A simple Matter of Math

 

One day the Greek philosopher Heraclit came to the realization that "War is the father of all and the king of all.” Homer, he says, was wrong in saying: ‘Would that strife might perish from among gods and humans!’” because “he did not see that he was praying for the destruction of the Universe; for, if his prayer were heard, all things would pass away." And this is true, conflict is indeed the engine of progress. The competition over territory and mating issues propels civilization to the next level; the eternal war between predator and prey provides the peregrine with better eyesight and improved maneuverability and the rabbit with better hearing. It is not one of those goody-goody truths for Sunday school.

But it would be wrong to think of progress entirely in terms of an all out arms-race.

During the Vietnam war the methods of keeping casualties alive underwent a revolution in the methods of emergency medicine. Since then more lives have been saved in the ER units of our hospitals than soldiers have died in that war.

This is not a contest to pick the nicest kid on block nor is it about the survival of the meanest. Instead it is all about to stay alive, keep going and not to run out of chips to play. In evolutionary terms this means, it is in every player’s interest to create an equilibrium, a stabile environment for breeding and nursing that will curb renegade individuals from taking undue advantages. And this has a bearing on our morals. But does the seemingly irrational character of some of our taboos not defy any explanation in evolutionary terms? What is really at the core of our ethical makeup? Is it in the genes? The voice of God? How is it that on the whole even politicians and incorrigible liars are speaking more often the truth than a falsehood?

John Mynard-Smith (*1920,  Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge University Press, 1983) used game theory as a tool to calculated the probability values when various types of behavioral characteristics are coming in conflicting with each other.

People usually know that it pays to be nice and to cooperate as long as we know when to change the pace. As it so happens, the more restrained player is likely to play the better hand over the reckless daredevil. However the same does not apply to the player who tries avoiding risks altogether. To love, in evolutionary terms, does make sense; so does self-sacrifice, and not only when parents defend their brood. But to “love” just about everybody and everything is the assured recipe for self-destruction. The name of the game is the survival of the species as a result of the socially most beneficial strategy between the competitors. And “beneficial” means stability and security for breeding and feeding. You get more if you ask for less.

Individual awareness for the need of unselfish behavior is a bonus, but not really necessary. Wrong behavior is penalized by its results and leaves the player fewer options to pass on his gene and his experiences. In fact all our moral observances come down to a purely mathematical theorem.  

For instance one may choose to take up the role of the timid pigeon and avoid conflict of any kind and retreat immediately at the first sign of resistance. If exposed to aggression this can lead to a serious shortage of available resources. Or another competitor prefers to be the hawkish aggressor who recklessly escalates every conflict no matter what. A high risk strategy that should run him into trouble the first time he encounters someone who is retaliating in kind.

There is usually a phase of intermittent posturing - watch the encounter of two territorial toms in your backyard - before things get really nasty and this is the opportunity the bluffer is looking for. He tries to achieve submission by pretending to be a hawk, when in fact he is only probing the responses and will immediately retreat at the slightest hint of retaliation, but won’t stop as long as no resistance is forthcoming. A more cautious approach than that of the bully who is more reckless and prone to suffer punishment, if the opponent is retaliating with full force before the bully has a chance to break it off. On balance the "bluffer" will never suffer injury, but the "hawk" and the "retaliator" will elbow him out of business and therefore they are more successful in the pursuit of their objectives.

We notice the importance of posturing.

You have to advertise your intentions, whether you follow up on the announcement or not; it is the behavioral buffer that helps preventing injuries, socially and physically; it is the rationale for honesty. Whatever the reason might be for choosing to do something on the sly, it is courting a greater retaliatory risk. We are usually not in a forgiving mood if we find our trust being betrayed, even in relatively small matters. President Clinton would probably never have been impeached, had he right from the beginning said, that he has many affairs and “now get out of my office you fuckwits, I have a country to run.” You think the American psyche would never have accepted this? You would be surprised! Machiavelli already knew that a sexual peccadillo is the shortest road to popularity, and the polls during the Lewinsky affair confirm it. Without the lies it could have buried the Republicans for good. But I am digressing.

There is only one strategy that promises long term stability, the one of the "retaliator." If challenged, he will go through the paces to the very end, but he also is keeping it social if the opposition doesn’t escalate and among his peers of course he is a pussycat. In a society where the strategies mix, none of the others has more than the odd chance to secure for himself food and a partner for breeding.  

A "hawk" in a population of "retaliators" has a 50% chance of perhaps even fatal defeat in his very first encounter, while the rest of the population is restricting their aggression to posturing and conventional tussles with little risk of injury. Incidentally we observe that most societies, even in the animal world have adopted the "retaliator's" strategy, despite the fact that it may lead to individual losses. A Hawk is a dangerous opponent and even a bully can strike it lucky. Generally speaking however, playing the game by any other strategy is leading to the extinction of the collective, of the species, and with the species of the individual.

It means that we can and will act morally correct without the slightest awareness for the rationale behind our ethics. The moral law is not exactly minted on our hearts, it is an external force and no less intrusive than the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in August 24th, 79 AD.

 

© - 4/24/2008 - by michael sympson,

1,200 words, all rights reserved