NORTHERN PLANNER

I heard a debate on Radio 4 this morning about altruism V selfishness. The question they wanted to answer was; if you acccept Darwinism as the survival of the fittest (I like Tennyson’s description of nature as, "Red in tooth and claw") that should also mean that only the selfish survive. So how can you account for the natural levels of sympathy/empathy we all have within ourselves? In other words, humans are too nice for Darwinism.

One train of thought suggests that we only got kind once we didn’t have to worry about surviving – you only care about other people once you stop having to worry about yourself. I think there is some merit in that, a kind of ‘Lord of the Flies’ in reverse. The weakness of this for me is that emotions are inate in all of us, we all have the capacity for empathy, so biologically where did it come from? Enter Richard Dawkins.

He suggests that altruism is just a more (you guessed it) evoloved  form of selfishness -survival of the fittest groups. By helping each other, you make sure that your tribe, your group, your culture survives over another. If you consider emotions as a genetic mutation that just happened at some point in our evolution, groups that could work together others that were at war from within –  too emotionally stunted to be able to work together. And so it goes, altruism has lasted as a biological part of us because it helps us survive.

The need to belong is as much a part of us as the ability to walk upright……. doesn’t this explain a lot about our need for social badges that make us feel part of something?

While were on the subject, they now think that human genes are more diverse than we thought – more than other species. Maybe the reason we have evolved so quickly is our diversity. Interesting in the context of organisations that insist on conformity.

It explains a lot about our need to belong, and the role for brands as a badge for a tribe.