Por ejemplo, la cooperación y el sentido moral. Aquí un par de reflexiones de E. O. Wilson al respecto. Puede concebirse la cooperación humana como una extensión a todos los niveles del Dilema del Prisionero: es ventajoso tener aliados basados en confianza mutua. Hasta los ladrones tienen una ética de grupo, "si consideramos a la banda como una especie de sociedad", y salen beneficiados de cooperar entre sí y no con la policía.
"In one form or another,
comparable dilemmas that are solvable by cooperation occur constantly
and everywhere in daily life. The payoff is variously money, status,
power, sex, access, comfort, and health. Most of these proximate
rewards are converted into the universal bottom line of Darwinian
genetic fitness: greater longevity and a secure, growing family.
And so it has always been. Imagine a Paleolithic hunter band, say composed of five men. One hunter considers breaking away from the others to look for an antelope on his own. If successful he will gain a large quantity of meat and hide, five times greater than if he stays with the band and they are successful. But he knows from experience that his chances of success alone are very low, much less than the chances of a band of five working together. In addition, whether successful alone or not, he will suffer animosity from the others for lessening their own prospects. By custom the band members remain together and share the animals they kill equitably. So the hunter stays. He also observes good manners while doing so, especially if he is the one who makes the kill. Boastful pride is condemned because it rips the delicate web of reciprocity. (...)
The dark side to the inborn propensity to moral behavior is xenophobia. Because personal familiarity and common interest are vital in social transactions, moral sentiments evolved to be selective. And so it has ever been, and so it will ever be. People give trust to strangers with effort, and true compassion is a commodity chronically in short supply. Tribes cooperate only through carefully defined treaties and other conventions. They are quick to imagine themselves victims of conspiracies by competing groups, and they are prone to dehumanize and murder their rivals during periods of severe conflict. They cement their own group loyalties by means of sacred symbols and ceremonies. Their mythologies are filled with epic victories over menacing enemies." (E. O. Wilson, Consilience 252-53).
And so it has always been. Imagine a Paleolithic hunter band, say composed of five men. One hunter considers breaking away from the others to look for an antelope on his own. If successful he will gain a large quantity of meat and hide, five times greater than if he stays with the band and they are successful. But he knows from experience that his chances of success alone are very low, much less than the chances of a band of five working together. In addition, whether successful alone or not, he will suffer animosity from the others for lessening their own prospects. By custom the band members remain together and share the animals they kill equitably. So the hunter stays. He also observes good manners while doing so, especially if he is the one who makes the kill. Boastful pride is condemned because it rips the delicate web of reciprocity. (...)
The dark side to the inborn propensity to moral behavior is xenophobia. Because personal familiarity and common interest are vital in social transactions, moral sentiments evolved to be selective. And so it has ever been, and so it will ever be. People give trust to strangers with effort, and true compassion is a commodity chronically in short supply. Tribes cooperate only through carefully defined treaties and other conventions. They are quick to imagine themselves victims of conspiracies by competing groups, and they are prone to dehumanize and murder their rivals during periods of severe conflict. They cement their own group loyalties by means of sacred symbols and ceremonies. Their mythologies are filled with epic victories over menacing enemies." (E. O. Wilson, Consilience 252-53).
Esta es una teoría sociobiológica del origen de la lealtad intergrupal, que se aplica hoy en día rigiendo inadecuadamente patologías de grupo en tribus urbanas, departamentos universitarios o comisiones de funcionarios. El que está dentro es de los nuestros— y a la ley que le den. El clan pasa por delante, impone la reciprocidad en las distancias cortas, y ejerce vigilancia mutua.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Se aceptan opiniones alternativas, e incluso coincidentes: