Focus on the Group or the Individual

Key idea:
Human behavior has been shaped by evolutionary processes that favor survival and reproduction, while cooperation with others can, under many circumstances, increase an individual's 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 evolutionary processes have contributed to strong drives toward self-preservation and reproduction. When many people act from such drives, their behavior can at the same time contribute to 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? Is he primarily focused on the group as a whole, or on the individual people within that 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 of the individuals in the group. Then he moves on to high school, where he becomes part of a new group, and again he will do his best to be accepted by the members of that new group. Does the bond with the first group, the elementary-school group, remain equally strong? That could be the case, but in general he will do his utmost to become an accepted member of the new group.

The same can happen at university or at work. He might even emigrate to another country, where once again he would encounter a group into which he tries to integrate.

Therefore, it seems plausible that the focus can lie both on the individual and on belonging to and being accepted by a group, largely independently of the specific composition of that group. The person tries to optimize his chances of survival and may, consciously or unconsciously, become dependent on cooperation and acceptance within a group.

Humans have become highly dependent on cooperation with others through their evolutionary history; their survival is therefore closely connected to their social environment. And, of course, this applies reciprocally to all members of the group.

The focus therefore seems to be less on specific individuals and more on belonging to a group as a social structure.

ALEX:
And what about the relationship with the Earth?

TREBLA:
Let us assume that there are more “Earth-like” planets in the universe, with all the necessities for humans to have a comfortable environment. Would we value our Earth and its animals so highly that we would never migrate to another Earth, even if conditions here deteriorated significantly?

If we were to migrate to another planet, would we, like Noah in the biblical story, try to take all the animals with us? In many cases this would not be practically possible, and we would limit ourselves to ourselves and those closest to us.

It is conceivable that, once conditions on Earth deteriorate significantly, or even before that when an alternative becomes available, we would try to migrate, perhaps together with our loved ones, to another planet. We would then start again, like someone emigrating to another country. This could happen despite our attachment to the Earth and its animals.

Again, we see:

• the individual forms the primary biological point of reference;
• the group can be an important means of supporting the individual.

But this distinction raises a deeper question: where does the individual end and the group begin?