passed between then and now, even though that is obviously not the case.

Reflecting on my high school years in 1972, approximately fifty years ago, I find it challenging to ascertain the significance of the notion of ’fifty years ago’. The passage of five decades does not evoke specific emotions or sentiments regarding its importance, or perhaps, its triviality.

Is ‘fifty years ago’ any different from ‘fifty-one years ago’? Or for that matter, is it any different than twenty or ten years ago? Is one weightier than the other? If they can have olfactory influence, will one smell stronger than the other?

What was I doing in the 365 days that were in the year that was ‘fifty years ago’?

I am uncertain about which adjective best describes the span of fifty years between then and now — whether it feels distant, recent, like it happened yesterday, or as though it occurred ages ago.

As time progresses, it seems that the life markers begin to merge into a single continuum. While individual days in the past week are still distinct and identifiable, those from two weeks ago require more effort to distinguish. Beyond two months, the concept of individual days essentially loses its meaning.

Individual months from the previous year may still retain their distinct identity, but even they tend to lose this distinction if they are part of a year that is more than a couple of years ago. Further back in time, even the specific years within a decade begin to blur together.

The phenomenon is like driving along a straight highway and observing milestones in a mirror. The ones recently passed remain distinguishable individually, whereas those located further down the road tend to merge into an indistinct blur.

Perhaps there are some markers for specific events that among the receding years stand taller — the birth of our child, passing away of parents, the visit to Grand Cayman — and can be discerned, but the distance for now still manages to erase details. For some of them, the exact year they occurred escapes.

It may be that my life is too monotonous, or perhaps the perceptions of time I have are not what others see. Alternatively, it could be that events, and their memories, are still there but do not stand out at a quick glance. Only through mindful reflection do the memories of individual events begin to emerge.

Percepts of time are like being in a hall of mirrors.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Before I rise from bed...

 

Each morning, before I rise from bed, if I remind myself of my mortality and recall that someday I will leave this world, unable to carry any possessions with me, the thought will render the baggage and the grudges I bear so utterly meaningless; free of those burdens, I might live a happier day.

Each morning before we get out of bed, if we remind ourselves…
...the world might be a happier place. 

The Irony of Short-Term Economic Pain

 

In the current US political landscape, where the wealthy elite don their suits and deliver impassioned speeches, a recurring theme is the promise of long-term prosperity through short-term pain.

This narrative is championed by figures like Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur who assures us that reducing government spending will lead to a brighter future. Musk often speaks of “temporary hardship” as a necessary evil on the path to “long-term prosperity.” He assures us that the economic pain resulting from his cost-cutting proposals will be short-lived and ultimately beneficial.

The same message is echoed by President Trump. In a speech to Congress, he mentioned that there would be a “little [short-term] disturbance” from his plan to impose tariffs on billions of dollars in goods, but he confidently asserted that it wouldn’t be long before the larger benefits of tariffs set in.

As we listen to this rhetoric, one can’t help but marvel at the irony of such statements coming from those least likely to feel the sting of economic hardship. After all, what’s a little disturbance when you’re sitting on a mountain of wealth?

The irony here is palpable. Billionaires with resources beyond the reach of most people speak of economic pain as if it’s a minor inconvenience. Perhaps they imagine that the average person can simply dip into their vast reserves of wealth to weather the storm.

But let’s be real: the economic pain resulting from such policies is unlikely to affect billionaires in any meaningful way. Instead, it will be ordinary citizens who bear the brunt of these changes. The lower one is on the wealth ladder, the worse the pain of this “little disturbance” will be.

What’s missing from these statements is any mention of the wealthy offering their own resources to mitigate the pain felt by those most in need.

Imagine an alternate universe where billionaires put their money where their mouths are and used their wealth to support those struggling through the period of hardship. Instead of preaching about the virtues of short-term pain, they could provide tangible assistance to help people get through the tough times until the promised long-term benefits materialize.

So, the next time we hear billionaire politicians being poetic about the virtues of short-term pain, let us take a moment to appreciate the irony.

One more thought — since when anything in the future is assured to go certain way or is guaranteed to be a “little disturbance.”

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Can Positive Human Attributes Scale with Group Size?

 

When you scale up a complex system, you’re not just multiplying what you started with by some constant factor; you change the system’s dynamics — Geoffrey West

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: At microscopic levels, quantum mechanical forces dominate, while classical mechanics accurately describes macroscopic scales, and therefore, for the physics of the system scales matter. Similarly, are positive attributes like sharing, caring, also scalable? Despite these attributes’ evolutionary advantages, their benefits do not proportionately scale with increasing group size because certain challenges hinder the seamless transition of positive attributes from small to larger groups.

Scales, and what forces are important at different scales, matter.

In the realm of physics, the concept of scaling plays an important role in deciphering the complexities of natural phenomena. Scaling involves the study of how different physical quantities change with size, and it can significantly simplify our quest for understanding the workings of various systems. When studying the dynamics of a system, certain forces can often be ignored at one scale but become important at another.

At microscopic scales, quantum mechanical forces dominate, and classical mechanics often falls short in providing accurate descriptions. For example, the behavior of electrons in an atom is governed by quantum mechanics, and ignoring quantum effects would lead to erroneous conclusions. However, at macroscopic scales, classical mechanics suffices to describe the motion of objects, and quantum effects can be safely neglected.

In the context of scaling, our previous discussion focused on the possibility of scalability of positive attributes such as sharing, caring, and empathy from small groups of humans to larger ones. We discussed whether these attributes would continue to prevail as small groups of hunter-gatherers expanded in size. The key points of our discussion can be summarized as follows.

In a small group of hunter-gatherers living in the wild, positive attributes such as sharing, caring, and empathy offer distinct advantages for both survival and reproduction. During a hunt, having someone who is vigilant and protective significantly improves the chances of survival.

As positive attributes provide survival and reproductive advantages, they would result in small groups of hunter-gatherers expanding in size. If these attributes were to scale proportionately with group size, the prevalence of wars and social upheaval throughout human civilization would not be there. We would live in harmony that mimics what happened in small hunter-gatherer groups.

Nevertheless, as societies evolved from smaller groups into larger entities such as tribes, villages, and nations, the scaling did not happen. Somewhere along the way the evolutionary benefits of positive attributes lost their edge. In going from smaller to larger groups, additional (and negative) factors must have counteracted the advantage of positive attributes.

What occurs when transitioning from an isolated small hunter-gatherer group to larger groups? Why does the benefit of positive attributes not scale upward with increasing size?

There are two primary challenges associated with scaling the advantages of positive attributes from small groups to larger ones: (i) the inverse correlation between empathy and degree of kinship, and (ii) the impact of random fluctuations on the physical, cognitive, and psychological traits of individuals within a group. These factors pose significant obstacles that must be overcome to successfully scale positive attributes with increasing group size.

The influence of kinship on the development of positive attributes is most pronounced among close relatives who share a common genetic background. As the degree of kinship between individuals decreases, the intensity of positive attributes also decreases.

Random variations in physical, cognitive, and psychological attributes can also influence the cohesiveness of larger groups. This occurs as certain individuals, because of random variations, having superior capabilities are better at securing resources. Random variations, therefore, can benefit a subgroup within the group. Furthermore, it is more difficult to manage competitive tendencies driven by randomness in larger groups because the moderating influence of kinship is less prevalent compared to that in smaller groups.

It is important to acknowledge that the influence of kinship degree and randomness are unavoidable. The decrease in positive attributes with a reduction in kinship is inevitable, as the cultivation of such attributes necessitates time and energy, which are limited resources that cannot be allocated to larger number of individuals. Additionally, the impact of randomness on creating variations in physical, cognitive, and psychological attributes is also unavoidable.

The bottom line is that the influence positive attributes have in keeping negative attributes in check for small groups do not scale up as quickly with the size of the group as negative attributes do. Consequently, for larger groups the influence of positive attributes takes the back seat.

The dynamics that work in a small group are indeed different from those for a larger group.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Will Humanity Evolve to Embrace Kindness?

 

Human nature is not black and white but black and grey — Graham Greene

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary With wars and deceit dominating the headlines, and our fascination with the negative outcomes of human actions, it’s natural to wonder if humanity could ever evolve into a species where kindness, empathy, generosity etc. become the norm. What are the chances of us transforming into a society where wars and deceit are relegated to a mere historical anomaly? Unfortunately, chances of that seem slim to none.

Throughout history, humanity has endured countless wars, each leaving behind a trail of devastation and sorrow. These conflicts, driven by various motives, have shaped the course of civilizations and influenced the trajectory of human progress. Yet, amid the chaos and destruction we so often create, glimmers of hope persist in the acts of kindness and solidarity people extend to one another. It’s no surprise that during natural disasters — hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, and the like — your neighbor often becomes your greatest ally in the fight for survival.

What are the chances that, as we evolve, positive attributes of human nature — kindness, empathy, generosity etc. — will become the norm and will be an innate part of us as a species? Could natural selection eventually lead us to a kinder, gentler self and help us build a civilization where wars are merely a regrettable chapter in our history, one we had to endure to achieve a better future?

Let us consider the possibility.

According to the principles of natural selection, species evolve over time by acquiring traits that enhance their ability to secure a larger share of available resources in their environment. For a characteristic to eventually become an innate trait, it must pass the litmus test of enhancing the chances of survival and reproduction.

Following this principle, humanity’s potential to improve with time will also depend on whether the positive attributes that we want to see become permanent, and the dominant fixture of the human race will enhance our chances of survival and reproduction. If they do so then there is a possibility that over a period, they might become innate traits.

To consider the possibility of this happening, let’s start at the very beginning when interaction among humans started. Let us consider if the positive attributes we want us to acquire might have helped their survival and reproduction.

Within a small hunter-gatherer group, the trait of caring for one another was crucial for survival. Over the course of evolution, fostering psychological attributes like empathy, cooperation, and kindness improves survival chances for individuals within these groups. The jungle is a harsh environment, and being alone offers no advantage.

What happens when a small group, aided by positive traits, starts to thrive and grow larger?

As small groups evolved into larger social structures such as tribes, villages, kingdoms, and nations, it becomes important to consider whether the same attributes that benefited a small group will continue to be effective as the group size increases.

In thinking about that possibility, we must take into consideration other forces that may come into play and could potentially disrupt the dynamics that once helped small groups of hunter-gatherers survive and thrive. Let us delve into what those forces are.

As the size of a group increases, maintaining feelings of sharing, kindness, and camaraderie with individuals who are not closely related becomes more challenging. The influence of kinship diminishes with distance, making it harder to empathize with individuals who are farther removed. In larger groups, the distinction between “us” and “them” becomes apparent and can lead to friction, where negative feelings associated with them may begin to outweigh positive ones.

Another influencing factor that comes into play is a feature that is constantly nudging the working of the universe; that feature is randomness.

Due to inherent randomness, individuals within a hunter-gatherer group exhibit variations in physical and cognitive abilities, as well as differing psychological traits. Some members of the group may possess superior strength, speed, and hunting skills, and demonstrate greater proficiency in resource gathering. These physical disparities can result in differential survival and reproduction rates, potentially causing inhomogeneities that lead to friction and negative emotions such as jealousy and rivalry.

Random physical differences are not the sole factors at play. A more significant contributor is the variation in psychological and cognitive attributes and the impacts these have on survival and reproduction.

In an expanding group of hunter-gatherers, the initial balance of equality, sharing, and empathy could be disrupted if an individual realizes that cheating can be advantageous for survival and reproduction. An individual with superior cognitive abilities might recognize the benefits of using them to manipulate others. Similarly, an individual in better physical condition may be viewed as attractive and sought after as a partner. These differences, although random in origin, can lead to disparities and potential conflict.

The point is that as the size of groups become larger, natural inevitability of physical and psychological differences (caused by randomness) could easily lead to runaway amplification of negative attributes and outweigh the beneficial effects of positive attributes we would like to see evolve with time.

One could try to argue that the size of the group would always be contained as splinter groups of smaller sizes emerge. The problem of conflict, however, does not go away. The conflict to enhance chances for survival and reproduction, and amplification of negative attributes, will continue between splinter groups.

In conclusion, the inverse correlation between empathy and degree of kinship, along with the impact of random fluctuations, presents significant challenges that must be addressed for the potential amplification of positive attributes. The inherent randomness in nature, combined with the complexities of human behavior, results in marked inequalities that erode social cohesion typically found in smaller groups. These disparities heighten tensions, fuel conflicts, and impede the upward scaling of positive attributes.

And so, conflict may increase at a faster rate and can overshadow the scaling positive attributes. Conversely, positive attributes face challenges in increasing similarly due to opposing forces.

In conclusion, the chances of positive attributes to become innate traits are slim to none.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.