When it comes to the survival of a species there needs to be safeguards in place to ensure that it is not adversely affected by the erroneous actions of any of its members.
The most important protection for a species is the strength of the collective. In its evolution, a species advances as a single entity, albeit driven by individual actions. Adaptations take place at the periphery, only properly establishing themselves when they have proven their worth.
Individuals, by themselves, are generally weak, directionless and inconsequential. But when they exist as part of a collective they can become a force for progress and change. A mass of individual actions can generate a collective movement.
For the most part, the collective operates as one body, like the movement of a shoal of fish. There is no leadership, no control, no organisation. Any individual influence is very subtle and very marginal. The shoal is mostly driven by momentum.
The priority of the collective is to ensure the advancement of the species in relation to its environment and thereby secure its survival. In fulfilling this role the collective also provides the individual with protection and support. There is safety in numbers; there is strength in numbers.
Unfortunately though, despite the main purpose being to advance a species’ genetic position, individual behaviours are not always in the best interests of the species. Sometimes the application of Genetic Prioritisation gets compromised.
In securing a species’ future, the collective therefore acts to protect that species from isolated, individual indiscretions arising from naïve, erratic or misguided behaviours.
These behaviours could arise for a number of reasons:
- Sometimes individuals can just behave irrationally. Rather strangely – and quite often inexplicably – individuals do not always choose what is in the best interests of their genes.
- Individuals might be seduced by the appeal of short term attractions or gratifications rather than longer term gains.
- There may be a shortage of opportunity. If individuals with particularly appealing genetic traits are unavailable at the required time then other reproductive partners -perhaps with less desirable qualities – may have to do. And that means accepting second-best which is not ideal.
- Individuals may prioritise other aspects of their lives, demoting their reproductive duty and Genetic Priority in favour of pursuing some other aspect of life, perhaps their career, lifestyle or financial position. This may affect their choice of reproductive partner, meaning that they are not acting in their best genetic interests. This is a particularly human condition.
- Attractive genetic qualities may be packaged with less desirable elements. For instance, creative genius is often associated with mental illness. In the pursuit of some desirable genes, individuals may also get burdened with other less appealing genetic qualities.
All too easily, individuals can falter or be diverted from their genetic focus and priority. One of the main reasons for this is because, ultimately, prioritising their genes and having genetic advancement as their single, common objective is only effective if the perceivable benefits outweigh the cost of any individual contribution.
Those benefits may not always be apparent to the individual.
By pursuing their Genetic Priority, individuals may also have to give up on other more immediate or more desirable possibilities – there may seemingly be a real conspicuous cost to pursuing their genetic best interests.
Individuals may also feel that any personal involvement they have in the pursuit of this objective will be negligible – the chances are that it will happen anyway. They are therefore not as invested in it and as a result they may well choose to pursue other directions. In fact, there is a very real appeal to doing this – by leaving it to others; individuals can actually get themselves what is effectively a free ride, taking the benefits without enduring any of the expense.
Significantly, it is also worth noting that the greater the numbers that exist in a particular species then the less important each individual’s contribution is to the well-being of that species. In more populous species, more individuals are therefore likely to abstain from the pursuit of their Genetic Priority.
Individually, when violations and lapses to the pursuance of genetic development do occur, they contribute nothing to the advancement of the species. They might even turn out to be regressive steps that could potentially threaten the species. That’s why we have to rely on the collective as a protective safeguard. The collective is able to filter out the less desirable genetic mutations. Individual misfortune and failure is dwarfed and diminished, overshadowed and lost by the wider mass, collective force.
This means that individuals can get things wrong without it causing too much of a problem – too much of a problem for the species that is. For the individual and their particular genetic lineage, mistakes and poor choices can be damaging, perhaps even terminal.
It therefore, from a species point of view, doesn’t matter if a few individuals go astray. The strength of the collective mitigates for these mavericks.
For humanity, the worry is that more of us – too many of us – may be going astray and the collective may be weakening. The more we act as individuals, the more we are diverted from our Genetic Priority, the greater will be our loss of direction as a species.
Perhaps one of the flaws with evolution – particularly, it seems, with our own species – is that, as individuals, we don’t always realise and appreciate the benefits of pursuing our Genetic Priority. We don’t always recognise that our behaviours are part of a collective action. We don’t always see the advances that we might be and need to be generating.
Re-establishing or re-affirming our Genetic Priority is not straightforward.
Most obviously, this is achieved through motivational stimulus. The best way to ensure the pursuit of an objective is to either incentivise positive action or penalise negative action. Unfortunately, from an evolutionary perspective, given the disjuncture between reproductive activity and genetic outcomes, that can be very difficult to demonstrate.
It is also worth noting that the collective cannot revisit missed opportunities and go to what might have been if individual misconduct – genetic defiance – had not occurred. If an individual pursues a wayward path, we can only wonder as to what might have been if they had followed a more genetically expedient course. There are no second chances. Once a life is lived its genetic potential is lost!
The collective can only secure so much. Its continuance, its strength, its effectiveness is not guaranteed. If the shoal splinters, our status and survival is weakened. That’s why we must endeavour to remain a part of it and to act in accordance with its objectives. And that means we need to understand the purpose of our existence. We need to recognise our Genetic Priority and uphold its authority.
After all, the greater the number of individuals that are on-board with ensuring our Genetic Priority then the stronger we will be as a species, the more assured we will be of advancing our genetic position.
