Perpetual injustice? part I

In a futuristic utopia, technology and science have all blossomed to provide humanity with all healthy food, clean water, and safe shelters. Everyone lives for 150 years because of advances in medicine. They commute with autonomous flying cars using clean, renewable energy. However, some people afford to have flying yachts and rockets, and the ultra-rich have even purchased some planets.

Can we reach such prosperity if we think and behave optimally? Is there any hypothetical scenario in which humans can leave a peaceful and prosperous life for posterity? Alternatively, will there be turbulent times, no matter how much humans attempt prosperity? These are the questions I'm trying to approach. I want to pursue the answer from two different angles: Biological evolution, and a parallel cultural transformation.

At first, it might seem peculiar to draw analogies between cultural change and natural evolution, yet there are several reasons to do so. At the core of the natural selection is the fact that genes copy themselves. The noisy copy mechanism sits at the heart of evolution. The equivalent to that in our culture would be an idea, behavior, style, or belief that spreads from one person to another, also referred to as a meme. The mechanisms for the propagation of memes is quite complicated. However, it is not far-fetched to think of them in a similar fashion and see dominant cultures, traditions, rituals, and even political ideologies are memes more successful at spreading.

There is also an intricate and multifaceted interplay between the cultural and natural evolution. The proliferation of genes translates into the development of basic instincts that play a central role in our culture. Sugary foods are appreciated by most because of our evolutionary need to eat sugar. Nevertheless, this interaction is far from straightforward. They could very well be at odds with each other. For example, many religions regard sex as an animalistic behavior, while it is of vital importance for natural evolution. The reason for this clash is that despite their interaction, they mostly happen in two parallel universes. Here I do not want to discuss this relationship. Instead, I want to borrow some ideas from gene evolution to understand a little bit more about human civilization.

Differential advantage
In understanding evolution, the notion of differential advantage is of utmost importance. There is no inherently beneficial or harmful phenotype. Usefulness of a phenotype is entirely defined based on the environment and in comparison to other genes, in that the gene that is most valuable to the survival of the organism thrives. For example, genes for camouflage are only useful if there is a predator with powerful eyes. However, if the predator relies on its agility, it might be more useful to have genes for stronger and longer legs. Therefore, we measure the utility of a gene by how much difference does it make for the survival of the organism, and in contrast other genes. The term differential comes from this understanding of the workings of evolution.

This crucial insight means that genes are in constant competition over a limited resource. What may look like equilibrium in the ecosystem from outside, is a fierce competition between various genes from the inside. Each gene strives to become more abundant and dominant. This understanding of the working of ecosystems is somewhat similar to thermodynamics. Gas molecules striking at the surface of a container and each other microscopically, seem to be at equilibrium macroscopically. In the ecosystem, this elaborate competing and cooperating forces between genes, seem to be at equilibrium when we look at the big picture. However, like the gas molecules adapting their shape to a new container, these forces and interactions are the reason ecosystems can adapt to shifting conditions.

Now let's imagine a planet dominated by species X. All X individuals have a gene that predisposes them to be considerate, meaning they control their food consumption and breeding for the good of the species. Now imagine an individual is born with a particular mutation in its genes that makes it inconsiderate, i.e., it takes advantage of the group by consuming more resources and producing more children. Note that this individual on its own will not deplete their food supply, and by reproducing more offsprings could flourish in the planet. However, over the generations, the number of inconsiderate individuals will increase.

The take-home message of this thought experiment is that a perfectly balanced community is ironically not at "equilibrium" from a dynamical system perspective. From each gene's perspective, nothing else matters other than its survival and proliferation. Therefore a society of all too considerate genes makes the perfect environment for an over-consumptive gene to prosper. Thus, the species start to have a growing number of inconsiderate individuals before reaching equilibrium.

It is natural to ask, what will happen when there are many inconsiderate individuals? If they produce more offspring, they will eventually exhaust all the resources. At this stage, they might go extinct, which is a significant disadvantage for all of them, and now it becomes advantageous to produce more considerate offsprings. Here we come full circle. However, this pull-back only happens when there are already many inconsiderate individuals. Consequently, the group will fluctuate between considerate and inconsiderate phases.

One crucial assumption was that X had dominated the planet. Because otherwise there might be more incentives for them to cooperate with each other. Let's assume that species Y competes over resources with X. Now X share more genes with each than with Y, and have an incentive to cooperate with each other rather than fight. That creates a force favoring an equal X society. Without the presence of any significant external competition, and the real dispute is only amongst X individuals. They will have to compete with each other over ever so slight differential advantages.

Another conclusion to draw from this picture is, the only way that a species could be somewhat balanced is for it to be on par with the rest of the ecosystem and not dominant.

Cultural Evolution

Having said that one could extend the argument about genetic evolution to the society, by replacing environmental resources with economic ones, genes with memes, and species with nations or civilizations. Then one can claim that there is an inherent instability in social and economic equality. There will be a constant battle of memes, i.e., ideas, moral standards, and so forth. In other words, as soon as a culture dominates the entire world, cracks will quickly appear on its surface. The differences that deemed minor as opposed to a much different culture would now appear relevant again, and the internal fights would become as fierce as cross-cultural battles once were.

The principal reason is, if there is no fight over resources and people dutifully do their job, there will be no cost for someone to take free-rides. If everyone has their basic needs, a greedy individual could easily thrive. This self-indulgent meme could spread in the society and create a new faction at odds with the rest of the community. The emergence of the free-rider is nearly inevitable, as it takes only one selfish individual to start this process. Ironically, an equal society might very well be the ideal place for free-riders and greedy people.

There are, however, pull-back mechanisms on a societal level to stop free-riders, such as law enforcement or moral beliefs. There will only be a demand for them when there is enough inequality. In a perfectly equal society, these control mechanisms will seem too costly and uecessary. In fact, this could explain the repetitive cycles of stability/instability. An excellent example of this cycle is that reckless economic policies and fraudulent behaviors often succeed a period of prolonged economic prosperity. In the opposite direction, economic depression brings about more regulations and restrained policies. More considerably, peace has followed significant conflicts in history, and war has ensued prolonged periods of peace.

Unfortunately for countless individuals caught in wartime and injustice, this is far from optimal. The question then becomes, is there a solution that avoids these cycles? Can there be ever-lasting peace and prosperity for all? Can we at least lessen the severity of these clashes?

[To be continued]