RSS

Fri, May 22nd 2009, 07:25

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (182)

In many social contexts it appears that the fiercest may be best fitted to win. They will eliminate or at least enslave those who are more altruistic. If this construction is the right one to place on events, then the rational choice for the individual would seem to be to convert oneself into one of the fierce people and take one’s place in their ranks. It would be an extreme case of serendipity if all the fierce people in the world would join a single community and only predate upon the dwindling supply of sheep. In that extreme case, what would all of the fierce survivors do when there was no remaining opposition?

To determine which of the fierce societies is the fiercest would require fighting among these societies, especially after all of the sheep were gone.

What are the options for those who do not look forward to this kind of a world? Is it possible to create and maintain a society that is not fierce in the face of such groups -- especially as the upward curve of population meets the downward slide of the environment? What are the requirements to make such a society competitive, capable of defending itself from attacks, and resilient when lapses in defense occur?

Is it possible that such a society might be attractive to some members in the fierce camp? Is it possible that the fierce societies might be attractive to some members previously committed to an altruistic society?

Is there a third alternative to (1) becoming the most fierce or (2) to appeasement and eventual extinction?