Book 5 - Ch. 1 (2 of 3) - A Natural Response to a Natural Question

A NATURAL RESPONSE TO A NATURAL QUESTION

It is reasonable to ask, “Isn’t it natural to be self-centered?” Selfishness and self-centeredness can legitimately be viewed as natural. Ego and self-centeredness helped our ancestors survive. The same can be said about fear. Those who felt fear when a superior predator was in their vicinity were not as likely to be eaten as their less anxious comrades; however, to say that something has value does not mean it is an unequivocal good. Nature involves balance. On the one hand it is healthy that when people are hungry they think about acquiring food for themselves. On the other hand science is showing that many illnesses are related to self-focused tendencies like excessive fear, stress, and anxiety (tendencies with which I have been abundantly blessed). On a social level hostility, fear, and ego have led to warfare, violence, and suffering. When we lean too far in the direction of self-centeredness, we face various destructive realities. An exclusively selfish lens makes us miserable and often is not in our long term self-interest. Excessive narcissism is recognized as a potentially harmful psychological disorder.

While self-centeredness is a part of nature, an essential aspect of nature is also evolution. Teilhard de Chardin, SJ, a Jesuit paleontologist and priest, viewed Jesus as the ideal direction for our own evolution. Jesus served as a model of what humanity could be if it placed its focus on restoring harmony and valuing the other. Jesus embodied a life oriented towards unity and community rather than divisiveness. Teilhard’s beneficial insight allows us to consider that, if ego and self-centeredness are not serving the human community, perhaps it is time for us to choose to evolve and transcend the self-centeredness that has often defined us.

Though he did not share Teilhard’s religious convictions, Carl Sagan, a well-known popularizer of science, agreed with de Chardin’s optimistic view that we have a choice about what we become:

"What distinguishes our species is thought. The cerebral cortex is in a way a liberation. We need no longer be trapped in the genetically inherited behavior patterns of lizards and baboons: territoriality and aggression and dominance hierarchies. We are each of us largely responsible for what gets put into our brains, for what as adults we wind up caring for and knowing about. No longer at the mercy of the reptile brain, we can change ourselves. Think of the possibilities."

He recognized the massive implications of what we will decide to become. Like Einstein, who lamented, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones,” Sagan understood that we are capable of destroying ourselves. We are not invincible gods but mortals who must be vigilant about our direction. According to Sagan our choice of whether to live in the small world of our self-centered god complex (territoriality, greed, aggression, and dominance hierarchies) or to strive for a grander vision for our planet might determine the future of our species:

"At this moment, here we face a critical branch point in history. What we do with our world right now will propagate down throughout the centuries and powerfully affect the destiny of our descendants. It is well within our power to destroy our civilization and perhaps our species as well. If we capitulate to superstition or greed or stupidity, we can plunge our world into a darkness deeper than a time between the collapse of classical civilization and the Italian Renaissance. But we are also capable of using our compassion and our intelligence, our technology and our wealth, to make an abundant and meaningful life for every inhabitant of this planet, to enhance enormously our understanding of the universe, and to carry us to the stars."

Once again we find ourselves at a “critical branch point.” Perhaps such branch points are always with us demanding that we recognize what Martin Luther King described as “the fierce urgency of now.” In light of the potential consequences of our choice of direction, what is more urgent than a deeply thoughtful consideration of the values and direction we will choose to pursue? The status quo is not our only option.

Ego is a natural quality, but there is increasing evidence that compassion and altruism are also natural instincts. A brief survey can find various studies demonstrating a natural basis for altruism. Citing the work of Christopher Boehm, a cultural anthropologist who directs the Jane Goodall Research Center, Eric Michael Johnson, an evolutionary anthropologist, observed that the mating practices of modern tribal societies demonstrate a preference for altruism and a distrust of selfish behavior. These societies, which most closely reflect our hunter-gatherer roots, suggest that other-oriented characteristics are an ancient part of our identity.

The neuroscientist David Eagleman shows that when we see another in pain we process their suffering through the same circuitry which our brain uses to process our own suffering. In a sense we instinctively feel their pain. He further shows that when artificial religious or economic labels are introduced they undermine this tendency to identify with the other.

Various studies of children have found in their subjects a natural presence of empathy. One such study found that toddlers consistently try to help struggling adults. Jean Decety, a professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Chicago, found that children had the same neural response to seeing someone in pain as adults do, indicating that empathetic feelings are innate and not exclusively taught. Humans have been shown to relax when in the presence of those they care about, while people become agitated when they are feeling isolated and alone. This indicates an inherent preference toward connectedness.

E.O. Wilson, a well-known biologist, found that, while in our evolutionary history self-centeredness has been a beneficial quality for individual humans, groups which tended toward altruism fared better than groups which were generally self-centered. This creates a troublesome communal tension where-in selfish individuals may thrive in (and perhaps at the expense of) altruistic communities; however, if the community adopts the self-centeredness of the successful outlier, communal well-being will be undermined.

We, as individuals and communities, have the power to discern and select our direction. We can decide whether we are our own god and our life is oriented toward our interests. Will we resign ourselves to self-centeredness and ego, perhaps without even thinking about our choice, or will we strive to be loving and compassionate members of a larger community? The potential implications of our choice of direction elicit a responsibility to examine who we are becoming. Pema Chӧdrӧn, an American Buddhist nun, recounted a famous Native American story. In the story an old man explains to a boy that there are two wolves inside all of us fighting for supremacy. One wolf is angry and judgmental and the other is kind and understanding. The boy asks the old man, “Which one will win?” The old man replies, “Whichever one we feed.” We must be aware of which wolf we are feeding and vigilant regarding our direction. A wise proverb cautions:

"Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny."