The Birth of Organisms and the Evolution into Humans(15.12.20）

The Birth of Organisms

(Refered mainly to the dialogue in Homo sapiens in the 21^st century ver.2 and also to Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (Kinokuniya-Shoten, Tokyo).)

1. RNA was Originally Self-Replicating Substance.

   Originally, nucleic acid bases and amino acids came down from outer space (or some say they emerged in the primal atmosphere due to electrical discharge), and then covalently bonded with sugar (ribose) and phosphate, forming RNA (ribonucleic acid); it appears that they may have been adsorbed and condensed on the surface of clay and the like, and then that chemical bonding was promoted by high-temperature and high-pressure conditions around, for example, hydrothermal vents in the deep sea. RNA has four types of bases (uracil U; adenine A; cytosine C; guanine G). Putting together these bases to form hydrogen bonds, RNA can create a duplex chain that are complementary to each other. Furthermore, one of the two OH groups in sugar (ribose) plays an important role in catalysis, cutting and creating covalent bonds between RNA and peptides (polymerized amino acids; a general term that includes proteins and the like) (refer to Fig. 1-1 & 1-2). Thus, it is thought that RNA was the first substance to self-replicate on the primitive Earth (RNA world). About 3.8 billion years ago, this RNA took on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), which is a more stable genetic material than RNA, and surrounded itself with a biological membrane to form a cell.

   In other words, organisms (including humans) can be seen as vehicles manipulated by their nucleic acid genes. As can be understood by looking at their origins, these genes freely self-multiply. (They are called “selfish genes” because they replicate themselves.) It appears that this is the very reason that nucleic acid organisms have been able to prosper so much on this Earth. It is almost as if the nucleic acids that originated as RNA planned to conquer the planet. If they were programmed to extinguish themselves, they would have probably not survived this long. For this reason, I think that, generally, organisms are not programmed to kill themselves. They inherently are inclined to increase their genes as much as possible, and in the end feel close to related individuals, trying to protect them from enemies. (Most organisms have three basic desires: for food, to avoid danger, and for sex/procreation.)
   　　For example, when a small bird is raising its young in a nest, if a bird of prey draws near, it will risk its life to protect its children by making lots of noise to lead the bird of prey elsewhere, not considering the danger involved.

   There Should be No Suicide

   In a simple sense, suicide does not exist in an organisms' inherent dictionary; an organism that might kill itself would eventually go extinct. When the environment changes and nutrients become scarce, E. coli will naturally die; however, before doing so, it will have changed itself so to handle a steady state. Bacillus subtilis (a strain of which is used to make the fermented soybeans called natto) will create spores and go dormant if starved. Of course, in the case of multicellular organisms, in the process of generation and differentiation, unnecessary cells and structures are programmed to die. (This is called apoptosis, also known as "programmed cell death." A famous example is a tadpole's tail disappearing when it turns into a frog; when this happens, these cells are eliminated via apoptosis.) However, there is not supposed to be suicide of the whole individual. While humans do attempt to kill themselves due to psychological conflict, even when this happens, each individual cell in the body works its hardest to survive. Suicide should be seen as the betrayal of oneself (i.e., one's body).
   

2. Evolution

   Genetic variation arises due to errors in complementary base pairing during replication. These variations bring about diversity, and the organisms that are fit for their environments multiply more easily. This is (adaptive) evolution. Individual variations within a species, which are often hidden away in large population of a wild-type strain and do not form any new species, allow certain organisms to survive when environments worsen and extinction looms. When extinction draws near and a group consists of only a small number of survivors, such variations sometimes become the majority due to genetic drift. These variations then become established as a new species, thus creating diversity. Living things have been able to avoid extinction and evolve in harsh environments by increasing the frequency of variations and, thereby, increasing diversity. Thus, individual humans, insofar as they are not clones, have brought about diversity in their species and contribute to its preservation and maintenance. This supports the notion that each individual is and must be equal within its species.

   A classic example of this can be seen in the case of the disease sickle cell anemia (sickle erythrocytes). A mutation at one amino acid residue of hemoglobin β-chain enables it to polymerize too easily, leading red blood cells to change from a disk shape to a sickle/scythe shape (hence the name), thereby causing anemia. Normally it has a negative effect on survival; however, in places where there are many malaria-carrying mosquitos, this is advantageous. Normally, a malaria plasmodium parasite will parasitize red blood cells, but has trouble doing so when the cells are sickle shaped. As such, those with sickle erythrocytes do not develop critical symptoms when infected with malaria. In other words, while in a non-malarial location this presents a disadvantage as such people easily become anemic and weak, in place where malaria is prevalent, it is actually beneficial, and thus considerably contributes to the survival of humans in that area.

3. The Prisoner's Dilemma and Survival Strategies

   In an unresticted environment there would be no limit on how much organisms can multiply, which can be understood easily by the prisoner’s dilemma game theory (refer to Fig. 2 and its legend).

   Put simply, in an unrestricted environment (in other words, when the Earth's resources are unlimited), everyone benefits and can flourish if organisms live while providing mutual aid rather than betraying each other (i.e., adopt a good-natured strategy). However, in a restricted environment, there are few resources, and organisms will try to snatch up their own lot first in order to survive, even if it means betraying others (i.e., selfish behavior). In the end, such selfish behavior will not result in much prosperity. (Of course, this eventual lack of prosperity would also be partially due to there being few resources.)
   　　(The selfish strategy also appears to go against RNA's nature as selfish genes that seek to conquer the world, because this mutual betrayal will ultimately obstruct overall flourishing. However, nucleic acids contain within them the following way-around to skillfully overcome this restricted environment and prevalence of selfish strategies: Producing variations or mutations. It is admirable how prudent this is. And interestingly the same mechanism is also used in the case of capital (currency, money, and credit) in economies. Please also have a look at the next section entitled "Currency and the Economy.")

Evolving into Humans

(Refered mainly to the dialogue in Homo sapiens in the 21^st century ver.2 and also to NHK Special crew's Hyuman [Human] (Kadokawa Shoten, Tokyo).)

1. The Birth of Humans and Their Cooperative Nature: The Basic Fourth Desire for Cooperation

   Humans evolved from an ancestor they share with chimpanzees. In order to survive on the savannah, they acquired an instinctual desire for cooperation. This is the point important as their difference from chimpanzees.

   Chimpanzees lived in the jungle as gatherer groups of approximately 50 individuals. The amount of food that could be gathered was able to nourish groups of this size. The jungle was a relatively safe place for the chimpanzees; however, their environment changed into a dry savannah, which is not very safe for them. Furthermore, groups cannot be supported just by gathering food. Most chimpanzees failed to adapt and died out, while others evolved into the early forms of the human species (about 7 million years ago). They were bipedal able to keep a watch on their surroundings and run fast. This allowed them to also hunt on the ground. However, since their pelvis changed and they had big heads, babies had to be born small. This made raising infants difficult and time consuming. They had to be looked after for a long time, and it was necessary for others to help out with daily survival needs. To hunt, keep a lookout, and raise children, cooperation was necessary and vital. At the early stage of human evolution, those who did so would have been related by blood.

   One key difference between modern humans and our chimpanzee ancestors is the latter's polyamory and the monogamy of modern humans. It was necessary for humans to cooperate as couples and as families, as it was not advantageous for the species for men and women to compete with each other. This cooperative instinct can also be seen in lions, which live in groups on the savannah.
   　　(Recent research on the brain also shows that humans have an altruistic nature, in other words, they take joy and find happiness in helping others. In addition, elephants and many other animals exhibit similar sympathetic behaviors. Research shows that a special component of the nervous system called "mirror neurons" plays an important role in this behavior. In the future, the functioning of nervous systems closely related to humans' inherent instinctual nature will likely be analyzed. Based on such research we might be able to quantify happiness. If this happens, there will be a need for the various concepts used in the humanities and social sciences to be reconsidered from a natural sciences (particularly biological) perspective. Is there really any need for such difficult words like utilitarianism and communitarianism? There will no doubt be a revolution in the humanities and social sciences!)

   Chimpanzees lived in groups of approximately 50 in the jungle; Similarly, humans can only be aware of all members in groups of this size, and thus even today it seems that humans can cognize 50 to 200 people. This is even evident from our experience of reading a novel or movie; the number of people described in a novel is usually less than 50. However, with the recent development of information technology, groups may have been expanded to around 500 people. Is this okay? What about 5,000? (Perhaps with today's productivity, up to 5,000 people can collectively be self-sufficient and self-supporting; hence I would like to insist on this number.)

   In summary, humans are equipped with an instinct that makes them want to cooperate with those around them (particularly blood relatives), and it makes them happy when they can cooperate and are recognized for doing so. In other words, they have a fourth desire: that of cooperation.
   　　(In biology courses, one learns that humans have a cooperative nature; however, I think that this should be raised to the level of a basic desire.)
   　　Therefore, rather than humans being weak and unable to live on their own, they cannot help but cooperating with people (the group to which they belong). When one thinks in this way, it becomes easier to understand what people mean when they say that "one cannot live alone."

2. Society, Groups to Which People Belong, and Happiness

   All living things try to protect individuals with genes that are close to their own because they have so-called selfish genes. Furthermore, it is a human's instinctual desire to cooperate with the group to which he or she is close. This group might not be close in the sense of being blood related; it might be just comprised of members of the same human species (which, compared to other organisms, have very similar genes). Of course, reciprocal utilitarian altruism has emerged as a culture due to the development of information and the establishment of society. One can draw a three- or four-level diagram of humans' cooperative nature (refer to Fig. 3). Humans now see everyone as companions, as brethren. This is why they aren't supposed to desire to kill other humans, who are part of the same species; rather, they should want to cooperate. However, in a capitalist restricted environment, competition intensifies, and isolation and betrayal become universal. This is why everyone becomes unhappy.

3. Hierarchy

   Humans moved from hunter-gatherer groups of approximately 50 people to settled agriculture communities approximately 10,000 years ago. When this happened, their groups grew larger. This led to not only an increase in productivity, but also the division of labor (i.e., because groups grew larger than 50 people, which is more than humans can directly cognize). In turn, this division of labor led to hierarchy, as a need emerged for select people (i.e., the priest class) to take the lead in organizing and maintaining society. The groups to which people belonged in order to live were clear, as were people's roles within them and their enemies. For this reason, everyone knew that they had to cooperate, and each individual that was cooperative was recognized for doing so, thus leading to happiness. (Of course, food tended to be lacking, and there was the ever-present danger of being killed by clearly demarcated enemies.) Since humans could no longer directly be aware of all members of the group to which they belonged, there was a need for substitute measures to recognize people who particularly contributed. One can imagine how this led to money, fame, and power-based hierarchies.

   Even if such measures did exist, since to survive it was necessary to belong to a group, people had to be cooperative, and everyone was able to be "good-natured" and satisfy their desire to cooperate. This probably meant that they could live happily and did not really have much desire to be recognized through these substitute measures. Consider the time of Caesar's rule in Ancient Rome, for which I created a happiness index for this era (refer to Fig. 4).

   Today, however, the groups to which people belong (including the family) have become less defined; for example, an individual can live alone, relying on food from convenience stores and the like. Furthermore, everyone is taught that all people are members of the same human race, making it impossible for us see each other as different species.
   　　(While people can kill other people (e.g., out of their basic desire to avoid danger), if they are enemies and hated, it becomes hard to do so when everyone is seen as a fellow human. This is probably one reason that many US soldiers have PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder) after returning home. It is evident that today we cannot and should not have any warfare in the world.)
   　　During times of economic growth possible, good-natured strategies are predominant, and most people can live happily by creating a society consisted of groups of approximately 50 people and fulfilling their desire to cooperate. However, in the present days on our planet when resources dry up and there is no economic growth, selfish strategies reign, and the groups to which people belong for survival are unclear (owing to and due to the high productivity). In this kind of competitive society, everyone can be seen as an enemy, and betrayal runs rampant. People are unable to be good-natured; if they adopt such an approach, they are more likely to be tricked and even killed. Those who cannot be selfish raise the walls surrounding their hearts, and end up living lonely and isolated. Society's substitute measures of cooperativeness (money, fame, and power) become an end in themselves. When people seek these (as a social approval of being cooperative) in this environment predominant with selfish strategies, everyone, even those who obtain them, feels discomfort, guilt, and unfair. Thus, we have ended up with a world in which no one can be happy. This is a problem. The prime cause of this evil is the structure of our society, which is characterized by free competition and capitalism, in the context of a restricted environment brought about by the drying up of the Earth's resources.

4. Looking at Humans from Another Perspective

   Even if genetic variations are appearing while humans spread across the Earth, these variations are buried within the very much larger wild-type group; thus, new species of humans do not emerge.
   　　(Consider the various dinosaur species of the past, when there were herbivorous good-natured dinosaurs, and completely selfish carnivorous ones as well. There is no way that the latter could flourish alone; dinosaurs survived because good-natured herbivores also existed. Other living things (such as mammals) were probably just barely able to survive in a restricted environment. Due to environmental changes that likely arose from an asteroid impact, dinosaurs went extinct. When this happened, the remaining species probably divided into many isolated small groups. In other words, a nearly unrestricted environment emerged with plenty of room for all survivors. The species that managed to survive and organisms with certain genetic variations became established within small groups due to genetic drift, and new species were born one after another. At the end of this evolutionary process is the contemporary society we live in today. Are the Homo sapiens that emerged more similar to good-natured dinosaurs or selfish ones? At the very least, we can say that humans are a species born with an inherently cooperative nature.)
   　　At any rate, there is surely no way a new species could emerge from Homo sapiens that solely adopts selfish strategies, in other words, that does not have an inherently cooperative nature, in the context of this massive group that is now humanity.

   It is clear that we are currently in a restricted environment; thus, there is nothing that living things can do but try to survive based on a selfish strategy. Humans, however, have an inherent desire for cooperation, and they therefore encounter self-contradiction and experience discomfort when living in a selfish way.
   　　(While there are some people who say that one should not raise the walls around their hearts, these people may not understand how living things evolved and humans' inherent nature. They also do not appreciate the harsh situation that characterizes contemporary society. Perhaps they are unable to understand the sadness of the people who must adopt a selfish strategy in this freely competitive society under a restricted environment and who have been betrayed by such strategies.)
   

---

山登のホームページ(back to IYamato homepage)