Empathy and Evolution

Just finished an interesting article in the October National Geographic discussing various studies that have been and are being done concerning animals' minds and feelings. It touched on a variety of intellectual abilities and emotions that are claimed to be present in various animals, including sense of self, ability to use buttons to communicate with humans, indications of animals at play, recognition of anger, sadness, and distress to name a few, and demonstrations of empathy.

It is the latter that I wish to focus on today.

The particular investigation that intrigued me involved rats, which I must say is a bold choice considering what some might regard as an instinctual dislike for rats by humans, along with the belief that rats will eat anything, including each other.

In this specific experiment, a rat is confined inside a transparent plastic tube with holes. The tube has a door that can be opened from the outside. The tube is placed inside a cage with another rat that is free to move around. The rat inside the tube exhibits its distress at being confined, which is visible to the other rat, which begins circling the tube, biting it, trying to dig underneath it. Eventually, the free rat learns how to open the door and liberates the trapped rat.

So, first, there appears to be recognition by the free rat that the trapped rat needs assistance, or at the least, would prefer to be released. Empathy? Second, the free rat acts upon this feeling? by

trying to help the other rat. If we assume this is a conscious decision by the free rat, why would it behave in such a way? There is no reason to think releasing the trapped rat would help the free rat, if we assume rats only act out of self preservation. Third, as we all probably know, rats (and many animals) have some sort of version of problem solving skills, which, in this case, enables the rat to open the door and free his friend. Friend?

Ah, that is the key. Because as it turns out, this behavior is contingent on whether the free rat feels a kin-ship towards the confined one. This particular line of research has discovered that a free rat raised with others of the same genetic type will help a trapped rat of that type, even if it is a stranger, but will disregard a rat of a different genetic type. Will do nothing.

To check on the strength of this kinship, when rats of different genetic types are raised together, the free rats will assist those with the different genetic type, and ignore those of the same genetic type who were not raised with them. Genetics is trumped by familiarity. Its about having a family, and knowing that the trapped rat is part of that family.

I imagine that many of us know someone, or have read about someone, who does not believe in evolution, specifically that all life forms have evolved from single celled marine life, eventually emerging from the sea to land. As the various forms adapted to the environment, various species were more successful in adapting and thriving in earth's changing atmosphere and terrestrial alterations, until a few million years ago (remember, the Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old), the first human ancestors appear. (I know this is a remarkably terse and incomplete version of Darwinian evolution, but our physical evolution is not the point of this post).

I am not sure if it would make it easier to help doubters of Darwin to accept evolution, but I would bet that some of them might, if they have pets, agree that their pets display emotions, specifically empathy, dogs that lick your face when you are sad being one such example. 

Is it possible then, that empathy is a common trait of most life forms that exist on our planet? Perhaps then, empathy is a DNA trait, if you like, that has passed along from species to species, generation to generation. Passed along because it is necessary, even vital, for a species to continue to exist. 

If we take the position that empathy is a critical emotion for life and human survival, then is it wise to encourage empathy, to reward empathy, and to use it as a gauge for our decisions, personal and societal?

Or, to put it another way, aren't the worst examples of human interactions in our history, situations and occurrences when we treated our fellow human beings as less than human? When we displayed a complete lack of empathy.

I am fond of saying that when a politician or pundit offers simple solutions to complex problems, they are more than likely not interested in solving them, but more likely interested in telling you who to blame. 

But perhaps there is a simple way to evaluate our policies and laws, based on the Golden Rule, as delivered during the Sermon on the Mount. Do unto others as you would have then do to you.

Is that what the rat is doing, by freeing his trapped kin? Is that what we are doing by providing food and medical aid to those around the world who lack? Is that what we are doing when we help someone cross a busy highway, or pick up dropped items in the street, or reach something on a high shelf?

Is it possible that our personal and collective displays of empathy will be the yardstick used to judge us? 

I have offered a number of what-if-this-is-how-we-are-judged scenarios over the course of this blog. If it turns out that judgement is merely a calculation performed by heavenly accountants with expressions of empathy on one side of the ledger, and actions performed without empathy on the other, I fear we are currently in a phase in which we are falling behind in that calculation.

However, I do believe we are a more empathetic species than rats, and like rats, we tend to treat those in our families with more caring. Wouldn't it be even better if we were to expand our definition of family to include all fellow Earthlings, not just those who share our race or religion, nationality or country of birth? And, finally, perhaps we should begin grading the efficacy of laws, solely on whether it displays empathy, or more critically, lacks empathy, for any particular group of people. Or, to be more blunt, would you want that law to be applied to you instead of "them"?

I found 2 other entries about empathy that I posted. Here are the links:

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/01/klara-and-sun.html 

  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/farewell-peewee.html

Replacement Theory

It is not hard to find all kinds of articles and essays on the philosophy and history of replacement theory, or great replacement theory. In brief, over the course of the last 150 years, various versions of the fear that immigrants are being brought into "white" western countries to replace the majority white folks has permeated various European countries and America.

I often tell my wife, that, in general, there is always a tincture of truth in every conspiracy theory. Is there voter fraud? Undoubtedly, there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of votes that are cast by someone not eligible to vote. But millions of votes "changed" by foreign interests or computer hackers? While I am not naive enough to think that the democratic party might include some cheaters, I don't believe they are smart enough to allow just enough GOP candidates on down ballots to win, while altering the one name at the top for president. Massive voter fraud is not a thing, it is a lie created by a man who is such a loser that he can't accept losing.

Often, it is the obvious answer that is correct, and in this case, just as in 2016, more Americans voted for the democratic presidential ticket, in 2020, enough of those who had voted for Trump in 2016, witnessed his incompetence, and decided they couldn't give him another chance, but still preferred local, state and federal GOP candidates over their democratic counterparts.

And, by the way, when a candidate for any office tells you that mail-in votes are suspect and in-person votes can be altered, he/she is casting doubt on democracy as a whole. Casting doubt on our institutions, whether it be elections, the Justice Department, the FBI, the free press, etc, is page one in the wannabe dictator playbook. 

Acceptance and gracious congratulations when a candidate loses along with the peaceful transfer of power to the winning candidate, is one of the primary characteristics of a democracy. Denial of an election loss almost 2 full years after the election, is the mark of a autocrat who will destroy everything to stay in power. 

But I digress.

As far as I can tell, there is an ongoing demographic shift, one that will, in fact, create an America in which the white majority will be less than 50% of the population. Of course, this is not the first time that the native people of the United States feared an influx of immigrants. I was talking about this with my son last weekend, and he reminded me that in the early 20th century, the same sort of fears were prevalent in reference to the great immigration wave that changed America's demographics. At that time, there were many critics of the peoples coming from Europe, especially those with swarthy complexions. Those darker whites, along with the other Europeans who brought over their strange foods, cultures, music, language, etc, were thought of as invaders by many "native" Americans of the time, who could trace their lineage to the Pilgrims. Those nativists thought that their idea of America would be changed forever by these European immigrants, their culture lost into a morass of new ideas and traditions. 

The fact that those very Pilgrims were immigrants themselves only 200 years in the past, seemed lost on them. Not to mention that the actual natives of North America, a myriad of tribes that had existed on this continent for centuries, were systematically pushed further and further west, victims of a manifest destiny that justified stealing their homelands and decimating their populations.

If anyone has the right to talk about replacement theory, it might be the Native American population!

And now, the voices of the children and grandchildren of those very immigrants who were castigated as foreigners who would alter America forever, sing the same song about today's immigrants. Except that when "white" was eventually redefined to include those with off white complexions, we now hear the quiet part being said out loud by racist commentators who have no problem calling people from south of our border rapists and criminals, or dehumanizing those from s*ithole countries, countries that just happen to have darker people.

We all know that change is hard, and societal change even harder as that kind of change can take a generation or more. Just as the Italian, Irish, German, French, Swede, etc immigrants of the early 20th century were eventually accepted by most Americans as Americans by the middle of the 20th century, today's immigrants will be similarly accepted by our grandchildren. 

After all, very few people get upset today if their child is dating or marrying outside their particular ancestry once we become a 2nd or 3rd generation American family. Similarly, I feel confident that our grandchildren will have a similar perspective about a 2nd or 3rd generation American with ancestry from one of the countries that we now label as the source of today's invaders. 

Curiously, when importing slaves was at its zenith, resulting in many white landowners owning far more black slaves as there were white family members, there was little concern about the danger of replacing whites with other races, mostly since those slaves were powerless, without rights. Makes one think that control is the real issue here, or as I have said in the past, the fear that a white minority might be treated as horribly as the white majority treated those non-white peoples.

America is only 250 years old. We are inhabited by a mishmash of cultures, traditions, religion and race, philosophy and perspective. Some might say, we are great because of our diversity. So, when you hear people bashing diversity, advocating for a white nationalist agenda, or just seem to enjoy creating divisiveness by telling you which "others" are to blame for our troubles, in effect, they are saying that they don't like America. Or certainly, not the America that was built in great part by people who themselves or whose parents were not born here.  

What is truly ironic, is that now that we have mapped the human genome, we know that almost every person alive today has some small percentage of African ancestry in their DNA. 

In reality, skin color is just a matter of degree. One could even say, we are all black, just some of us are a lighter shade, or we are all white, just some of us are a darker shade. 

In the end, wouldn't it be great if we noticed skin color with the same attention as we notice handedness?

 

The 90% Boat

A few posts ago, I mentioned my concern over the commercials being aired against the student debt forgiveness program. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/09/student-debt-decision.html

My issue wasn't that some people think student debt forgiveness is a bad idea, but my feeling that the organization sponsoring the ad was organized and funded by wealthy people, and that, in my opinion, they were attempting to create a wedge between working class folks by appealing to their more selfish instincts. 

This "I don't want that group to get a benefit simply because I do not qualify for it" mentality seems to be a winning strategy for the rich. They use it to create jealousy between various segments of the 90% of us who make below $125,000 a year all the while deflecting their own culpability for some of the ills of our nation.

I experienced the effectiveness of this strategy just a few days ago.  I was speaking with a very nice co-worker about wages. She truly believed that there were some jobs that didn't deserve a salary of $15 an hour. She had totally bought into the rich people scam that paying a livable wage to the everyday workers of America was one of the causes of inflation. It reminded me of all the negative talk about unions that proliferated in the 70's and 80's when unions were in their heyday, and overall middle class wages were, relatively, as high as they had ever been. Unfortunately, too many middle class voters believed this propaganda.  Since 1985, union membership has dropped by almost half, while middle class buying power has remained static.

The rich got richer by outsourcing middle class jobs overseas, and won the battle of who was to blame for stagnant middle class wages by convincing many Americans that it was lazy union workers that forced them to export their jobs. 

Fade to another of those anti student loan forgiveness ads, and the narrator tells us that union workers who have been busting their hump (at real jobs, is the insinuation) are now forced to pay the debt of blue haired, gender studies graduate snowflakes who can't pay their own way.  Imagine that, union workers who were vilified by the rich a generation ago, are now the good guys against lazy, elite, college graduates who don't want to work!

Let me be clear. The 90% of us MUST begin to evaluate these ads, and to understand that this concerted effort to pit us against each other is all designed to deflect the simple fact that there is plenty of money in America, plenty of resources that would enable all working people to earn a livable wage, but the rich do not want to provide us our fair share. As long as they can keep us at bay from demanding, in unison, for livable wages (as well as health and PTO benefits), they can continue to increase their portion of the wealth in America.

According to federal reserve data as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the US held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held just 2.6%. In 1990, those same top 1% held just about 10% less, 23.5% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held about 3.6%. Even worse though, is the change in wealth held by those in the 50 to 90th percentile of earners.  Their percentage of America's wealth dropped from 36.7% to about 29%. Those are middle class workers, those making between $40K and $80K.

I have presented this example before but will repeat it anyway as it continues to be needed to be heard.  Increasing hourly wages from $13 to $15 per hour is doable, without increasing inflation, if large companies with executives making $10 million a year or more would take a 1 or 2 million dollar pay reduction. For every $1 million, which is roughly $20,000 a week, 250 people could get a $2 per hour raise (40 hours times $2 is $80, times 250 equals $20K).  $2 million gives 500 people that $2 per hour without altering overall pay roll, without passing along the extra labor costs to consumers, which is corporate talk for "we put our bottom line and stockholders needs above our customers ability to afford our product".

But Joe, you say, a 1 or 2 million dollar pay cut is a lot! Yes, it is, but when the average CEO makes $20 million per year, I believe they could struggle by on 18 or 19 million, don't you?  Also, what about athletes? While I am certainly a sports fan, I believe that $40 million salaries for the top athletes in professional sports is ridiculous. I also believe they could live comfortably on $30 million, which would free up $10 million for all those people who work behind the scenes.  Food vendors at the stadiums, office staff who support the organization's owners, players and coaches who earn average pay. Perhaps even lowering tickets (and food prices at the games) so that average people could afford to attend.

I know that the corporate mentality includes a cost saving aspect, and, of course, labor costs are usually 40, 50, sometimes even 60% of those costs. But, doesn't a livable wage for everyone result in less state and federal assistance (less spending)?  When salaries for the everyday American allows him/her to live comfortably, to buy products and services that increase demand for those products and services, doesn't that make business more profitable?  

Currently, the fed is increasing interest rates to combat inflation, thereby crushing the stock market which puts pressure on CEO's and corporate boards to reduce costs to maintain their stock price, and satisfy stockholders. Which is supposed to lead to less employment which leads to less spending which means less demand for products and services which leads to even more employee layoffs which may or may not cause a recession if all that can be coordinated enough to produce a "soft" landing.  

So, not being an economist, I think that this means that higher unemployment means less inflation which is good for stock prices, but sounds counter intuitive to demand for product and services.  Which leads me to my firm belief that Wall Street and Main Street are not only not in concert with what makes each successful, but might actually be on opposite ends of the pendulum, in that what is good for the rest of us, good paying jobs, is bad for Wall Street and those in the top 10% of incomes, which, apparently, includes those who sit on the Federal Reserve Board.

About a dozen years ago, I wrote a story about income distribution. At the time, I was thinking of a baseball player named Albert Pujols as the athlete in question, although I didn't name him, and he didn't follow the lead of my protagonist in the story.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/08/change.html 

Folks, the average CEO makes almost 250 times the salary of the average worker in their company.  Star athletes make more money in one year than 40 average workers do in their lifetime. Pay inequality exists, working people who need state and federal assistance exists, because those at the top have made a conscious decision to maintain, and enhance, an income distribution system that benefits them at the cost of the rest of us, those of us in the 90% boat. And, worse, they create and pay for media propaganda that purposefully tries to create rifts between us, to convince us that it is the fault of those we share our 90% boat with. 

We need to stop rocking our own boat, stop buying into the lies that our fellow boat travelers are keeping us from financial stability, that it is poor people, or immigrants, those at the very lowest rungs of the boat that are at fault, when it is clearly those sitting in comfort at the head of the boat, those who don't even do much of the rowing, but seem to have all the best seats, who are the problem.

So, the next time you see or hear an ad that tells you some blue haired college graduate, or refugee from a war torn country, or immigrant who has come to America to find opportunity and freedom, or even a hump busting union steel worker, is the problem with America, know that they are in the same boat as you, part of the 90% boat, and it is the other 10% that is the real reason why the middle class is shrinking, and half of us only own 3 percent of our great country's wealth.