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 possible 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 happens in small hunter-gatherer groups.

Nevertheless, as societies evolved from smaller groups into larger entities such as tribes, villages, and nations, it did not happen. Somewhere along the way the evolutionary benefits of positive attributes lost their edge. In going from smaller to larger groups, additional (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 more 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 numerous individuals within the group. 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 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 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, such traits have shown that 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 subtle 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 original 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 among the splintered 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 enhancement of positive attributes.

Conflict tends to increase more easily and can overshadow 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.

Falling on the Stage: Why Social Perception Trumps Pain

 

Embarrassment is the price of admission for a life fully lived.” — Susan David

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI: Trauma of Social Embarrassment 

Summary: The aversion to public embarrassment is a universal human experience, likely rooted in evolutionary survival instincts. Social acceptance was vital for early humans, and public missteps threatened group cohesion. Two personal incidents — one as an observer, the other as the protagonist — highlighted how embarrassment often takes precedence over physical discomfort. This behavior is probably further reinforced by cultural conditioning.

In our shared human experience, few phenomena are as universally relatable as the aversion to public embarrassment.

Consider a scene we have all witnessed or experienced: in a communal setting, a person stumbles and falls — perhaps from stepping on a misplaced stone or missing a step. The cause of the fall is irrelevant; what is striking is the almost reflexive reaction of the fallen individual to scan their surroundings for people who may have witnessed the fall. We are often more preoccupied with the social repercussions of our missteps than with the physical injury we may have incurred. It is only when we are away from the place where the incident occurred that we start to scan our body for possible injuries.

This tendency to prioritize avoiding psychological embarrassment over attending to immediate physical discomfort recently became more palpable to me through two closely linked incidents. Both occurred during a trip to Geneva, where I was attending a professional meeting. These events not only reminded me of the deep-seated nature of this phenomenon but also spurred reflection on its potential evolutionary roots.

The first incident placed me in the role of an observer. As I returned to my hotel after dinner, I walked past a doorway leading to a lobby with a few steps to an elevator. A man entered the doorway, engrossed in his smartphone, and perhaps distracted, misjudged a step and fell. His immediate reaction was not to examine his injuries but to glance through the doorway toward the street to determine if anyone had seen him fall. From his reaction it was clear his concern centered more on the possibility of social embarrassment.

In the second incident I was the protagonist. Another evening, I found myself crossing a road near my hotel. Impatient to wait for the traffic light, I checked both directions and decided to cross. Midway across, I tripped and fell in the middle of the road. The urgency of oncoming traffic activated my survival instincts, and I scrambled to my feet and hurried to the safety of the sidewalk. Yet, the moment I was out of harm’s way, my primary concern shifted. I wasn’t thinking about my bruises or potential injuries; I wondered how many people had witnessed my fall and were still looking at me. Only after walking a few minutes from the scene I began to assess whether I was physically hurt.

These two incidents aptly illustrate a shared human preoccupation: the fear of becoming the centerpiece of public embarrassment. They got me wondering why are we so deeply averse to finding ourselves in such socially compromising situations? Could there be an evolutionary explanation for this ingrained behavior?

Possibly so.

From an evolutionary perspective, the need for social acceptance and cohesion has been argued to be beneficial for survival. Early humans lived in tight-knit communities where being ostracized or ridiculed could have dire consequences, such as reduced access to shared resources, protection, and mating opportunities. Public embarrassment, even in seemingly trivial situations, might have been perceived as a threat to one’s social standing and, by extension, survival prospects. Consequently, humans may have developed a heightened sensitivity to behaviors that could attract negative attention.

Ultimately the desire to avoid social embarrassment may have been imprinted in our brain’s wiring. I have been told that the amygdala, a part of the brain associated with processing emotions, plays a significant role in our fear responses. Social embarrassment triggers a stress response similar to physical danger, as the brain interprets the potential loss of social standing as a threat. This response could explain why the man in the doorway and I both reacted to our falls by prioritizing social perception over physical well-being.

It is also conceivable that cultural conditioning reinforces this innate instinct. From a young age, we are taught to value social decorum and avoid actions that might draw negative attention. Embarrassing moments are often met with laughter or ridicule, further cementing our aversion to such experiences.

In conclusion, the instinctive reaction to prioritize avoiding social embarrassment over addressing physical discomfort is a deeply rooted and an instinctive human behavior. Rooted in our evolutionary history and reinforced by cultural norms, the fear of social embarrassment underscores the desire for social acceptance in our lives.

I know, next time I trip in a public place, or tip a glass of white wine in a restaurant, my first reaction would be still to look around and see if someone saw what happened. It is hard to be free from evolutionary constraints.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

The reason I see and hear what I see and hear

 

Sometimes asking God for a reason for something is like asking Him why the sky is blue. There is a complex, scientific reason for it, Claire, but most children, including you, are content with knowing it is blue because it is — Susan Meissner (Why the Sky Is Blue)

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

In the previous post I discussed how my senses can only perceive a small fraction of what exists. I can only see only 0.0035% of the electromagnetic spectrum between 380 nanometers (nm) (violet) to about 750 nanometers (nm) (red) and can hear compression (or longitudinal) waves that travel through the air and have frequency between 20Hz to 20,000 Hz. My range of hearing and vision being limited does not mean that there are no electromagnetic and compression waves beyond the limits of my perception. It just means that anything happening out there which falls outside the range of my sensory physiology does not get registered.

Right now, there are worlds beyond the reach of my perception of which I am not aware.

I am oblivious to much that goes around me. I am continuously flooded by electromagnetic waves to which I am not aware. Similarly, there are sound waves continuously passing by, wavelengths of which are beyond my auditory capabilities. The same sound waves, however, are picked up by the dogs taking their evening stroll with their owners on the sidewalk and occasionally their ears perk up as if they are listening to some melodious symphony that is not accessible to me.

Why is it that I can see and hear only a fraction of what is going on out there? It is not by random chance that I, as part of the human race, was blessed with this sensory range, perhaps when the world was created. Is there someone out there divvying up frequencies of spectrums like the FCC does?

The reason for my physiology being what it is has an explanation that traces back to the environment in which my ancestors, and more broadly, life on Earth, evolved.

The BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) is that the range of wavelengths to which our vision and auditory physiology is sensitive is the result of an interplay between environmental conditions and the principles of natural selection, which work to increase our chances for survival and reproduction.

To understand the range of the electromagnetic spectrum I can perceive, the starting point is the radiation that the Sun emits. For every living thing on Earth that requires energy to maintain its biological functions, the source of that energy, directly or indirectly, is the Sun.

Plants, through photosynthesis, convert the Sun’s energy into various nutrients (such as glucose) and byproducts (like oxygen). They accomplish this remarkable transformation using water from their roots, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and light energy from the Sun. For my own existence, I depend on the nutrients produced by plants; thus, the origin of my energy source also traces back to the Sun.

The intensity of the Sun’s electromagnetic spectrum is concentrated within a range from about 200 nm (nanometers) (ultraviolet) to about 2000 nm (infrared). It also happens that at the top of the atmosphere, the spectral irradiance of the radiation emitted by the Sun peaks at about 400 nm (violet-to-blue). Additionally, the gaseous composition of Earth’s atmosphere allows a majority of the radiation emitted by the Sun, between 200–750 nm, to pass through. Conversely, radiation in the infrared frequency is largely absorbed by the water vapor in the atmosphere.

The bottom line is that, with the Sun’s radiation being the ultimate source of energy and its spectral irradiance peaking around 400 nm — declining rapidly on the ultraviolet side and tapering more gradually on the red side (but being absorbed in the atmosphere) — it is unsurprising that the majority of life forms on Earth have evolved to capitalize on this specific environmental condition.

This is why the physiology of my eyes has evolved to perceive what we call the visible spectrum (the use of the word visible is not surprising and is self-referential because I am bound by the limits of the language I use to communicate. What else would I call it?).

What about the physiology of my ears? The story there is no different.

Sound waves are compression waves that travel through the air. Their speed and other characteristics, such as how far sound can travel without losing its energy, depend on the air’s density. My auditory range has adapted to the frequencies of sounds most relevant for communication and environmental awareness, thereby increasing the prospects of my survival and reproduction.

The frequency of sound that can be efficiently transmitted is influenced by the medium’s properties through which the wave is traveling, including its density and pressure. The human ear has evolved to be most sensitive to the range of frequencies that travel best under the atmospheric conditions at Earth’s surface.

The frequencies within the human auditory range are those that can travel through the air easily and are more likely to be associated with sounds that have been important for our survival. The process of natural selection has guided human (and other animals’) hearing to adapt to the typical conditions of Earth’s atmosphere, where the density and pressure support the propagation of sound waves most efficiently within the 20Hz to 20,000Hz range.

Thus, it is no coincidence that my eyes and hearing are attuned to seeing and hearing what they are. In the environment where my ancestors lived and the overall biology on Earth evolved, these are the features that increased the chances for survival and reproduction. Attempts to utilize alternative seeing and hearing strategies either did not progress far along the evolutionary path or became relegated to specialized niches (for example, bats using echolocation).

Ultimately, the principles of natural selection, working within the constraints of the environment where the game of survival and reproduction is played, are the invisible forces that have shaped the physiology of my senses.

In some ways, natural selection could be considered a godlike force making me most adept to where I live.

Ciao.

Natural Selection and the Stock Market

 

If there are other worlds elsewhere in the universe, I would conjecture they are governed by the same laws of natural selection — Richard Dawkins

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Three fundamental elements are essential for the emergence of natural selection and evolution: (i) a finite pool of resources, such as energy; (ii) a diverse population capable of replication, ranging from simple self-replicating molecules to complex organisms like humans, with variations in traits within the population affecting resource acquisition efficiency; and (iii) the passage of time.

If one possessed divine powers, simply introducing three core elements would suffice for a complex tapestry of biology on a planet like ours to evolve: limited resources; a replicating population with trait variance; and time. Starting from there, the divine power would sit back and observe the unfolding of evolution.

The relentless pursuit of resources, coupled with the instinct to replicate, would inevitably give rise to increasingly complex and efficient life forms. Over time, this pursuit for efficiency would also catalyze the emergence of consciousness, the development of language for improved communication, and the formation of agrarian societies to support growing resource demands, all aiding in the race to excel over others.

Even at a more fundamental level, the mere presence of finite energy and existence of a primordial chemical mixture sets the stage for the inevitable rise of self-replicating entities, paving the way for the inevitability for the process of natural selection and evolution to occur.

Natural selection, however, extends beyond biological arena. Whenever three specific conditions converge in any domain, the principles of natural selection and evolution will take hold. A contemporary illustration of this is the dynamics of the stock market.

To draw parallels, let us first identify the presence of three essential components in the stock market.

Within the stock market’s framework, the ‘resource’ equates to the discretionary capital held by investors. The ‘population’ consists of diverse companies, each vying for that capital with their unique characteristics (or traits). Time, as always, is plenty.

Similar to biological entities, the primary objective for companies is to ensure their continuity and expansion, which they achieve by securing capital. The biological selection mechanism determining which traits are advantageous is mirrored their effectiveness in drawing investors and their money.

Companies strive to highlight a range of traits to capture investors’ interest and secure funding. These traits include above-average profitability, effective management, promising growth prospects, and investment in innovation to develop new products or enhance existing ones.

It is crucial to understand that the process is self-driven and natural. Individuals have discretionary funds at their disposal, which companies aim to attract. The stock exchange serves as the meeting ground, and that is where the intricate dance of natural selection plays out.

Just as environmental pressures — such as resource scarcity, climatic shifts, the advent of new pathogens, geographical transformations, and alterations in predator-prey relationships — steer the evolution of biological organisms, external factors also influence the evolution of companies. Examples of such changes include the rise of disruptive technologies like Uber, political turmoil that heightens the stock appeal of defense-focused firms, and public sentiment, such as attributing responsibility for climate change to certain corporations. And thus, along the path of evolution, the environmental pressures also evolve and affect which traits will be preferred.

Remarkable parallels exist between the evolutionary processes of organisms and companies, with both driven by the imperative to acquire resources more efficiently, leading to greater complexity with time (I am sure you have heard about complex financial transactions like hedge funds and derivatives). Nonetheless, distinctions between the two also exist.

In the stock market, investors engage in deliberate decision-making (despite the debatable rationality and objectivity of their choices), contrasting with natural selection influencing living organisms, which is an instinctive process shaped entirely by environmental forces.

Another distinction lies in the role of central banks, which actively work to tinker with market conditions and do not let the process of natural selection play out to its full potential. While there may be a natural selection counterpart to this regulatory influence in the present era - human intervention is now a significant factor in the evolution of species - it did not used to be this way.

An additional contrast is the potential for resource (i.e., capital) availability to expand over time for stock markets. 

Despite these differences, there are striking resemblances in the evolution of companies and biological organisms within their respective domains. This is inherently due to the combination of three fundamental elements listed at the beginning, which necessitates such a parallel.

Ciao.

The Basic Premise of Evolution

We are the representatives of the cosmos; we are an example of what hydrogen atoms can do, given 15 billion years of cosmic evolution — Carl Sagan

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Evolution: What does it imply? What are its origins? Is there an external entity that determines the course of evolution? Does it follow a specific direction, from left to right or vice versa? Does it always lead to more complexity, or can it result in regression? These questions may seem daunting, but the underlying principles for answers may be simpler than we think.

When we encounter the term ‘evolution,’ we have a visceral understanding of its meaning. Simple definitions for evolution could be ‘a process of change in a certain direction’ or ‘a gradual process of change and development.’ The most common context that comes to mind when we hear the word ‘evolution’ is the evolution of biological forms.

In living organisms, evolution is a ubiquitous and a powerful concept. Beginning with the emergence of self-replicating molecules, it has led to the creation of incredibly complex and intricate biological forms, including us. Its omnipresence suggests that the underlying principles must be simple. Otherwise, how could it be replicated repeatedly across time (across different epochs) and space (across different continents)?

The process driving evolution is indeed quite simple. If certain conditions are met, which can readily occur in a variety of situations, it is, in fact, an inevitability.

The essential (or necessary and sufficient) conditions for evolution to occur are:

1. Availability of limited resources.

2. A population with varying traits that require these resources for its continuation.

3. Traits to vary in their relative efficiency in procuring resources.

4. Sufficient time: Time for the processes underlying (i.e., natural selection) to play out.

Over time, evolution is an inevitability in a population, provided there is variation in traits, a mechanism for these traits to be inherited, and a selective force for traits to be favored, the simplest form of which is the efficiency of traits in resource acquisition.

That is it.

Evolution transpires when a population with diverse traits competes for the limited resources essential for their survival. Over time, the traits that are more efficient in securing resources become predominant. The selective filter in this process, which determines which traits will dominate, is the relative efficiency (or fitness) of these traits in obtaining resources. In biological evolution this process is referred to as natural selection, with ‘natural’ indicating that the selection is a spontaneous process devoid of any external entity providing guidance.

The four conditions listed above can occur in many situations.

The presence of limited resources: Resources are indeed always limited. The universe may have a lot of energy, but it is not infinite. For every living entity on the Earth, the ultimate resource is the radiation from the Sun that falls in per unit area at a location.

Diversity of traits: Random fluctuations, like mutation during cell replication, guarantee that traits among a population competing for resources will differ.

Relative efficiency of traits: Differing traits will vary in their ability in procuring resources. One could be a devil’s advocate and ask why it cannot be otherwise? Well, you can advocate that, but it is not going to happen on its own and has to be forced.

Time: The universe has plenty of that at its disposal.

Whenever and wherever these conditions are met, a process similar to evolution and natural selection gets established. Some examples are:

Biological evolution: This is often the first context that comes to mind when we discuss evolution. Biological entities vie for a finite pool of resources. Those possessing traits that provide an advantage in resource acquisition have a higher likelihood of survival and reproduction. Over the course of generations, these advantageous traits tend to prevail.

Cultural evolution: Every day, 60,000 songs, each with unique traits, are uploaded to Spotify. These songs (and their creators) compete for the limited attention of listeners. Those with the most appealing traits not only survive but also gain popularity, and their appeal becomes timeless.

Societal evolution: New social norms and practices are constantly emerging. Those that benefit society, such as the development of agrarian societies that contribute to the advancement of the human tribe, are adopted, survive, and over time, become prevalent norms and practices.

Technological Evolution: New technological inventions and innovations, each with unique traits and marketing strategies, are continually emerging. They compete for limited financial resources or perceived customer niches. Those that align with customer preferences eventually dominate the market and establish their presence.

Psychological evolution: We may not realize it, but certain psychological preferences, such as discounting the future, opting for the path of least resistance, and a fondness for sugars, are all psychological traits that gave us an advantage in the past. Although they may be detrimental to our current environment, we are still beholden to them.

Linguistic evolution: New words, such as ‘finistophobia’, are coined with the intent of conveying specific meanings. Those that effectively meet the perceived need to express a particular sentiment or action become established, leading to the evolution of languages over time.

Economical evolution: Rise and fall of new startups or continuation of established corporations vying for the money investors have been another wonderful example of evolution.

The crux of the matter is that if you delve into any aspect of the universe undergoing change and development, where an unseen force is guiding the process, it is likely that the process similar to evolution of biological forms that is at work behind the scenes.

Ciao.

Retirement: A modern-day conundrum

It’s paradoxical that the idea of living a long life appeals to everyone, but the idea of getting old doesn’t appeal to anyone — Andy Rooney

Arun Kumar

AI Generated Image

Natural selection has gifted us with certain psychological traits that do not always benefit the majority of the aging population in the present era. Indeed, there are a few extraordinary individuals, such as Fauja Singh who completed a marathon at 100, who age remarkably well. However, they are not the norm. As I grapple with my own physical discomforts, like an aching knee, or with financial concerns, like a dwindling net worth reflected in my monthly bank statement, I find myself caught between inspiration and disheartenment when I hear or read about these exceptional cases.

However, this narrative isn’t about envying centenarian marvels. Rather, it’s about how the rapid pace of human development over the last 10,000 years, since the advent of agrarian societies, has left us unprepared in certain aspects of modern life, particularly, the average person now lives well beyond their reproductive years and is ill-equipped to handle the challenges and hardships of old age.

An inherent aspect of life is its need for energy. Every living entity is in a constant state of needing sustenance. A continuous intake of energy is necessary to maintain the structure of living beings against the relentless force of entropy, which persistently attempts to scatter their constituent atoms back into the cosmos. In this sense, living beings are akin to vehicles needing a pit stop for refueling or smartphones requiring a power source for recharging. Anything that ‘operates’ requires regular replenishment of energy.

For humans, the acquisition of energy was once achieved through hunting and gathering, with energy being the fruit of our labor. Those days are now in the past. In the present era, we need money to procure energy. Supermarket aisles are now a proxy for forests, and instead of wielding a spear or a bow and arrow, we must ensure we don’t venture out into the wilds of the supermarket without our credit cards. With our money, we now hunt in the aisles of the supermarket. But make no mistake, like the effort required for hunting and gathering, having money is still our time and labor. Being part of the work force is a prerequisite for procuring money.

In our later years, when our cognitive or physical abilities may be declining, or when we can no longer compete with the younger generation, or when our skill set becomes obsolete (like being proficient in FORTRAN, which might draw blank looks today), it is time to retire from the workforce. Retirement halts the steady inflow of money. However, to meet our ongoing energy needs, it’s crucial to have a reserve of funds saved up that we can gradually draw from to sustain our energy requirements and ourselves.

On a side note, in the present era it is not only food, but we now need accessories to service our living bodies and the money required for them could be larger than the need for food. The place to buy food may be miles away so we need money for public transport or to have a car. We need a home, clothing, and since now there is leisure time at hand, we need a TV, an internet connection. The list goes on and on — the things we need start to need their own things, like home and car require insurance or a smartphone with a plethora of accessories.

The point is that after we leave the work force (let us call it retirement), and a steady stream of cash flow dries up, we need to have enough saved up to meet myriad of resource requirements for the years we are going to live.

If you are lucky enough to live in a country with a good safety net, or if you have a steady pension from your working days then good for you. Even if those options are there, it is still good to plan ahead and save for retirement years. There is plenty of advice out there to start saving early, let the compounding do its magic and see the savings grow. In trying to do that, however, some of the psychological traits that natural selection has gifted us are no longer helpful.

Two big impediments in saving for retirement are our tendency to discount the future and predilection for choosing the path of least resistance. Both these psychological tendencies were a beneficial trait in the past and gave us an edge in either securing or conserving resources.

Consider the concept of discounting the future. Natural selection operates within the confines of the present environment. It lacks the foresight to select traits that could potentially be beneficial in future scenarios. When faced with the decision to utilize available resources now or conserve them for later, the general tendency is to opt for immediate use. After all, the future is unpredictable. This survival strategy, particularly in an uncertain environment, aligns with the adage, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” It underscores the logic of prioritizing immediate, guaranteed resources over uncertain, future ones.

In the context of the present era, another psychological impediment that natural selection has bestowed upon us is our inclination to choose the path of least resistance. Given that energy is a valuable resource, in the past, one often had to risk their life to obtain it, efficiency and conservation in its use is a beneficial trait to have.

The traits of discounting the future and choosing the path of least resistance may have been advantageous in a different environment, however, it is no longer the case. In the present era, where we often live well beyond our reproductive years and need to accumulate sufficient savings, these traits may not be as beneficial. They could even pose challenges on our journey towards financial stability and longevity.

Indeed, discounting the future can make it challenging to save money for future use. With a plethora of enticing gadgets available and constant marketing efforts promoting the latest and greatest products, the desire to keep up with the Joneses can be overwhelming. These propositions can be too attractive to resist. Saving for years in retirement takes a back seat.

Similarly, preference to opt for the path of least resistance can lead to less healthy lifestyle and other detrimental choices in today’s world. For example, why put in the effort to exercise at the gym when it’s much more comfortable to indulge in leisure? Resisting immediate gratification is a challenging task. Such choices make for a shorter health span when old.

These examples highlight the challenges of some deeply ingrained psychological traits that were once advantageous in a different environmental context with drastically different living conditions. These are elephants in the room that need to be tamed. How, and is it going to happen?

It is possible that 10,000 years since the advent of agrarian society to now is not enough time to get over these detrimental psychological traits. After all, natural selection, and evolution, traditionally, operate on much longer time scales. So perhaps, given enough time we would leave these traits behind and be better planners.

It is also possible that such a change will never happen. Exploitation by marketing geniuses, presence of dopamine or serotonin receptors will always keep the flame of instant gratification burning. If that happens then the adverse psychological traits are here to stay and need to be socially managed.

Whatever the future may be, for now we are caught in the cycle of living longer, requiring energy as a resource do that, and needing money to continuously procure that resource. If we want to live our old days in comfort, we had better heed the advice and start saving early.

Ciao.

The nature of beneficial traits for natural selection changes with time

 

Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species — Konrad Lorenz

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Biological entities require energy to counteract the disorder that entropy persistently seeks to amplify, often leading to the degradation of their form. To combat the force of entropy, biological entities are in constant pursuit of energy for self-preservation. Plants harness energy from light, while animals rely on food, which is fundamentally a product of the energy conversion efforts of plants. For all living beings, energy is a highly sought-after resource. It is their kryptonite.

Various species, be they plants or animals, coexist in a shared environment and vie for the available resource, energy, which is crucial for their survival and reproduction. This competition gives rise to the fundamental concept of natural selection. If a species succeeds in securing a larger share of the available resources, the traits that facilitated this success become more prevalent in the subsequent generations. This is because access to additional resources increases the likelihood of survival and reproduction.

Natural selection is an inexorable, punishing, and unsparing process. If you are not adequately adapted to the offerings of your environment, or if another individual is better equipped to do so, your distant progeny will not exist to honor your memory.

The competition for resources could either be inter-species, such as between lions and hyenas vying for a prey, or it could be intra-species. If a subset of individuals of a species acquires a trait through random genetic mutation that assists in obtaining more resources than their counterparts, that trait becomes more common in future generations. These traits that can provide an upper hand be either physical or psychological.

The influence of physical traits on survival and reproduction is relatively easy to comprehend. If an individual within a species is stronger, faster, has a longer neck, or possesses the ability to breathe both on land and in water, they are likely to secure a larger share of resources. This improves their prospects of survival and reproduction. As these individuals produce more offspring over time, the advantageous trait starts to become more widespread within the population. This could potentially lead to the emergence of a new species.

Numerous examples can also be construed to illustrate how beneficial psychological traits, by enhancing survival and reproduction, will become prevalent in a population (to the point of becoming automated responses).

Consider fear. The psychological trait of fear towards various dangers threatening our survival is essential. Without fear, and the fight-or-flight response it triggers, human lifespan would be short-lived. Some fears, such as the fear of being bitten by poisonous snakes, are so deeply ingrained in our psyche that the mere rustling of grass can make our hair stand on end.

The principles of natural selection operate within the confines of the current environment where competition takes place. It is within these boundaries that the advantages of physical and psychological traits are assessed. The process of natural selection does not attempt to predict future environmental conditions, nor does it select traits based on their potential benefits in an as-yet-nonexistent environment. The future is too uncertain to gamble on which traits might prove beneficial. Therefore, disregarding potential future events is not a beneficial trait. Hence, humans tend to discount the future.

One final example of beneficial psychological trait is our inclination to choose the path of least resistance. Given that energy is a valuable resource, when faced with two options that require different amounts of energy, the one requiring less energy is preferred. Why opt for a difficult approach when an easier one is readily available? Our tendency to choose the path of least resistance, combined with our preference for discounting the future, could have a compounding effect that is evident in our current environment.

Due to environmental changes and our technological advancements, the categorization of what constitutes a beneficial trait can evolve over time. This has already transpired for physical traits.

Technological progress has equalized the playing field for physical attributes. If you cannot run fast, a vehicle can compensate for that. If your muscles are not as strong as others, there are technological solutions for that as well. We have even reached a point where inter-species competition is no longer a concern for us. Not only that, but we have also modified the environment to such an extent that other species are struggling to survive.

What about psychological traits? Have we succeeded in overcoming their influence? Are these traits no longer relevant in the new paradigm that governs our current societal structures and norms? It does not appear to be so. In the present, our behaviors and responses continue to be guided by psychological traits that were advantageous during our hunter-gatherer days but may no longer be beneficial.

The psychological trait of fear is very much within us. Rustling grass still makes our hair stand on its end. Added to that are other automatic responses that trigger our brain’s primal fear response and are not helpful in a civilized society. Fear of public speaking can generate an automatic response of racing heart, trembling, and sweating. Fear of certain social situations leads to anxiety and automated response of sweating or a desire to flee. Fear of failure trigger automatic responses such as procrastination, perfectionism, or avoidance of challenging tasks.

Despite the significant personal cost, we persist in discounting the future. The average lifespan is now considerably longer than it once was. Much to nature’s dismay, due to advancements in medicine and hygiene, we continue to live well beyond our prime reproductive years. This necessitates planning for extended horizons. Our ongoing inclination to discount the future is no longer beneficial. For a healthier lifespan, we should improve our diet and exercise regularly. For a comfortable retirement, we should save and invest. However, participating in these forward-thinking activities requires considerable discipline, a trait natural selection did not train us for.

The story is the same for our preference for favoring the option of least resistance. Between the options of exercising today vs. being sedentary the whole day is so much easier and that is what gets favored. Alternatively, why task the brain with thinking when mindlessly scrolling for the next story is so less taxing.

Our tendency to favor the path of least resistance remains unchanged. Given the choice between exercising today or remaining sedentary, the latter is often the easier option and thus, the one we tend to choose. Why exert mental effort when one can simply continue scrolling for the next story?

Perhaps someday, technology will help equalize disparities in psychological traits. Taking a daily pill or receiving an injection, similar to getting vaccinated during our developmental years, could potentially cure our tendency to discount the future or resist the allure of the path of least resistance. However, until such advancements are made, the psychological traits that were once beneficial will persist. We must remain vigilant against exploitation by politicians, companies, and snake oil salesmen who are adept at manipulating these traits.

What seems even more likely is that the competition of resources (given their finite nature) will never stop, and certain traits, whether psychological or technological, by virtue of their helping secure more resources, will persist indefinitely. The competition for energy will always be there, what traits help us secure it may change.

Ciao.

Will the process of natural selection always be there?

 

Natural selection will not remove ignorance from future generations — Richard Dawkins

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Will humans, as a species, ever be exempt from the process of natural selection? Or will natural selection persist indefinitely, with only the resources involved in the process changing over time? I will lean in favor of the latter scenario.

Natural selection is an unyielding, harsh, and merciless process. If you are not well-adapted to your environment, or if another individual is better suited than you, your distant descendants will not exist to pay respects at your grave.

The fundamental concept of natural selection is simple — it’s a process where organisms with traits that assist in acquiring resources (such as food, light, water, shelter, etc.) have an increased likelihood of survival and reproduction. As a result, these organisms often produce more offspring than their peers. Over time, this results in an increase in the prevalence of these advantageous traits within the population. These traits can be physical or psychological.

Natural selection is a competition for limited resources, with the victors being those who possess traits that give them an edge in securing a larger share of these resources. It’s not a mutually beneficial scenario. Instead, it’s a game where the winners, often at the detriment of their competitors, reap all the rewards.

The impact of physical traits on survival and reproduction is straightforward to understand. If an individual within a species is stronger, faster, has a longer neck, or can breathe both on land and in water, they are likely to secure a larger portion of resources. This enhances their chances of survival and reproduction. Over time, as these individuals produce more offspring, the advantageous trait become more prevalent within the population. This could potentially lead to the emergence of a new species.

Much like physical traits, psychological traits can also enhance an individual’s chances of survival and reproduction. These traits can include behaviors, attitudes, and cognitive abilities that may provide an advantage in securing resources or attracting mates. Over time, the advantageous psychological traits can become more prevalent within a population, much like physical traits. This is a fascinating aspect of natural selection.

Kinship and the psychological tendency to prioritize the interests of one’s nearest relatives serve as good examples. At the genetic level, the closer our relationship with another individual, greater is the shared gene pool. The primary goal of reproduction is the propagation of genes. Therefore, a psychological trait that favors kinship is likely to be more successful in propagating a gene pool, and over time, it has become a prevalent psychological trait.

Natural selection has been a driving force since the advent of self-replicating molecules and biological entities vying for limited resources in their environment. However, over the past 10,000 years, humans have, in many respects, managed to circumvent certain aspects of natural selection through the aid of technological advancements. This is particularly true for physical traits, where technology has essentially leveled the playing field. For instance, physical traits that were once advantageous, such as the ability to run faster, can now be compensated for by vehicles. If we continue on this trajectory, it raises the question: could we someday transcend the process of natural selection?

However, it’s also plausible that the process of natural selection will persist indefinitely. With survival and reproduction as the ultimate goals, we may never truly escape its influence. But why is this the case? The reason is…

…due to the ongoing struggle against the forces of entropy, we will always require some form of energy (i.e., resources) to maintain our biological structures. The fundamental fact is that living organisms require energy. As a result, the competition for finite resources among biological entities will persist indefinitely. This competition ensures the continued relevance of natural selection. There will always be certain traits — be they physical, psychological, or otherwise — that will provide an individual with a competitive edge, and will eventually become dominant within the population. What may evolve over time, however, is the nature of the resources that are being competed for.

The nature of competition has already shifted away from securing basic resources like food. Currently, the resources we compete for are predominantly monetary, which are subsequently used to procure necessities essential for survival. Any remaining money, after satisfying our basic needs, is frequently used to achieve status. This pursuit for status may subconsciously be to serve to attract mates for reproduction.

Given the finite nature of resources, competition for them is inevitable. The type of resources being competed for may evolve over time. Consequently, in some form or another, the process of natural selection will continue.

Civilizations possessing advantageous physical, psychological, and now, technological traits, will persist in their efforts to emerge victorious. In the future, the process of natural selection may function within the context of competition among civilizations, or galactic alliances, striving to perpetuate and expand their horizons, and to venture into unexplored territories.

The resource could potentially evolve once more, perhaps taking the form of the spice Melange found on the planet Arrakis.

Ciao.

The inevitability of the process of natural selection - Take II

 Ideas percolate. Through natural selection, the best ones survive — Andew Lo

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

The primary objectives for a biological entity are survival and reproduction. Without these characteristics, the particular form would cease to exist, and we would not be talking about it. Survival and reproduction stand as the fundamental goals for all biological forms. Absent these traits, the form would not persist, rendering our conversation about it moot.

Rene Descartes posited the philosophical assertion, “I think, therefore I am” underscoring the presence of the self as a cognitive being. This proclamation pertains to an individual’s consciousness and self-awareness.

In a similar vein, one might metaphorically assert, “I possess the instinct to survive and reproduce, hence I am a biological form.” This implies that the existence of these instincts affirms the being’s identity as a form of biological life, given that these instincts are essential to life itself.

Where might the origins of these two traits — survival and reproduction — for biological entities lie? We could go back to the beginning of biology, to the self-replicating molecules, and ponder whether the concepts of survival and reproduction were inherent to them also.

By definition, a self-replicating molecule inherently possesses one of the two fundamental traits — reproduction. However, survival is not merely about the capacity to reproduce, but also encompasses the ability to endure and exhibit resilience within a specific environment.

Should a self-replicating molecule lack the ability to preserve its structure amidst environmental adversities (akin to an ‘instinct for survival’), it would either deteriorate or be superseded by other molecules exhibiting greater stability or replication efficiency. Thus, in the absence of this survival instinct, the molecule’s existence would indeed be short-lived.

Consequently, the self-replicating molecules, endowed with the inherent traits of survival and reproduction, underwent continuous evolution, and led the foundation for all life forms.

If, during this process, a presumptuous life form emerged, declaring its lack of need for either survival or reproduction instincts, it was told by others ‘c’est la vie’ and ‘see you later, alligator,’ as they continued on their survival and reproductive journey that led to us.

The instinct for survival and reproduction in an environment with limited energy also gave rise to another fundamental principle that drives biological entities. This principle is none other than natural selection and evolution. The logic for this necessity goes as follows.

To compete effectively in a resource-constrained environment, a biological entity must possess a characteristic that enables it to secure available resources more efficiently than others. This allows it to be fit for survival and reproduction, and to produce more offspring. Over generations, this advantageous trait becomes increasingly prevalent in the future population, leading to the emergence of a new species and the progression of evolution.

Consequently, the instinctive ability of biological entities to survive and reproduce, coupled with the necessity to compete in an energy-limited environment, culminates in the process of natural selection and evolution. This is an inevitable result of the interplay between these two factors.

The process of natural selection is a Darwinian Inevitability of competition between self-replicating forms for resources when living in an energy limited environment.

Ciao.