Focus on group or individual

Key idea:
Humans are evolutionarily driven toward self-preservation, but unconsciously recognize that the interest of the group increases their chances of survival.

TREBLA:
Above, we have considered the human species as part of the total system. One may sometimes get the impression that human beings are responsible for the total system. But when we look at human behavior, it appears that evolution, as mentioned above, has only wired humans to strive for their own survival and, consequently, if all humans do so, for the survival of the group.

ALEX:
What is the balance between striving for one’s own survival and supporting the group?

TREBLA:
A person focuses on himself and on the group to which he belongs. What is his relationship with the group? Does he value the group as a concept or as separate individuals within the group?

For example, in elementary school, a person is part of a group and tries to be accepted by that group, that is, by most individuals in the group. Then he moves on to high school, where he becomes part of a new group, and again he will try to be accepted by the members of that new group. Is the bond with the first group, that of elementary school, still strong enough to remain permanent? That could be the case, but in general he will do his utmost to become an accepted member of the new group.

The same will happen at university or at work. It could even be that he emigrates to another country, and once again there will be a group in which he tries to integrate.

Therefore, we can hardly deny that the focus lies on oneself and on being part of and accepted by a group; thus more or less independent of the specific individuals within the group. The person tries to optimize his chances of survival and “understands” that he must therefore be a member of a group. He is evolutionarily not developed to the extent that he can survive alone, like a tiger; he needs a group to help him do so. And of course, this applies reciprocally to all members of that group.

The focus is therefore less on specific individuals, and more on belonging to a group as a concept.

ALEX:
And the relationship with the Earth?

TREBLA:
Let us assume that there are more “Earth-like” planets in the universe, with all the necessary conditions to provide humans with a comfortable environment. Do we love our Earth and its animals so much that we would never migrate to another Earth, even if conditions here deteriorate significantly? If we were to migrate to another planet, would we, like Noah, take all animals with us? In many cases this is not practically possible, and one would limit oneself to oneself and one’s closest loved ones. I expect that, once conditions deteriorate, or even before that, we will migrate, perhaps together with our loved ones, to another planet and start anew, just as we would when emigrating to another country, and that, as we mentioned earlier, would happen despite the Earth and its animals.

Again we see:

• the individual is central
• the group is a means

But this distinction raises a deeper question.