human nature, technology and evolution

Schadenfreude, why isn't there an English word for it, when it is so clearly part of all of us? Are we Brits just too pretentious to admit it could be? Anyway...

The New Scientist article on spite argues that "niceness needs nastiness". Excellent deduction. I wish I'd thought of it. But I'm happy to run with it. I wonder if all the seven deadly sins are there to ensure the survival and prominence in character of the other more positive attributes. I can't believe it is just spite that is there for a good reason. (Is spite one of the seven, can't remember?)

Envy, spitefulness and schadenfeude seem closely linked and motivations blurred across the boundary. Then another blurred boundary leads into sadism. I don't think most of us go that far though, implying that for each of us, the balance is different, explaining why some people find it harder to accept justification for warfare than others, for example. But it is also fascinating to explore, because it seems that many instances of UK government policy are driven by these same forces. In a party whose supporters start off generally as highly idealistic. Is it perhaps that focusing on positivity until you convince yourself that you are 'good' makes you less guarded against negativity later encroaching into your judgment and character? I think so.

All of this matters, because until now, human nature has been the one fixed reference point in a rapidly evolving technologically driven future. But technology will catch up with human nature in the next few decades, and we will be able to re-design it. We will analyse the brain, the mind, genetics and protemoics, we will develop artificial intelligence, strong AI, cybernetic implants, thought recognition and so on, until we are in a position around 2045 to start messing about with the fundamantal human nature of future generations. If we get it wrong, it might not be recoverable, we can't ensure there is a route to undo the damage. So we need to think a lot more about these issue so that we can make wiser decisions when the time comes. And to make sure future generations of policy-makers don't think it is as simple as erasing negative emotions. It plainly isn't. We need them as much as positive ones, or we won't work properly.

spite as key to future wars

Nice article in New Scientist 16 May about spitefulness, which is deeply ingrained in human nature. It seems to have evolved as a way of ensuring cooperation by punishing those that abuse trust and cooperation. Looking at wider human problems, I wonder if it isn't the underlying cause of wars, along with selfishness. People want peace, but those that are peaceful are often taken advantage of by those who are selfish and want to further their own interests at others' expense. If you don't defend yourself, you will eventually get attacked and your stuff taken from you. So we are forced to invest valuable resources in defence to make sure others leave us alone, which leaves everyone worse off.

Spite goes much further than mere self defense though, and amplifies the response into punishment. We are prepared to suffer in order to cause more suffering to the party that abused the system. Although this makes it worthwhile to stick to the common rules, when combined with powerful defence systems, it makes a dangerous trait. We don't just prevent attacks from succeeding with minimum force, we try to do much greater damage to the other party. Then spite forces further amplificied retailiation and so on until both parties are fully at war, whihc often ends only when one side is vanquished.

But of course, if we simply avoid spitefulness ourselves, we are then at the mercy of others who are willing to take full advantage of lack of punishment. If they would only be met with the minimum force required to restrain them, they would proceed.

So we're stuck. We want to be civilised, but human nature says that unless we can eradicate selfishness and spitefulness in every human being, the whole world is forced to endure repetition of conflicts. And as technology amplifies the potential damage that can be inflicted, and especially as it amplifies assymetry between risk and the ability to inflict damage on the other side, wars will get more and more damaging. We fool ourselves frequently that we have risen above warfare in Europe, but we have only done so because no-one has yet caused sufficient offence. Give it time.