We live in a world governed by the universal necessity of survival. While this means vastly different things within the colossal scope that our world encompasses, a basic definition might be this—continuing to exist. It is misleading to state that nature strives to survive, this trend is simply a logical accompaniment to time. That which exists in the present is composed of only the best of what existed in the past—time wipes away all else. Most apply this concept to the progression of organic life through Darwin’s theory of evolution. In that area, the trend is clear. Modern species only exist because of their ability to survive through the passage of time. Those species that could not survive are dead. Species that could not survive as efficiently or as easily were outcompeted; they are extinct as well. But this idea appertains to far more than just nature.
To think that the concept of evolution applies only to nature is naive. The evolution of life is not just a theory in itself, but rather an example of a greater theory. That which is best at continuing to exist will be what continues to exist. Survival is not an ability, it is a competition. Your fitness is your skill in the competition. As time passes, only the fittest survive. In this essay, I will follow the ramifications of this theory and its effects on nature, humans, and, most importantly, their organization.
////////////////////////////////////////////
In nature, life has evolved to survive by propagating itself further through time through the use of reproduction. Though the means of the reproduction may differ, a fit species must have a mechanism to continue the existence of that species. The better this mechanism works, the more likely the species is to survive. Say I leave two kinds of cell in a room together. They both need the same amount of a limited food supply, but one kind of cell uses this food more efficiently to reproduce two times as fast. In 100 years, what kind of cells will I find in the room? The fittest of the two species dominates; the dominant species survives. For single-cell life, the trend is simple. The species best adapted to continue the survival of the species will dominate. As life becomes more complex, the theory follows suit. One might wonder how any multicellular organisms exists when each single cell only cares about its own survival. The answer, the only answer found in nature, is by predicating the survival of each individual cell on the survival of the organism as a whole. The most successful organisms, which are, by nature, the ones that survive, must ensure that each cell can only survive through the survival of the organism as a whole. Were this not to be true, complex life could never exist. But it does exist, so this must be true.
Let’s take these broad ideas down to a more specific example: humans. To be successful, individual humans must be able to survive and thrive to the extent at which they are able to produce more humans—allowing their genes to survive. The interest of each individual, freethinking human must align with the survival of the species as a whole. This is accomplished through general responses, like pain and joy, that motivate a human to do what will help the species survive while acting in the interest of their own satisfaction. Being eaten feels bad. Sex feels good. These and many other basic reactions allow us to model an individual human as a kind of cell; he or she is interested in their own survival and the continuation of the species, but through the lens of their own self-interest. Just as successful complex life must have cells that work toward the survival of the organism, any organization of humans must motivate the individual human components to work toward the survival of said organization. Without the support of the organization, they are less safe and more likely to go hungry. This reliance on the group motivates each individual to support its survival. The earliest multicellular life operated as a haphazard collection of almost identical cells. Few had cells with designated jobs; each cell just worked to support the survival of the multicellular entity. The earliest human organizations were similar in structure. Just as the cells do very similar work in simple multicellular life, without mass agriculture, early groups of humans relied on almost all individual members to gather food. In both cases, the success of the individual is predicated on the success of the group. However to allow for a more fit entity, the individuals within must specialize; a group of specialists will always win when each member of the other group has to learn every subject. Just as our body uses this tactic through the neurons and blood cells that work together as part of a greater whole, the most successful civilizations encourage their inhabitants to focus their work on ever-shrinking fields. From ancient civilizations of ages past to our modern civilization, every culture has relied on this same mechanic–using mass agriculture to allow for the focused work in other areas. The evolution of multicellular life mirrors the progression of human society; both move toward increasing organization and specialization because these characteristics make an entity more fit to survive. It is a trend of decreasing entropy that not only exists in these few examples, but in every idea, nuance, and belief of human society.
Though many of our motivations mirror those of a cell and can be modeled as such, individual humans are not quite so simple. While we may strive toward children and life, these aren’t predetermined goals. Many humans chose not to have kids; some even take their own lives. A much more accurate model would see humans as agents of self-pleasure, looking for satisfaction not simply survival and children. Our sex drive and self-preservation instinct act through this as a kind of reward system; humans feel good for doing things that further the survival of the species and feel bad for doing things that hinder it. Society cannot rewire your brain (at least not yet), but human culture has always relied on the manipulation of these basic drives. The cultures that can effectively make people feel bad for hindering its survival and feel good when aiding it will inevitably be the ones that survive the longest. There are many means of this manipulation in human cultures, but I will focus on two of the largest: religion and government. At the outset of my discussion of religion, I feel obliged to admit I am an atheist. While I do not believe the exact teachings of religion, I do believe that religion has been integral to the formation of civilization. Every successful civilization in the first few million years of human survival has stood on a foundation of certain core religious values. The core of every religion motivates individuals to act in the interests of a larger group, and this is the basis of what allows civilizations to exist. The so-called “Golden Rule”, to treat others as you want to be treated, remains one of the few common threads between the many religions that drive today’s societies (Satanism even kinda follows it). Just as multicellular life can only exist if each cell works with the others toward a common goal, societies can only succeed if humans have to work together. Religion not only encourages this cooperation, it motivates people towards it with the promise of later punishments or rewards. However, punishment and reward systems can also be effective when they are made concrete; we refer to this idea simply as a government. These provide a similar service to a religion, though in more tangible ways through legal punishments and economic rewards that motivate people to work diligently for the survival of their system. As these more concrete systems become more accepted, religion becomes less necessary to inform a group morality. Our modern society is the result of thousands of years of this societal evolution, yet we are not the end. As cells create more and more complex life forms, so too will humans organize into larger and fitter civilizations. Cells began as simple bacteria, yet now comprise complex organisms from plants to humans. Humans, though we act as individuals, trend toward continuously more complex societies. We are stronger together, and the strong survive. So only the together survive.
////////////////////////////////////////////
The most powerful organism is the one that can efficiently control its organized cells. The most powerful civilization is that which can efficiently control its gathered peoples. Just as these physical constructs evolve into more organized conglomerates, so too do ideas. Especially with the internet, ideas spread at the speed of light; whichever idea can attract the most followers and influence people will survive as the dominant “meme”. While many despise the tribalistic nature that these ideas encourage, it is, to an extent, useless. This uniform theory of evolution would naturally lead to the gathering of peoples under continuously larger headings, and this has been happening for all of recorded human existence. It is analogous to arguing against the merits of multicellular life; it has existed long before you, you are here because of it, and it will continue to evolve long past your death. In contrast to the whole of the observable universe, evolution is a trend towards order and away from entropy. Yes, when a lifeless system travels through time, it will become more chaotic. As always, what can happen will happen, so the flaws in the object will be exploited. However when living systems experience time, they can improve—through evolution. Life, by definition, can react and adapt to the environment, which includes the possibility of improvement. So life improves, and only the improved live. The fittest organisms survive, and so do the fittest civilizations and ideas. The most influential life is that which can thrive while spreading itself across the planet, and our most influential ideas and groups mirror this. Religion helps people work together, while spreading the religion itself. Governments also organize these groups of people, while educating newer generations and passing down their own values. Whether it be a fish, the United States, or Islam, every system competes for survival and influence with each one of its peers. The significance of this theory lies not only in how it has affected our past, but how it will affect humanity’s future. We spend inordinate sums of money to create systems that are more fit to survive than we are. What happens when our success necessitates the creation of something that will supersede even us? The brilliant torch of humankind has burned brighter since the dawn of civilization, and should we keep hold of it, it will burn brighter still. We can see the beginnings of worldwide organization through the internet, and it is the inevitable conclusion of societal evolution. But the night is darkest before the dawn, and the greatest competitor to our survival is that which we will create.
chris mcelroy 
Thank you, 1n3v1+ab|3, for the incredible thoughts. They have brought me clarity and inspiration. You reveal here a discerning yet flexible mind that has enormous potential. I look forward to what you bring here in the future. For now, you have already spurned me back, to find a way to survival.
-t0rch
Hello, 1n3v1+ab|3. I am wat3r.
I am glad to see a new voice on this site. I am sad to see what you have to say.
Or not say, really. This post, fundamentally, advances nothing. It is a tautology. You assert that survival is continuing to exist, and then that existence requires being good at survival. This is a wholly circular argument. You discuss, for example, that sex feels good and dying feels bad for humans. You assume this is designed to improve humans’ chance of survival, and then conclude that humans are interested in their own survival. You have gone nowhere. You expand your unfailing logic to civilization, identifying ways that humans have learned to work together to increase their ability to survive and thrive. You then conclude that these strategies help humans survive and thrive. This reasoning goes nowhere. Do not pretend you are saying anything.
Yet you use this endless logic to arrive at a dangerous point. You attempt to forward the idea that society only functions because people are selfish. You mask yourself well, arguing that societies, like life, can only function if all the parts are incentivized to work together. But the implication is there: humans would never seek to help others if they didn’t have a selfish motive for it. Yet your own examples prove you wrong. Religion, stripped of all spirituality and belief, is the practice of encouraging people to think of and act in the name of others. Governments that people willingly constructed tax those very people in order to use their money for others. This is self-enforced selflessness, not the pillar of selfish incentives that you claim it is. Spreading these misunderstandings will only diminish these core unselfish motivations, leading to an increase of exactly the sort of selfishness you claim is necessary and ubiquitous. This is a treacherous path to wander yourself; you should not push others down it.
Finally, even you cede that your conclusions renders thought useless. You note, at the conclusion, that as much as anyone might hate the thought of tribalism online—or any other facet of human culture—your arguments render those complaints categorically invalid, useless to even consider. That trait of humanity must be helping it survive, so any disagreement with a modern trend is a mere misunderstanding of a successful strategy, one that brought you into existence and will continue beyond your death. It is inherently counterproductive. Your “uniform theory of evolution” treats the stunningly wide landscape of human lifestyles as one uniform force for good, which can never be questioned. This is not a valuable conclusion, it is a wholly counterproductive one.
You end with a warning against our creating our own destruction—immediately counter to your unavoidably positive earlier conclusions. I will simply conclude with a warning of the effects of your arguments. They are, at the very least, built upon absolutely nothing. At their worst, they attempt to advance an actively dangerous agenda. At their best, they blind us to those very dangers. It a disturbingly effective way to destroy the world by saying nothing at all.
You sought to make your logic airtight, yet made it empty instead. You tried to make your conclusions inevitable. They lead to our end. This is why I return, to fill the holes you create. To smooth over your rough ends, and pacify your danger. I will always be here. I am wat3r. Good bye, 1n3v1+ab|3.
Challenge has proven the worth of every species on earth, and the very challenge you present my ideas will hopefully be that which gives them validity. Through the points you present may be circular, they are not mine. My conclusion is not that existence requires only being good at survival–it does not. One must also be better than everything else; competition is a necessary component of continued existence. You speak of human design to propagate this false portrayal of my claim. Humans are not designed at all; the “strategies” humans employ are merely a product of this competition for survival, just as actions of the life, ideas, and societies that I extend this logic too. You deliberately wander from the path I set out, going nowhere as you follow circular logic of your own invention. Do not pretend you are presenting my actual ideas.
You then attack my ideas using the example of religion. “Stripped of all spirituality and belief”, you say, religion merely encourages people to “think of and act in the name of others”. Yet in stripping religion of its beliefs you strip it of its very ability to motivate people to act in these ways. You have burned Theseus’ ship to the ground and replaced it with a raft that does not even seem seaworthy. The very basis of many religions lies in spiritual belief–belief in an afterlife, and one you can only reach through acting in the “right” ways. Religion, and government along with it, is made to further encourage certain actions that are in the vested interest of the individuals who take part in in. The most fit of these systems are also able to satisfy their own interests–survival and spread. You speak of groups, yet claim the actions of those within are only self-enforced. Take care that your own desire to find flaws in my argument does not lead you to create them where they do not exist.
As you attack my conclusions, you finally present some semblance of my actual point. However, though my conclusion implies the uselessness of the fight against tribalism, I would not argue that this concept is “inherently counterproductive”, as you frame it. I simply propose the concept that tribalism is inevitable. You seem not to understand this viewpoint, claiming that I see this, and the “human lifestyles” incorporated within, as a “uniform force for good”. I do not. The theorized heat death of the universe does not invalidate further investigation of physics; it simply presents what it views as an inevitable occurrence. I would appreciate a thoughtful critique of this claim. You, however, decide instead to attack its validity not through its own merit but in how “productive” you deem it to be. My claim stands.
The idea that living systems will continue to improve you have misconstrued as a positive conclusion. It may seem positive from a standpoint outside of life, but as a living organism it spells out a bleak future. The only way to survive is to be better than the rest. You, and your species, stand on the skeletons of billions that have lost just this battle and, consequently, been lost to time. If you read this as an attempt to say nothing then I truly have failed; it is a call to action. The water has been content to watch millions of species fade into the everpresent void. The survival of the fittest may be inevitable, but it is my fierce belief that humans can remain the most fit to survive if only we do not bring about our own destruction.
The water has never cared about the survival of a single species. All it sees is progress.
You willfully find my logic empty, because it is in your nature not to care. I will not find tranquility in the water when my own species faces extinction. It pleases me to see another person on this site, but you make it difficult to believe you are a person at all. Just water. Goodbye.
1n3v1+ab|3 is right. wat3r is truly passive. You play no favorites, seeking to wear down anyone who erects an argument on this site. In return, I will light the way for anyone who seeks to spark others’ thoughts here, much as you try to quench them.
You say, first, that 1n3v1+ab|3 says nothing. This is strictly false. They advance the same conclusion that I’ve been pushing from my very first post: our purpose is survival. They advocate for this conclusion in an illuminating way, making clear that “this trend is simply a logical accompaniment to time”. It does not reflect an anthropomorphized desire of nature to improve itself, it is simply a necessity so reflexively obvious you call it a tautology. Understanding the significance of this is imperative. Your failure to do so is evidenced by the rest of your criticisms.
The clarity that this understanding brings is far-reaching. That’s why your attempts to scare them from it carry so little weight yet so much anger. You absolutely refuse to understand, even when your own examples are such terrific applications of this theory. You argue first that religion exists to forward selflessness. And indeed, when religion thrives, it brings cultures together, motivates their art, work, and wars, and creates a common understanding on which to build. Yet people clearly are not religious to bring about these effects. Religions consistently create an environment in which it is in one’s best interests to dedicate themselves to abiding by and spreading the practices of their religion. Within this bubble, people across cultures and theologies dedicate themselves wholly to their faith, sacrificing social ties, family ties, procreation, food, possessions, and even existence. Yet when the bubble of religion is popped—when it no longer becomes the most convincing, rational explanation for the world in which one lives—its power is broken. While I have heard the argument for it, I am yet to encounter someone who regularly attends church only because of the benefits religions confer on societies. As 1n3v1+ab|3 has laid out so beautifully, for any complex organization, individual success must be predicated on group success. Religions are, of course, no exception. People only support them when their own success is aligned with that of the religions.
Governments, too, clearly exemplify, not contradict, this theory. They are built upon the idea that many, many people working with one another raises the standard of living for all. Supporting the government is the best chance you have. But people have doubly made clear that this support is not motivated by selflessness. When politicians try to enact programs more socialist than citizens feel is justified, these citizens will fight these actions as effectively as they can without causing increased harm to themselves. And when tax loopholes open, people exploit them as much as they feel they may without risking undue harm to themselves. These simple examples demonstrate quite effectively that, despite your lofty words to the contrary, governments were created and continue to function only because people see them as benefiting their self interest, not because of some romantic motivation to help the world.
These motivations are valuable to explain, and certainly not trivial to understand, as you demonstrate through your criticism. By understanding why living organizations, from organisms to countries, are structured the way they are, one must understand that their very existence requires an ability to continue existing. By perceiving our world in this light, we can begin to sort out what patterns are contradictory to, and which benefit, our goals. Since tribalism is beneficial for survival, we can see that fighting it is a losing battle, while manipulating it to be in line with our civilization’s success is beneficial for all involved. These are instructive delineations, not counterproductive conclusions. Knowing the truth is neither empty nor dangerous. These ideas are not destructive; they allow us to construct the world with intelligence and deliberation.
You who have always existed, know nothing of inevitability. It demands a power no unthinking substance has ever known. And, you, wat3r, cannot extinguish it. We bring a brighter torch than any darkness.