Survival of the Fittest is wrong.
The winner of evolution was not the best, but the kind.
Recommended by Jae-Chun Choi, Yang-Gu Kang, Won-Young Lee!
The evolution and future of Homo sapiens, which prospered using kindness as a weapon
Exploring the possibility of hope beyond the age of anger and hate!
Wolves are on the verge of extinction, so how could a dog that diverged from the same ancestor keep growing? Why were friendly bonobos more successful than ferocious chimpanzees? Why did Homo sapiens, rather than the physically superior Neanderthals, survive to the end? Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, who are 'the heirs of Darwin in the 21st century', give the answer, 'The kind that survives'. They oppose the notion of 'survival of the fittest' that 'the physically strongest survives' and say that the last survivor was a friendly person with good affinity. . The solution they propose is also affinity based on exchange and cooperation. Our species survived not because we conquered more enemies, but because we made more friends.
Those who read minds survive
“The ideal way to win the game of evolution is to maximize your affinity for cooperation to blossom” (p. 20).
The term 'survival of the fittest', as we know it, is not an expression invented by Darwin. Darwin argued that in order to survive the struggle for survival one does not have to be the optimal. Rather, post-Darwin biologists have described nature as "a desolate place without blood or tears." Hare and Woods use 'Survival of the Friendliest' as the original title of the book, which is a modification of 'Survival of the Fittest', which refers to the survival of the fittest. The essential element of survival, they say, is 'friendliness', which is the ability to cooperate and communicate with others. This ability is particularly evident in our species, Homo sapiens, which Hare finds in dogs, whose numbers are increasing year by year. He first plays a gesture experiment with his dog Oreo, and the experiment is simple. When you place two cups with food hidden on one side and Hare gestures to a cup of food, see if Oreo really understands the meaning of the gesture and finds food. Surprisingly, Oreos run quickly to find prey. After several variations of experiments with Oreos and other dogs, Hare concludes that dogs understand the meaning of hand gestures. When the same experiment was attempted with a bonobo and a chimpanzee, the bonobo with good affinity makes eye contact with a human and detects the intent of the gaze to find food, but the unfriendly chimpanzee continues to fail in the experiment.
It is the person who best understands these gestures and their meaning. Human babies make eye contact with their parents before they even start to walk, and recognize the intentions of hand gestures and gestures. This is because humans have the ability to 'theory of mind' to read other people's minds. This allows our species to "communicate and collaborate with others in some of the most sophisticated ways on Earth." By mentally communicating with others, our species has evolved to control emotional responses, gain self-control, and thrive.
Be kind to people you meet for the first time
“In order for our species to survive and evolve, we must expand our definitions” (p. 36).
Affinity is a trait common to all domesticated species. Dogs were domesticated, but wolves were not. Most people think that humans became dogs by deliberately breeding wolves as domestic animals, but dogs are self-dominated species. Dogs with good affinity, who were not afraid of people, survived by eating people's excrement from near the hunter-gatherer settlements, and this breeding only occurred between friendly dogs, which turned them into more human-friendly animals. Shown are several signs of domestication (discoloration, fluttering or smaller ears, small teeth, docility, small brains, more frequent reproductive cycles, etc.). These signs of domestication were also seen in Homo sapiens, a solitary human species, indicating that humans were also domesticated.
With increased affinity, Homo sapiens expanded social networks, achieved technological innovations, and improved technology made more forms available. This densely populated group again advanced technology further. However, technological innovation alone was not enough for Homo sapiens to survive. Our species has also created a new social category: 'others in a group'. Even if we've never met, people who wear the same uniform or who are from the same club are considered our group. We consider others who share common social norms as members of the same group and actively help each other. This affinity towards 'others within the group' creates a group identity and binds others together as a 'family'. In this way, “our species expands the definition of group membership,” not only in the generally tolerant bonobos, but also in other animals.
The aggression and hate behind affinity
“We are the most tolerant and most ruthless species on the planet” (p. 32).
The increase in affinity toward the in-group solidifies the prejudice against the out-group and also excludes members of the out-group. It's like a dog barking when it sees someone other than its owner. When an outgroup that threatens one's own group or family appears, the activity of the part responsible for the 'theory of mind' activity in our brain is slowed. When the ability to read other people's minds is weakened, the ability to empathize disappears and it is easy to dehumanize the other person. In the place of affinity, only aggression and disgust remain.
Hare and Woods cite 'apes' and 'mutual hostility' as examples of this phenomenon. Apesization refers to comparing people from groups other than one's own group to 'subhuman apes'. According to Ktaylor's research, whites view blacks and Asians more like apes than themselves, as Hungarians see Romans (Gypsies), and post-terrorism British Muslims view themselves more like apes. Another problem behind affinity is mutual hostility. When dehumanization of each other's group proceeds, 'retaliatory dehumanization' of the outgroup that dehumanizes the in-group occurs, which intensifies the conflict between the groups. This is a universal phenomenon that is currently occurring not only in races and countries, but also within a country. In particular, recently around the world, an alternative right wing composed of people with high 'social domination tendencies' and 'right-wing authoritarian tendencies' is emerging. Based on this mutual hostility, the people of
The future of mankind at the opposite point of polarization
“Our lives should be judged not by how many enemies we conquer, but by how many friends we make” (p. 300)
This book was written during the Trump era, when he came to power by instigating hatred. When Trump said Mexico's "border wall is like a zoo fence to protect against those beasts," former Democratic Congressman Ilhan Omar replied, "The higher the monkey goes, the only thing you see is its butt." A few weeks after Trump's inauguration speech, protesters from the radical left, Antifa, rallied to protest the right-wing speaker. The demonstration, which focused attention by igniting Molotov cocktails and breaking windows, seemed to have succeeded on the surface. But, according to American political scientist Erica Chenoweth, defining an opponent as an out-group, dehumanizing that group, or conducting violent protests "doesn't work." As mentioned earlier, according to the 'human self-domestication hypothesis', when members of one group dehumanize the outgroup, it induces the worst behavior of violence in the other. It is the most dangerous form of 'hate speech' to liken people to animals or to describe them in disgusting language.
The 'human self-domestication hypothesis' also suggests a solution to this. The answer is contact and exchange. The more frequent the exchange, the more the cycle of 'retaliatory dehumanization', which appears when members of in-groups are threatened, can be changed into 'reciprocal humanization'. The more the people on the alt-right came into contact with minorities such as homosexuals, black prisoners, immigrants, and the homeless, the more tolerant they became, or the fact that most Europeans who helped Jews survive in World War II had close ties with Jews before the war. At times, contact and exchange can be seen as a way to reduce dehumanization, exclusion, and hate.
Recently, Korean society seems to be seeing a 'hell road'. Criticism and dehumanization of non-supporting parties and groups is serious, and the degree of gender conflict is getting worse. The progressive and conservative parties are leading the polarization by pouring out hateful language. In the public forum, only harsh, sharp words of hate are heard. It is as if we are seeing a side of 'survival of the fittest', where each of us is trying to become the optimal person. Messages of self-improvement and self-reliance that I can only survive by defeating you roam like a ghost between the school and the company. But we now know. “Violence breeds more violence,” and consistency with anger is ineffective. If we are to survive, we must respond with kindness. Meeting, making eye contact, and hearing each other's stories. To open up opportunities for exchange and contact without excluding people 'different' from me. As humans in the past have done, only kind people can survive.