Is the human also a “group”?

Key idea:
What we perceive as an individual is itself a cooperating system.

In the previous chapter, we more or less stated that a human being is an existing, tangible entity, whereas the concept of a group is an abstract idea and therefore not tangible. However, we can also make some remarks here.

As we will argue later in “Mortality of the Human”, from an evolutionary perspective, the transmission and preservation of genes appears to be more important than maintaining the human as an individual. The human is mortal and serves as a vehicle for passing genes from generation to generation. But if we examine the human at a microscopic level, we see that the human consists of a composition of organs. All intended to enable the human vehicle to sustain itself for as long as possible in order to pass on sufficient genes. Thus, we have legs to flee when danger arises, we have eyes and hands to obtain food and assess whether it is edible. Internally, we have various organs and systems that cooperate to allow the body to function. These organs and systems form an integrated whole that is necessary for the survival and functioning of the individual.

But can we also view a single individual as a system of organs, systems, and limbs that together form a group? Just as we stated in the previous chapter that a group is a concept, an idea, but in reality consists only of separate individuals, entities.

When we look at a large flock of starlings swarming in the air, they must, for example when faced with danger from birds of prey, frequently change direction. They have a collision-free solution: they monitor a maximum of seven neighboring birds and ensure that they do not collide with them. If a few starlings change direction, that movement spreads throughout the entire flock because they all adapt very quickly to their seven neighbors. From a distance, such a group appears as a single flexible entity.

It seems as if there is a force between the starlings that keeps all elements together. This appears to be a programmed instruction in each bird to stay close together, yet with sufficient space to continue flying. Due to the movements of the swarm, a starling will sometimes be on the outside and then again inside the swarm. It is not clear whether this is genetically determined and thus evolutionarily developed, or whether it is imitative behavior learned, for example, from the mother.

Within the human body itself, all internal elements, at the microscopic level, are held together by atomic forces, and thus by electrical forces between atoms. So here we are not dealing with virtual but with physical forces.

Other virtual forces can also be considered, such as two people playing tennis. Here, the behavior of the individuals is determined by the ball moving from one side to the other, effectively pulling the players across the field. It is as if the individuals are connected by an elastic line.

Another example is two separated parents with a child. In this case, one parent remains connected to the other through the existence of the child. Again, this occurs through a mutual virtual force.

Also within groups of people, there are virtual, psychological forces that act attractively on individuals to keep the group together and functioning effectively.

All these forces are virtual and mentally programmed, through innate or learned behavior, or as the English say: “nature or nurture.” The distinction with the individual person is that within that person, there exists a physical force between the internal elements. So perhaps we should not view a single human as a group of organs, but rather as an individual, an entity, physically held together by electrical atomic forces. Whereas for groups, two or more individuals, a more virtual force applies. This virtual force can then be seen as an innate or learned drive within humans.

We can also define a group as a collection of entities that can function independently on their own. In other words, if we split a flock of starlings into separate birds, those birds can still survive. The same applies to humans, who can also function independently, perhaps with a reduced chance of survival. However, if we divide a human into its separate organs, its survival immediately ceases.

Therefore, it remains meaningful to regard the human as an entity, but one that is an extremely complex system.

And this brings us to an even more fundamental question: What do we actually mean by “the human”?