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.

How to savor a glass of wine without wanting to have three?

Having a balance arises not from the absence of conflict but from the interaction of opposing tensions.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar+ AI : Finding Restraint

Summary: Have a glass of wine and not three. Have a piece of chocolate and not the entire box. To rein in unconstrained runaway desires, having a restraining force would help. That force could be the sense of sobriety the realization of mortality brings.

I am always yearning for balance between striving to savor a glass of wine while resisting the temptation to reach for another. Yet, what unfolds is often the opposite of this aspiration. Even before the last sip touches the lips, thoughts of having another glass begin to swirl. Propelled by unchecked desire, the yearning for balance remains an unattainable horizon. My quest for balance between savoring (and feeling content with) a glass of wine, and not wanting another, has been a persistent call, but realizing it remains elusive.

What kind of balance, then, am I truly capable of achieving, and how?

Consider a possible state of balance as a metaphorical tightrope walk. That balance, however, is a place of unstable equilibrium. It is like a newly sharpened pencil balanced precariously on its tip. With great effort, this balance may be momentarily realized, but the slightest disturbance — a mere flutter from the wings of a butterfly — can undo it, along with all the hard work that went into it. This is not the kind of balance I seek.

Alternatively, balance could be a state of stable equilibrium. In this state, two competing forces create an outcome where opposing forces neutralize one another, allowing for stability. Achieving this state requires these opposing forces to coexist, enabling the system to settle into a middle ground. This interplay fosters an enduring state of balance that withstands life’s inevitable disruptions.

The balance I seek, thus, is not an unstable but a stable equilibrium that is longer lasting. I seek to savor a glass of wine but not drink three. Perhaps this balance will arise from the tension between two opposing forces, coexisting in harmony. The encouraging past is that such examples of balance are already part of my existence.

One such example is the tension between indulgence and restraint. Indulgence — the act of giving in to one’s desires — brings pleasure, excitement, and immediate gratification. Restraint, on the other hand, calls for discipline, patience, and long-term thinking. Alone, each force leads to extremes — indulgence to excess, ultimately harmful, and restraint to deprivation. When both are present, tempering one another, they guide life toward a middle ground of moderation.

Another pair of opposing forces that exemplifies the dynamics of balance is the relationship between control and surrender. Control represents the drive to shape, direct, and master life’s circumstances. Surrender, conversely, is the act of letting go, accepting what is beyond one’s influence, and embracing uncertainty. Life becomes unbalanced when either force dominates. Yet, when the two forces engage in constant dialogue, they create a state of equilibrium where one exerts effort without resisting the natural flow of events.

Circling back to the beginning of our quest, to find the sweet spot of balance I yearn for, perhaps what is need is an awareness of mortality as the force opposing to force of living.

Mortality brings with it the undeniable reality of life’s finitude. One of its hallmarks is the humbling realization of our impermanence. It prompts reflection on the transient nature of existence and forces us to weigh our actions.

Living with the cognition of mortality can introduce a stable balance that I seek. On one hand, mortality reminds us to embrace life, to savor its fleeting joys. On the other hand, it cautions us against allowing pleasure to become the sole, and the overarching goal. This duality of living and mortality encourages a path that is neither recklessly indulgent nor excessively cautious — a glass of wine and not three.

My yearning for balance will ultimately require an ongoing dialogue between opposing forces of living and dying, each pulling in a different direction yet working together to create harmony. The balance created by these two can augment a similar interplay between other forces that help find the middle path: indulgence and restraint, effort and rest, control and surrender, attachment and detachment, individuality and interconnectedness.

Perhaps tomorrow, as evening falls and I sit on the screened porch with a glass of wine in hand, I will savor the joy of the final sip and find the fortitude to resist reaching for another pour. It would be deeply gratifying to honor the balance between the unrestrained desires of living and the sobering discipline of mortality.

Ciao, and thanks for reading

Balancing Novelty and Memory: Lessons from Larry

 

Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards — Søren Kierkegaard

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI: Balance

Summary: Without memory retention, everything is done the first time, and it could make life interesting. However, this state of being also brings forth a paradox of balancing novelty, memory, and identity. While novelty brings excitement and growth, memory provides stability and a sense of self. Without memory of our past, we would struggle to form deeper connections and an identity. This highlights the importance of balancing new experiences with memory and having a fulfilling life.

Meeting Larry

We finally took the leap and moved to a 55+ retirement community. There were several reasons behind our decision: a desire to escape extended winters and avoid being homebound for a good part of the year; a wish to settle down in a place where we might eventually retire while our bodies and minds are still functioning well; and the appeal of being in a setting that offers ample opportunities for social interactions.

So far, living in this community has been a pleasant experience. The little pond behind our home offers a blend of tranquility, and there are plenty of social activities to choose from. Being here also gave us the chance to meet a fellow resident, Larry. This is a little story about Larry and the life lessons be brought home.

We don’t have any background on Larry and only come across him during our walks. The curious thing about our encounters is that each time we meet, it’s a novelty for him. Perhaps due to the impairments of old age, Larry might be having trouble remembering. At the beginning of each meeting, we go over the same pleasantries again. This repetitive yet novel experience has led me to ponder a paradox: each day is a new experience for Larry, but at the same time, he lacks the continuity of time and the memories that define the self. Given that, what is the utility of novelty for him?

Memory and Who We are

Memory plays a crucial role in shaping our identity. It is through our recollections of the past that we build a sense of continuity and self-awareness. For Larry, however, each day is a blank slate. This raises an interesting question: Is the perpetual novelty of Larry’s experience beneficial, or is there a need for a balance between novelty and the retention of memory?

On the one hand, the novelty of each day for Larry can be seen as a positive aspect. Every interaction is fresh and untainted by the baggage of past experiences, allowing him to live in the moment. This can be particularly beneficial in a retirement community, where the focus is often on enjoying the present, making the most of each day, and trying to brush aside the angst of our finite existence.

However, the lack of memory retention also poses challenges. Memories provide a framework for understanding our place in the world and our relationships with others. Without a clear notion of the past, Larry might struggle to form deeper connections and maintain a coherent sense of self.

Is There an Optimal Place?

The paradox of Larry’s situation underscores a broader truth about life: the need for a balance between novelty and memory. Novelty brings excitement and a sense of discovery, which are essential for growth. It keeps life interesting, prevents stagnation, and makes us look forward to getting out of bed in the morning. On the other hand, memory provides stability and a sense of identity. It allows us to learn from our experiences and build meaningful relationships. However, the capacity of our brains is finite. In the end, we cannot carry everything from the past along. Some memories need to be let go to make room for new experiences.

While not remembering anything and allowing each day to be a novel experience in bad, being forever burdened by everything from the past is not good either.

As we age, this balance becomes particularly important. It allows us to have new experiences while selective retention of memories helps maintain a sense of continuity and identity. A well-lived life is an intricate optimization problem. All aspects of our well-being require balance and moderation — neither too little nor too much exercise is good; both overeating and undereating are harmful; and too much or too little sleep is detrimental.

On one of our upcoming walks, we’ll run into Larry again. Instead of the usual, “Long time, no see. How have you been?” we’ll simply say, “Nice to meet you,” giving Larry the pleasure of a fresh experience. It’s the least we can do.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Eternal Bodies, Finite Minds, and the Notion of Reincarnation

 

I did not believe in reincarnation in my past life, and I still don’t — Woody Allen

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: Imagine a world where our bodies are immortal, but our brains have finite capacity. In this scenario, life would become a cycle of forgetting and re-learning, much like reincarnation but without the retention of past memories. With cognitive limits in place, perpetual rediscovery could ensure that life, despite its lack of temporal boundaries, remains dynamic and engaging rather than becoming a tale of boredom.

Immortality

It is the opposite of the finiteness of our existence — a finiteness that, once encountered and internalized, has the potential to shake our comfortable, often unexamined lives. The realization of our finiteness has led to many profound (and mundane) explorations and inventions throughout human history, including religion, various constructs of the afterlife, reincarnation, fortune telling, and dreams of finding the fountain of youth.

The notion of immortality in this discussion focuses on the physical body. It does not concern the continuation of our soul or self in any form; these concepts may simply be constructs to soften the harsh reality of our finiteness.

Can We Become Immortal?

The immortality of the physical self may not be such a far-fetched idea. With medical and technological advancements, most of our body parts might become replaceable. The possibility of 3D-printed body parts may not remain science fiction for much longer. Just as we walk into an auto parts store to buy a replacement for a worn-out windshield wiper, imagine one day walking into a human body shop, providing the required genetic information, and walking out with a new thumb to replace the one feeling twinges of arthritis.

There is, however, a part of our existence — the brain — that has unique limitations. Even if it could be considered physically immortal, its functional capacity has limits.

What About the Brain?

The brain is always working, constantly communicating with different parts of the body to keep us alive. It stores our memories, experiences, and everything we have learned. For humans, it is the seat of our consciousness. With its neurons and the connections between them, the brain is the organ that creates the self. Ultimately, however, the brain’s capacity for information is finite.

For all the intricate functions it performs, the brain has high energy requirements. This small, three-pound organ consumes 20% of the body’s energy. One could imagine that adding or augmenting the brain’s capacity and functionality would only increase its energy demands. Another unique aspect of the brain is that unlike other bodily organs, the brain — and what resides and occurs within it — uniquely defines who we are.

Following this chain of thought, a plausible scenario is that while the physical parts of the self could be immortal, the brain’s capacity and functions might remain limited.

A Counterfactual World

Let us indulge in imagining a world where our physical bodies are immortal, but our brains have finite capacity.

In such a world, our capacity to retain past experiences and memories would be limited. As we accumulate memories and knowledge, we would eventually reach a point where new information could only be retained at the expense of letting some go. This would lead to a cyclical pattern of learning and forgetting, somewhat akin to the notion of reincarnation. We live, accumulate memories that help define the self, die, and when we are reborn, nothing is remembered, and we start from scratch to build a new self.

The cycle of learning, forgetting, and relearning might seem tedious, but it has a silver lining. Even with immortality, we would not face eternal boredom or a lack of novelty. Despite the repetition, the human capacity for novelty and pleasure would persist. Each cycle would allow us to rediscover activities and experiences, deriving joy from them as if they were new. This perpetual rediscovery could sustain our engagement with life, even as our cognitive limits constrain our ability to retain all our experiences.

Sounds Like We are Talking About Reincarnation

Functionally, this existence would mirror reincarnation, with each cycle offering a fresh perspective unburdened by the weight of past memories. The finite nature of our cognitive capacity would necessitate a continuous renewal of our experiences, ensuring that life remains dynamic and engaging along with our immortal bodies.

In conclusion, while physical immortality with a finite brain capacity presents challenges, it also offers a unique form of existence where the joy of discovery and the novelty of experiences can perpetually renew our engagement with life.

The same is true for our finite existence — it is the joy of learning, discovery, and novel experiences that help us age gracefully and ensure a sense of vitality and interest. The challenge, of course, is to balance our desire to thrive with our awareness of mortality, without letting the latter become overwhelming.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

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.

The inevitability of the process of natural selection

 

I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection — Charles Darwin

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar +AI

A fundamental characteristic of biological organisms is their inherent drive to survive and reproduce. If either of these traits were absent, that particular lineage of the organism would cease to exist.

For survival, biological organisms require a source of energy. This energy is a vital resource for them. It is their Kryptonite.

In the context of plants, they harness sunlight and convert it into consumable nutrients through the process of photosynthesis. Animals, on the other hand, are part of a food chain that ultimately relies on the sustenance provided by plants. Therefore, the ultimate source of energy is sunlight, powered by the thermonuclear reactions occurring in its core.

The amount of available energy, however, is limited. There is a fixed amount of sunlight that falls on per square kilometer of Earth’s surface. The amount depends on the location and the season. Tropical latitudes have more sunlight available for consumption compared to higher latitudes. It is no wonder that the complexity of life forms is far richer in the tropics.

The limited availability of energy, coupled with the energy requirements of biological organisms for survival and reproduction, triggers a competition for energy resources. There is no central authority managing the distribution of energy to ensure equitable allocation. Each organism is on its own, employing whatever means necessary to secure as much energy as possible.

Distinct traits among organisms can aid in securing more energy. For plants, characteristics such as greater height or a larger leaf area can help capture more sunlight. Access to a larger portion of the available energy pool, akin to having a larger slice of the pie, improves the chances of survival and reproduction. Over several generations, these advantageous traits that contribute to energy acquisition begin to dominate the population, leading to the evolution of the organism into a new species.

This straightforward narrative, along with its intuitive reasoning, encapsulates the fundamental principle of natural selection. It is a process where organisms possessing traits that enhance survival and reproduction tend to produce more offspring compared to their counterparts. This leads to a gradual increase in the prevalence of these beneficial traits over successive generations.

Given two fundamental facts: (a) biological organisms need energy to survive and reproduce, and (b) the amount of available energy is finite, a competition to secure energy is inevitably established. This straightforward narrative, along with its intuitive logic, succinctly encapsulates the core principle, and inevitability, of natural selection.

The beauty and elegance of this concept lie in the fact that two fundamental truths, which could be considered as postulates, naturally lead to the formulation of natural selection as the only viable path forward. Even if alternative processes could be theoretically construed, they may not be sustainable solutions on their own and would lead to logical dead ends.

Ciao.

The Perhaps of Life

 

…only the philosophical question is perennial, not the answers — Paul Tillich

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

There is a part of living that sometimes does not want to run as a well-oiled machine. With the turning of the wheels, if I pay attention, I can hear a faint squeaking.

Sometimes, when I stop along the path I am walking and listen carefully, I can feel an undercurrent that is constantly trying to erode my peace of mind. It is like wanting to sleep and letting go for a while, but there is an annoying mosquito that keeps buzzing around and will not allow sleep to descend.

Finding peace and the feeling of being together (and living with a sense of ease), alongside the uncertainty of whether or not I will be alive tomorrow, are two clashing thoughts. Their battles often leave me feeling exhausted. The thought that everything I do might one day be for nothing, yet there is still the need to keep on going and doing things the best I can, saps the will and energy.

The futility of moving forward but with the knowledge that each step is towards a precipice, and further, at any step, bottom could fall out, makes one want to let limbs go lethargic. In those moments, a sense of fatigue descends upon the spirit, making it hard to keep on moving.

Something inside wants to whisper, “Please leave me here and please keep going. For now, I am too tired to take another step.”

So, what to do? Is there a way out of the existential dilemma of needing to live and yet being aware of mortality? Is there a way to blunt the sharpness of the realization that mortality could just flatten a three-dimensional life into a meaningless nothing?

Once in a while, what antidote can one take to ward off these feelings and emotions that the internalization of mortality is susceptible to bringing? A glass of wine? A belief in something divine?

Perhaps, for some of us, there are no permanent resolutions, and the best we can do is learn to manage the conflict. We can hope to find ways to maintain a truce between living and dying, while acknowledging that occasionally, a full-blown conflict between the two may erupt.

Perhaps, we must always live with the realization that occasionally, the rug may be pulled out from under our feet, and we may fall. It could also be that the tension between living and dying is what defines life, making it interesting and vibrant.

The tension makes living alive.

Once the fall happens, I would question the logic and the meaning of existence once again. After lying flat on my face for a while, I will get up (as I have always done) and either build a new edifice or repair the one I already have (and possibly, make some tweaks to add resiliency).

Perhaps part of managing is accepting that for some of us, this is as good as it gets, and having this option in hand is a lot better than not having any alternatives and merely feeling lost.

Another possibility towards gaining a sense of lasting peace is to experience a sense of universal connectedness, which brings about the feeling of existing beyond one’s present form. This connectedness removes mortality from the equation. Left alone, life has no adversary to contend with. There have been moments of such connectedness, however, they are fleeting.

Perhaps one day, the essence of such ephemeral moments will be captured and preserved in a glass vial, to be worn around the neck and become my companion for life.

Perhaps, one day, I will wear a smile that mirrors the serene joy seen on the lips of enlightened beings.

Ciao.

Bell Curve makes utopia a dream

 You gotta beware of the utopian train of thought, mate. That’s usually the first step towards fascism — Daniel Clausen

Arun Kumar

AI Generated Image

Somewhere in the dark recesses of our hearts, we dream about living in a land of utopia. It is a land where the likes of dysfunctional and shortsighted politicians we have do not exist. It is a land of harmony where wars and conflicts are not the norm. It is a land where the lives of Alexei Navalny are not lost, and reasons remain shrouded behind the fog of war. It is a land of harmony, equality, tolerance, sustainability, and where people, immersed in contemplative thought, walk around wearing togas.

Can a land of unforced stable utopia exist?

The notion of unforced utopia needs unpacking. We all have seen dystopian movies where a utopia seems to exist — citizens have basic necessities, enjoy life, and do wear togas and may even walk around slowly lost in contemplative thoughts. But as the story unfolds, we learn that the air they breathe is infused with some brain altering chemical that keeps their mind content. Or when citizens wake up in the morning they take a blue pill that keeps them in a state of euphoria all day.

Later we find out that citizens are divided into have and have nots and the haves, for some ulterior motives that benefit their own kind, are controlling the have nots with exogenous means.

An unforced utopia, however, will exist on its own volition and no external manipulations will be required to keep it functioning. Is it a place where citizens self-govern, do not administer exogenous means, and yet, are able to have a long-lasting, stable utopia?

What is it that makes it seem like that such utopia would be an impossible?

That invisible culprit is the Bell Curve.

Bell curve is a phenomenological description of the consequences of forces that are responsible for differences that occur in nature, including humans. Examples of differences include shades of hair color, variations in height, variations in IQ.

Take the example of the shades of hair color. As a single fertilized cell starts to divide and multiply, along the developmental path to becoming a healthy baby, progressive generations of cells start to take on specialized roles, including some that will become hair follicles. What color the hairs would have depends on the two pigments Eumelanin (responsible for brown to black hair shades) and Pheomelanin (responsible for red hair shades) that hair follicles will produce.

Along this development pathway, random fluctuations that are part of gene expression subsequently result in physiological and psychological differences determine the characteristics of hair colors.

The type and amount of two pigments in the hair follicles generate, and how they are distributed, create a wide variety of hair colors among individuals and is determined by a switch in a particular protein synthesized by a gene within the follicle cells. The underlying biological processes may be complicated and hard to comprehend, but the external characteristics they determine — the hair color — follows a bell curve.

Differences in hair color is one example and may be benign in the context of having further downstream consequences, but inevitable differences exist in characteristics like IQ, or physical strength, which have larger ramifications. Can an unforced stable utopian society exist that pays due respect to such differences, and yet, manage not to fall apart?

A potential problem with differences in characteristics is that their direct or indirect consequences start to cascade into other differences, and left on their own, can result either in amplification or growing range of inequalities in social, physical, intellectual, financial realms. Individuals higher in IQ may be able to corner larger levels of resources (financial or otherwise). With those resources, hire an army of people to protect their interests. Looking around we know how the story goes.

To curb the runaway influence of positive feedback that can lead to growing inequalities, and to bring some level of equitability for the greater good, requires external management.

A utopian society that wishes to be tolerant of differences, cannot exist without drawing some boundaries to manage differences in the population and keep them within acceptable levels to avoid dissent and discontent. Figuring out where to draw the line marking the limits of tolerance is a wicked problem and cannot be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction.

Where to draw lines? Should someone be allowed to offer opinions even if they are hurtful to a few others? If someone wants the right to carry arms, is that okay? What about the tax rate and trying to bring some measure of equality between have and have nots? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, the resulting utopia is not a utopia of its own volition. It is not organic.

An unforced utopia would require a collection of people with the same characteristics, but the way nature works, and how ubiquitous the bell curve is, that is an impossibility.

The Bell Curve is the reason that unforced stable utopia will forever remain an imaginary place.

Ciao.

Why do people vote for the likes of Trump?

 

Donald Trump has been saying that he will run for president as a Republican, which is surprising since I just assumed he was running as a joke — Seth Meyers

Arun Kumar

AI Generated Image

Why do individuals across various nations cast their votes for leaders like Trump? This is a man who once stared directly into the sun during a solar eclipse, altered a hurricane’s projected path using a marker, proposed to cater a university football team with hundreds of burgers amidst a government shutdown, and referred to far-right protestors as “very fine people.” The list continues.

Despite everything, in 2016 he was elected as the President of the United States. It’s a daunting thought if he is to be re-elected in 2024. The survival of US democracy would be at stake.

What does a certain segment of the population see in him that makes them willing to vote for him? It’s an interesting question to ask. The answer could be an interplay of various elements such as personal and societal values and beliefs, political ideologies, economic circumstances etc. of the electorate.

To answer this question, a recent article in The Guardian explored why Americans continue to vote for Trump. The article suggested that people’s values tend to cluster around two types of traits — intrinsic and extrinsic, which could be somewhat analogous to people being introverts and extroverts. The author suggested that “People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power, and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community.”

The article went on to say that “Trump, perhaps more than any other public figure in recent history, is a walking, talking monument to extrinsic values.” Simultaneously, societal values have been increasingly shifting towards the adoration of extrinsic values. These include the acquisition of wealth, increased attention to the self, and the pursuit of material possessions as a source of happiness (leading to a cycle of hedonistic consumption, etc.). As these values become more prevalent, a figure emerges who openly champions these values that people hold within. For Trump, this connection was the ticket to presidency.

Another probable reason that people vote for Trump could be rooted in evolutionary psychology that has left us with some psychological traits that are now imbedded in our psyche. Trump either possess the intelligence to recognize and manipulate these traits or has an instinctual knack for playing chords that resonate with our psyche.

Our inclination towards certain psychological traits can be attributed to the principles of natural selection. Natural selection is a process in which organisms with traits that favor survival and reproduction tend to produce more offspring than their peers, leading to an increase in the frequency of such advantageous traits over generations. These traits could be either physical or psychological.

Some examples of these psychological traits include a preference for people similar to us (a trait referred to as kinship or tribalism), a heightened sensitivity to negativity (which helped us recognize dangers in the wild), engaging in risky behaviors (stemming from our quest to be the alpha male), and discounting the future (with the present being more important than an uncertain future), to name a few. Each of these traits can be argued to have given us some advantage in the pursuit of survival and reproduction.

Consider kinship. In the wilderness, life can be dangerous when lived alone. The chances of survival and reproduction increase if we become part of a tribe and look after each other’s common interests for survival, such as sharing food and taking turns to keep watch while others sleep. However, this same trait also leads to conflicts among tribes and has been responsible for genocides in recent history.

Similarly, fear and anxiety are crucial emotions that have helped human survival. Our brains are wired to respond to potential threats, preparing our bodies to flee or fight a perceived danger. Even today, the mere rustling of grass behind our backs triggers the thought that it could be a snake and cause our hair to stand on end.

Through the evolutionary trajectory that has brought us to this point, the psychological traits that were beneficial for our survival and reproduction have become ingrained in us. The timescale of human civilization, which is about 10,000 years, is not long enough compared to evolutionary time for these traits to disappear. Even though our environment has changed, and we are no longer hunter-gatherers, these same traits continue to shape our behavior in the present.

The downside is that these traits can be manipulated and exploited, particularly in the context of political gains. Humans are gullible, and politicians and snake oil salesman have figured that out.

Offer people a slogan — MAGA — and create a sense of belonging to a tribe. Play on their fears of liberals taking over and people will be threatened. Assert your dominance and demonstrate that you are the alpha male, and they will perceive you as a powerful figure. Prioritizing immediate gains and offering what people want, even if it may harm future generations, is an easy sell. These manipulations resonate with our inherent traits, leading people to align with your cause and vote for you to become the President.

Trump possesses another characteristic that sets him that attracts the crowd. It’s his audacity (or perhaps narcissistic recklessness) to say things that are often left unsaid, and yet, he manages to evade grave consequences. Ordinary individuals, on the other hand, may feel constrained by social norms or fear of ostracism from their peers, and thus refrain from expressing similar sentiments, even though they might harbor them. Wouldn’t other people like to utter statements equivalent to “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” or “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the… You can do anything” and still manage to evade repercussions?

And so, it seems some of the reasons people vote for politicians the likes of Trump are (a) these politicians have a visceral feeling about what resonates with the psychological traits that the process of natural selection has endowed us with, and (b) they are prone to say things out loud (and seemingly get away with them) that normal people only wish we could say.

I almost forgot, there is another reason that people vote for him. In him, they see a person who is willing to degrade and denigrate those who they perceive as being ‘holier than thou’ (e.g., liberals, human rights supporters, backers of sustainable development), but who are beyond the reach of their hands. It is figures like Trump who can satisfy their anger that seethes within and can bring them retribution without facing arrest or prosecution.

In Trump they see a Roman Emperor who would drag the people they dislike into the colosseum’s arena through the Gate of Life to be humiliated, insulted, and debased while they sit in the galleries and cheer on the spectacle hoping that by the evening the Gate of Death shall receive the fallen. Through Trump they see their path for revenge. In Trump, they see the Roman Colosseum.

Help us all if the 2024 Presidential election goes in favor of Trump.

Ciao.