Globalization is not new. Despite numerous wars and disputes, our species has never stopped to connect and form larger and larger groups. In the history of mankind, small tribes have constantly transformed into chiefdoms, city states, nation-states, empires, and collections of nations such as the European Union. The global village or globalization is simply a logical step of this continuous process. So what has driven this ancient process historically? We will go all the way back to the evolutionary root of our species to find out what, despite periods of withdraws and setbacks, has motivated us to reach out for others to create a bigger and bigger community.
1.1.1 The Nature of Humans
1.1.1.1 Are Humans Naturally Selfish?
Globalization as a process of crossing boundaries has to start with the cooperation between individuals, and with altruismâa behavior of reaching out to others even at oneâs own personal cost. Biologists since Charles Darwin were puzzled because they could not properly explain how such behaviors could ever evolve in the world of natural selection. In the end, it is supposed to be a struggle for existence, a competitive battle that is gladiatorial in nature: Red in tooth and claw. Every individual is expected to look out for her/himself because your gain means my loss.
Darwinâs theory leads to the question of whether human nature is good or badâsomething that has long divided theorists. Earlier scholars advocated the selfishness of the human mind, illustrated by popular phrases such as âlaw of the jungle,â âevery man for himself,â âdog eat dog,â and âsurvival of the fittest.â1-2-3-4 Some philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes argued that cooperation is necessary, but because humanâs nature is selfish, the only way of attaining cooperation as a social contract is through a coercive authority, and that cooperation has to be a covenant forced by the sword. This is considered the original role of governments (i.e., authority orders people to cooperate) and, to a certain extent, of religion (e.g., be good, or else, hellfire).
1.1.1.2 Capitalism is Natural Law
In 1799, Thomas Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population.5 The main argument is that population growth outstrips food production, and hence, population is naturally kept in check by poverty, famine, war, and low living standards. They are inevitable, and therefore, welfare programs such as helping the poor would only delay the catastrophe. At the time when the industrial revolution demanded more science and a new paradigm other than the Bible to guide research, Malthusâs writing was considered the beginning of Social Darwinismâa school of thought widely accepted in Western universities.
Proponents of Social Darwinism applied the biological idea to social sciences. Herbert Spencer invented the term âsurvival of the fittestâ in 1852 and argued that governments should not interfere in human competition, stay away from attempts to regulate the economy, and let the invisible hand control the market. Later on, when Social Darwinism got its wild support in the United States, William Sumner, for example, proclaimed that millionaires are the product of natural selection,6 and Rockefeller said: âThe growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest ⊠a law of nature and a law of God.â7
In this context, laissez-faire policies were used to support for a competitive, ruthless, dog-eat-dog capitalism. Together with the Industrial Revolution, there emerged a large, underpaid, and exploited wage-earning class, and rich capitalists. In such a context, the concept of âstruggleâ and âsurvival of the fittestâ was a useful justification for exploitation. Many continued to use the collapse of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries as a real-world confirmation of this core idea: Those who interfered with human selfishness would reap the whirlwind. A natural selection will weed out the weakest members, the less intelligent and less industrious of the society. Such thinking was later used to justify the eugenics movement, which has its most extreme manifestation in Nazi Germany and the selective breeding to improve the quality of the population.
1.1.1.3 Kin Selection Fosters Cooperation
However, recent studies have consistently proved that human nature is not naturally competitive.8-9-10-11-12 We are also cooperative, and there is an evolutionary base for it.
Letâs start with the most obvious: We are cooperative toward those who are genetically close to usâor the Hamiltonâs rule for evolutionary success of altruism.13-14 In the following formula, c is the cost of the actor who performs the altruistic act, b is the benefit gained by the recipient of the altruistic act, and r is genetic relatedness between the two. The formula demonstrates the condition that an actor would assist another person, as long as the cumulative benefit to the recipient is greater than the cost to the actor. According to rumor, Haldane monumentalized this principle by declaring this in a pub: âI would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins.â In evolutionary terms, it is a fair deal, because a sibling has the r factor = 50% and a cousin = 12.5%. Blood is thicker than water. From evolutionary point of view, kin selection makes a perfect incentive for cooperation. Actions that support my relatives benefit copies of my genes.
c < r b
1.1.1.4 Reciprocity Fosters Cooperation
We are not only cooperative toward those who share the same genes but also total strangers who share little to no genetic relatedness. Next to kin selection, the second strong force that binds all cooperative enterprise is fairness and reciprocity, that is, if you scratch my back, I will scratch yours. Resources are often limited, and naturally, we are cautious of who to share with, better be someone who is trustworthy and cooperative. Being considered trustworthy and cooperative is critical because it gives us an important currency called reputation. Good reputation grants us access to material and social rewards once trust has been won. This is so crucial that evolutionary biologist Mark Pagel concluded that humans compete to cooperate. In his words:
This social currency is so beneficial that we even go an extra mile to gain it, by showing that we are willing to sacrifice or even die for it. Pagel used the social bonding from Sebastia Jungerâs book War to illustrate this point. New soldiers who freshly joined the combat platoon were subjected to severe beating and humiliation, including officers. By enduring the beatings, new soldiers signaled that they are serious with the commitment, and the violent tests are a way to buy the fellowsâ trust.16 If a soldier could not stand humiliation and violence at such a level, how can one expect her/him to sacrifice for others on the battlefield? Facing the enemy, the willingness to die for each other is the most effective strategy to keep each soldier alive. Evolutionary speaking, their bond was essentially not the love for the country or even the loyalty to their fellows. Rather, it is simply that they were individually more likely to survive when they were all prepared to die for each other. In essence, cooperation stemmed from reciprocal altruism is a selfish calculation for personal interests in the long run.
1.1.1.5 Cooperation is Instinctive
The third evolutionary basis for cooperation has a different argument: Itâs obvious that we are often cooperative even when no one is watching, even when we have nothing to gain. If we only care about reputation, we should rob, rape, free ride whenever we are sure that doing so is safe. We would not vote, or help a stranger anonymously because there is no reputation effect involved. This line of argument leads to an alternative theory of cooperation: Humans have evolved this behavior and developed a cultural system that is extremely inhospitable to sociopaths, who are nice only when others are looking. The end result is that humans have become a cooperative species by nature,17 while sociopathsâ population is kept as a small minority. This cooperative system is controlled by social values: We punish those who exploit, praise those who sacrifice...