Weather forecast: Highs in the 60s, partly cloudy.
Usually at this point in the season, we are gearing up for our CSA distribution to begin and stressing out about whether we'll have a good first few harvests to start off the season. It's nice to not have that pressure this year, though we are still racing against the season to get ground prepped and all of our plants in the ground before summer really kicks in. We've been planting tomatoes, peppers, and eggplants this weekend, with hopes to get beans and soybeans seeded before we see you all on the farm this week.
On Tuesday this week, Dr. Ann Fraser will be joining us for part of our practicum to help us with our insect identification skills and to teach us more about the role of insects in our ecosystems. She's going to bring her bug nets and sheets with her and leave them here for the Wednesday group to use, so everyone who wants to will get to go bug hunting this week :)
In preparation for her visit, I thought it would be fun for us all to learn a little bit about E. O. Wilson. He's the guy that came up with "biophilia"--the idea that humans have an innate, genetic predisposition to enjoy nature. His special subject of study is ants and their social behaviors, from which he has drawn insights into human behaviors. This article from The Atlantic describes the controversy he stirred up with a co-authored scientific paper that challenged evolutionary theories about altruism among highly social organisms (such as ants and humans): https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/e-o-wilsons-theory-of-everything/308686/.
I found the article especially interesting in light of our conversations about what it means to act in one's "self-interest" and our talks about cooperation vs competition within ecosystems. For those of you who enjoy reading scientific papers, here's the original paper that the The Atlantic article refers to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279739/pdf/nihms329641.pdf
I will be very curious to know what Dr. Fraser thinks of Wilson and his co-authors' ideas about natural selection and evolution!
My question for you this week is:
In the The Atlantic article linked to above, author Howard French refers to Wilson's idea that the natural selection through which human behavior has evolved is driven by two forces: individual selection (competition to pass on one's own genes) and group selection (cooperation that aids survival). Just for the fun of it, let's say that's true. And let's say that those two forces are at work within all of us all the time. How do you see those forces playing out in your life? In what areas of your life are you highly motivated toward pursuing your own wants/needs/desires and in what areas of your life do you sacrifice your personal desires in order to contribute to the overall well-being of a group (or planet) that you are a part of? Are there areas of your life in which you find your individual needs in conflict with the needs of others that you are in relationship with? (Feel free to define "others" and "relationship" broadly. A case could be made that we are all in relationship with every other organism on the globe in one way or another.) If and when you feel such a conflict, how do you decide how to act?
I have a desire to feel wholesome and healthy. To me, being healthy means that the food I eat will benefit me physically (i.e. having high amounts of nutrients the body needs) and mentally (i.e. knowing that the food I am eating came from a good place). I see this desire to be both individual selection as well as group selection. However, there are times that I won’t eat organic or local foods. For example, when I go to Qdoba. I feel that my individual needs are in conflict with my relationship to the animals and plants that I eat in that I often don’t know where my food is coming from. For example, I do like to eat but while that animal is alive I want it to be able to roam around a field, eat grass, and live a good life. From the discussion we have had in class I have developed what I think is a good way to be more transparent. Asking questions either at the farmers market, to a grocery store chain, to the person who sells me my meat at the deli; transparency is key in consumer decisions and consumer decisions and wants drive the choices the market makes.
ReplyDeleteFor me I am highly motivated toward pursuing my education; I put education very high on my list of priorities and I try not to let anything stop me. It works well in my case because my family is really in support of me pursuing this, even if it means doing things like traveling to East Asia to teach English. Outside of this I also put a lot of thought and care into maintaining my friendships; in this case I both am personally motivated and also sacrificing some of my own needs or priorities for them because I care. Even if it means doing things thats other may consider an inconvenience, I don’t view it that way because they are my friends and I care about their needs over my own. The same goes for my family. When I look even further then that, I think about my community or the globe. In that sense I am 50-50. I often sacrifice the convince of throwing everything away in favor of sorting and recycling, as I prioritize the Earth as being important. However, on the same hand, I often find myself shopping at the grocery store and eating processed foods because I don’t have the time or means to buy food locally. In this sense I feel stuck in the middle, and while this class has helped me understand my place in this system, I still find myself with struggling to move from this place.
ReplyDeleteI find the questions that Amy has posed for the week to be very thought-provoking and (of course, because I’m an ANSO major) I have to question the underlying assumptions involved here. I honestly believe that contributing to the overall well-being of society and the planet is actually what is good for me as an individual. I think this conflict between needs of self and needs of group are placed in a false dichotomy because of the scarcity mentality/manufactured competition of capitalism. I think as human beings with high levels of intelligence and self-control, individual selection does not need to be a priority; I generally do not feel any sort of uncontrollable need to pass on my genetic material. In terms of negotiating conflicts between the self and the group, again, I think staying true to the idea that what is good for the whole is actually what is good for me and vice versa is incredibly helpful. A minor example of this is my relationship to my closest group of friends. I am an introvert, which means I need alone time in order to recharge my energy. If my entire group of friends wants to hang out and do something together but I am completely exhausted and burned out on social energy, it is actually better for me to not participate in order to take care of myself and my needs. If I choose to ‘put the group first’ and ignore my feelings, I end up being grumpy and making our time together less enjoyable. Similarly, if I choose to put the planet first and work to produce less waste, the planet will in turn, take better care of me as an individual, as well as everyone else.
ReplyDeletePertaining to individual selection and group selection, I believe that both concepts play throughout my life. I find that both meet my personality type, in terms of me being naturally competitive as all as my willingness to help those who are close to me. I think that when both work together, it creates a good balance. I see myself wanting to pursue these motives in my educational life, my culture, religion, and my relationships. Usually when it comes to aiding those around me, I tend to take care of my family and friends before I think about myself. Sometimes, there are times when my needs override my desires to help as it relates to my familial and friend relationships. When I decide to act, I usually think about my morals and ethics that originate from my teachings from family as well as teachings from my religion. I tend to draw myself to these aspects of my life because I trust that I will be making the right answer.
ReplyDeleteAs of yet I have no desire to pass on my genes so this factor is non-exsistent for me. However, I do want to live and provide for my family meaning my mom and dad (and other extended family). I want us all to survive and live happy lives. For me I put my wants and needs to the side and focus on how I can provide for my family (even though my parents tell me to do the opposite). It's in my nature to want to take care of the people that I love before my needs. This fact has determined in the most case what carirer and educational path that I have taken or will take.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me geek out about E.O. Wilson. This dude was revolutionary just with all the theories he developed. His first publication The Theory of Island Biogeography is one of the foundational theories in ecological studies even to this day (and the way he and his partner designed the experiment was ridiculously ingenious as well). He is the only author to receive two Non-Fiction Pulitzer award for his scientific writings, so he doesn’t do just research, but ensures that the public can understand the what he found. I don’t know if Dr. Fraser mentioned it, E.O. Wilson was her Ph.D supervisor.
ReplyDeleteNow to actually answer the question -- (just for those who are interested, there was/is a huge controversy regarding the groups’ theory on how altruism came to be and how much kinship plays a role into that. After the wave of heated debates and mean emails, the general consensus is that kinship is an effect rather than cause in altruism… I think… if I am remembering my biology classes correctly).
As a biology major with focus on ecology, my argument would be that whatever is beneficial to the planet and the system as a whole is beneficial to who I am as an individual organism. Everything is interconnected from organism to population level, and there is no other planet for us. Seen in this perspective, the “self” is not limited to where my anatomy end on physically, but rather moves beyond and includes the input and the output that I have. Unfortunately, biological mechanisms are not the only mechanisms dictating my life. I guess I’m not “selfish” (defined as my physical anatomy) in that I have no desire to pass my gene into the new generation. My education and my career is my utmost priority, and I’m lucky enough to have a family that fully supports that. However, whenever there is a moment where our interests conflict, we compromise. An example of that would be coming to K, which was my cheapest option even when comparing possible options for Korea to this day (thank heavens). It was a financial conflict within my family as a community, but I could still come to US for university, or attend university at all, so that was great. I am selfish in that I still use plastic and other materials that produce pollution. I’m literally about to return to China for next year. I’ll take a plane and use up fossil fuels. Thankfully so far, I haven’t had a moment where I was asked to drop what was extremely high priority in my own list. And should a moment like that come… I guess it would depend on the circumstance. Will someone get hurt physically/emotionally if I don’t compromise. Will what I lose be greater than what they will lose.
Amy, your questions are immediately making me think about the responsibilities that I feel towards my family, and in particular, my mother. I’m fortunate to come from a family that owns property up north. We have a little cabin on the lake and a boat so we can waterski/tube/enjoy ourselves out on the water. Because the lake freezes over in the winter, the dock and the hoist for the boat need to be taken out when it starts to get cold and then put back in during the spring. As anyone who has ever had to do this kind of work will tell you, this process is exhausting. It requires you to be in the water for hours at a time (when the temperature is much colder than you’d want to get in the lake at all) and do a lot of heavy lifting. When I was growing up, my parents would do this work on their own. However, in recent years, this has become impossible. My mother is nearly fifty-eight, has arthritis, and is barely five feet tall. This means that either my brother or I have to help in order to get the dock in. As people who are taller, stronger, and younger, we’re just better suited for this task. This year, my brother couldn’t get time off work, so I decided to drive up north to help over the weekend. Although this obviously isn’t “survival” in the literal sense, this weekend was a clear example of me putting my family’s wishes ahead of my own personal needs. As someone who has been sick for three weeks now, on an individual level, it was very stupid of me to make this choice. I was exhausted, it made me feel terrible, and now I’m significantly sicker than I was. However, I made the choice I did because I felt it was what my family wanted/needed.
ReplyDeleteThinking about this experience in light of your questions has made me think about my priorities when it comes to whose needs I put first. Typically, I think I am more of a “me first” person. I’m not inclined to go significantly out of my way to help someone if I don’t feel like we have a reciprocal relationship. (I’m more than happy to help people, but I’m not going to invest hours of my time into someone else’s project if I don’t think I can reasonably expect them to do the same for me.) The exception to this, however, has always been my family. I put my parents’ needs and desires significantly ahead of my own. This past weekend was, I think, illustrative of a pattern within my life. It is certainly not the first time where I feel like I’ve done something that wasn’t in my best interest to help my parents with things. (To be clear, I don’t feel like my parents demand this of me. There is no part of me that thinks they would have been angry if I told them I was too sick to help.) Right now, I’m left wondering why I feel this responsibility towards my parents that I don’t necessarily feel towards friends. (If a friend had asked me to do the same task last weekend, there is NO WAY I would have done it.)
I am going to follow Na Young’s lead and geek out about E.O.Wilson. He was the first scientist that I thought was “cool” (due to our shared love for ants) and remains to be one of the most controversial one in modern history (he once bragged that he is the only surviving scientist that got physically attacked because of his work).
ReplyDeleteThe question of where “self” ends and the “other” begins is actually one of my favorite topic to talk about!
During “symbiosis”, a senior biology topics class, we discussed whether it is conceptually possible for “truly selfless” acts to exist in this world. We came to a (rather grim) conclusion that, 1) if we reason hard enough, there is ALWAYS some type of self-benefit to all actions and that 2) because that “selfless” behavior presumably persisted through evolutionary pressure, it inherently must possess some type of benefit for that species. This, to me, meant that the way we define “selfless” is wrong and so was our definition for “self”.
I guess this is close to the Deep Ecology concept of self – that we must start identifying with the tiniest microbe in the soil and forming greater sense of Self. I agree with this to certain extent. When I care about microbes in soil and trees in the forest, it’s partially because I am essentially one with them. We eat and are eaten by each other, just a mush of energy travelling in solid, yet transient form.
However, I also find this definition slightly problematic in a way. To borrow Murray Bookchin’s criticism, “greater sense of Self” sounds like melting of individuality, or as Bookchin put it, “deinvdividuation”. He wrote in his essay “Deep Ecology vs. Social Ecology”:
“Historically, a "self" that absorbs all real existential selves has been used from time immemorial to absorb individual uniqueness and freedom into a supreme individual who heads the State, churches of various sorts, adoring congregations---be they Eastern or Western---and spellbound constituencies, however much a "self" is dressed up in ecological, naturalistic, and biocentric attributes”
Instead, he argues that we must “reindivuate” those who were oppressed and give them back power to express their own rights.
I can also see my interaction with the world through this lens; maybe best method of farming is giving back agency those microbes, plants, and livestock to express their microbe-ness, plant-ness, and livestock-ness.
I feel like I have an interesting relationship to the idea of individual selection for the purpose of passing on my genes because I have never had any intention of giving birth or crearing a child. If I am going to have kids one day, I am going to adopt them and if I can't adopt them I probably just won't have any. Am I then excluded from the evolutionary concept of individual selection to "keep my genes alive?" I'm not sure. Either way, how I do see myself practicing individual selection is through making sure I am doing things feel meaningful and rewarding. I have found that acting in ways that are meaningful and rewarding often help me make healthier decisions (cooking a good dinner, going to the gym, taking a long walk, etc.) and to feel happier (making art and doing things with animals). I don't think that this type of individual selection is exclusive to the individual though. I think that by practicing this type of individual selection I am also practicing group selection. By taking care of myself and doing what I like, I can also encourage those close to me to do the same for themselves. Additionally, when I am doing things that feel meaningful and rewarding to me, they often also involve things that benefit others as well (such as shopping at the farmer's market instead of meijer, making art for friends, and making an egg-buying chart to contribute to this class). For me personally, especially because I don't plan on passing on my genes, these relationships indicate to me that my individual selection and group selection are too deeply intertwined to seperate. That feels ok with me.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I want to call attention to the fact that these two questions assume a lot of individual agency and freedom of choice that not everyone is afforded due to any number of intersecting identity markers. Many people are not in a place to make decisions in either direction and are exclusively making decisions that promote their survival, so that’s an interesting layer of this dichotomy to consider.
ReplyDeleteI, however, am not in this position and am privileged enough to have a fair degree of agency over how I chose to structure my life. I think one aspect of my life that is entirely driven by my personal desires and based off no one else, is where I go/live. So far every choice I’ve made about this has been to exclusively my benefit and based off no one else. I said a number of times that growing up feels like making choices about where you want to be based not off opportunities or jobs or fun but off other people and who you want to be around in the long term. I definitely don’t feel like I’m there yet, but it is something that’s on my mind currently as I consider where I want to go for my first job and what I want to take into consideration as I make that choice.
Oh man, this question of balancing my own wants/needs/desires for my own wellbeing and the wellbeing of a larger group and the planet is one that I have had trouble answering and defining throughout my life. I like to think that we should always only act in ways that are strengthening for ourselves and our own well-being, but I recognize that we must also think of a larger group at the same time because otherwise we would have the tragedy of the commons.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of my plan post-K which is currently on my mind, I hope to find a role in society that is good for my individual self and the well-being of the larger society/planet by finding a niche in the education system related to food, gardening, nutrition/well-being.