How we compete in groups
„One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light but by making the darkness conscious“
C. G. Jung
If our genes make us compete against each other, where does cooperative behavior come from? Why do we help each other? Why do we live in groups? Obviously this must offer some advantage. It is not difficult to see that many tasks are easier to solve in a group compared to a single individual. Like this, everybody can profit from the strengths and knowledge of several individuals. Big projects can be finished faster and with higher success rates if several people are working on them (e.g. hunting a large animal). Defense against dangerous animals is easier. But, most importantly, it is easier to defend a territory (or to conquer new territory) in a group than alone. We see that cooperative behavior is also a strategy which helps us to compete with others (outside the group). And if the goal is to get an as large as possible share of the available resources, group formation is supporting this goal. What we perceive as „good“ social behavior is in fact a process of gang formation and ultimately directed against others.
This is not difficult to understand but very difficult to accept. It means that behavior which is generally perceived as „good“ is ultimately driven by something we consider to be „evil“. This is why this idea is generally rejected by most people. We will see later how this unwillingness to face the (admittedly hard to swallow) truth is ironically preventing us from building a better society.
Large groups have an advantage over small groups. This is why history led to the formation of larger and larger groups and it is not surprising that the most dominating countries (like the U.S., China and Russia) tend to be also very large today. But it has also led to a layered structure of groups. Where once groups consisted only of family members, we now have a complex circular structure. In the innermost circle there is the group of the family members. Then we have a circle consisting of close friends, followed by the larger group of people with the same religion or similar political views. The outermost circle is usually the country an individual belongs to. But any property which makes individuals distinguishable could serve for group formation (e.g. young people tend to show their group membership through their choice of clothes). One example is skin color. While skin color does not tell us anything important about a person, it allows to assign people very easily to groups having the same color (white, black, colored etc.). This can be used to form gangs. Racism is in fact the result of our natural tendency to form gangs and skin color is just a very convenient differentiation property. And because of this, it is much more challenging to get rid of racism than most people think.
Can we avoid gang formation in a competitive system? Unfortunately probably not. If you do not belong to a strong group, you will lose on the long run control of resources and you will diminish your chances to survive (or your children’s chances to survive and reproduce). This is why our current attempts to eliminate racism will only lead to other forms of gang formation (using for instance religious or political properties to define the groups).
We see already now that the problem of racism is unfortunately deeply rooted in our competitive behavior. So if we want to eliminate racism, we will have to find ways to overcome competition.
Members of the same groups tend to live geographically close together. A family might live in the same house, friends might live in the same town, groups of people with similar language and culture might live in the same country. These group territories border to each other and these borders are the areas where conflicts between groups happen. Not all group members are equally involved in these conflicts. Deep inside the group territory is where the most vulnerable and valuable members of the group live (women with their children) and territorial conflicts are typically carried out by individuals which are considered more expendable (i.e. men). The behavior of people living deep inside the territory (traditionally more women) is typically more cooperative while the behavior of people living on border territory (or for other reasons more involved in border conflicts) is more noncooperative.
In the past, a mutual understanding of these subgroups regarding their role and their difference in behavior existed. In the last few decades we have become increasingly aware of the destructive power of territorial conflicts (imagine a war using nuclear weapons). This has led to a strong pacifist movement (recently predominantly led by women) blaming those involved in or preparing for territorial conflicts or defending borders. The problem with these movements is the fact that it is suicidal to stop competing in a competitive system. A group which stops competing will sooner or later lose control over vital resources and get marginalized or eliminated. Or in an example: there is always a dictator in our neighborhood which is only waiting for an opportunity to invade our country and to kill or suppress/exploit us. This leaves us with a difficult dilemma: on one side territorial conflicts have become so destructive that they can threaten the survival of humankind (for instance in large scale nuclear or biological warfare) and on the other side we are still forced to compete if we want to have a future.
Note that we can vaguely identify the two subgroups „deep inside the group“ and „people at the border“ with the politically left and right. This is also consistent with the observation that women tend to be more often politically left than men. The „left“ are correct in their view that territorial conflicts have become far too damaging and are causing enormous human suffering and should therefore be eliminated (by abolishing armies, removing borders etc.). But they fail to see that such steps are suicidal as long as other groups are still operating in a competitive mode. The „right“ on the other hand see this problem, but are underestimating the destructive power and human cost of territorial conflicts. The „right“ also believe that their group is fit enough to be able to come out as a winner from the competition. We will see later that this is in fact extremely unlikely and such hopes are completely unrealistic.
These observations have deep moral consequences. If the purpose of cooperative behavior is to gain an advantage over other groups and aggression against other groups is required to survive, the people „deep inside the group“ are in fact profiting from the „dirty work“ of those „at the border“. They are not only profiting, but their survival ultimately depends on the effectiveness of the work of those who are fighting other groups at the borders. Consequently the „inside people“ have no right to feel morally superior.
Let’s study an example before we look at this in more detail. In Greece almost whole islands are filled with African refugees which Europe does not want to let on European mainland territory by all means. This in spite of the fact that these people live under the most miserable conditions and many of them are children. These refugees belong to the „other groups“ (other religion, skin color and culture). The Europeans are scared that they will, once allowed to enter Europe, form gangs and work against them. These fears are not unjustified: Germany for instance already has a substantial problem with criminal middle eastern clans. In France, it has become very dangerous to show pictures of Mohammed, which is threatening the freedom of speech, a core value of European culture. But it is important to look also at the other side: the Europeans are delusional if they believe that they will always stay on the rich side of the fence. At some point in time there might be wars in Europe or maybe an economic decline leading to a large scale migration out of Europe (this has happened in the past, the Irish can tell the stories). I have little doubt that many Europeans will have to feel the club of border police of neighboring countries at some point in time in the future. Please also note that the tendency of Middle Eastern and North African people to form gangs in Europe does not mean that they are morally inferior people compared to us (as the „right“ tend to say). As we have seen, gang formation is a perfectly rational strategy in a competitive world, and Europe is nothing else than a big gang territory itself. But of course it would be self damaging for Europeans to ignore these processes (as the „left“ tend to suggest).
People „deep inside the group“ tend to show behaviors which focus on reducing conflicts in the group. These include distributing resources from the more successful to the less successful (like sharing the meat with everybody after a successful hunt) and other „fair“ behavior. This helps to direct the groups potential for aggression to the other groups instead of wasting it in damaging conflicts within the group. People „at the border“ on the other hand are more concerned about the fitness of the group to fight other groups. They prefer to deny less successful individuals resources and redirect them to the strong in an attempt to strengthen the group. Both behaviors make sense in a competitive system and for a group to be successful probably a smart balance of the two is required.
Please note that the individuals within a group are still competing. There is also a strong element of competition between women and men, as they are genetically never identical and both sexes try to get as much as possible out of relationships. We will look at this mechanisms later in detail. We are subconsciously trying to hide our noncooperative (or „evil“ if you want) strategies from others in our group. This is happening in such a perfect way that we are often not even aware of the noncooperative strategies we implement. To hide them from other group members, they are often only unlocked (in the sense that we become aware of them) when we are in certain situations. These are situations in which the evil strategy promises to offer a significant advantage which outweighs a possible punishment by the group.
It is also worth mentioning that humans are capable of almost limitless violence and cruelty against other groups. If you don‘t believe this you can enter the terms „Nagasaki“, „Auschwitz“, „Nanking“ or „My Lai“ into your favorite search engine (warning: I recommend you to just believe). The absence of punishment by the group and a lack of compassion can enable such extremely evil behavior in completely normal people.
We will try to find ways later in this book ways how to avoid aggression between groups and individuals.