Ayn Rand vs. the Pygmies

[Shankapotomus]

Ayn Rand vs. the Pygmies
Did human evolution favor individualists or altruists?
By Eric Michael Johnson|Posted Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012, at 12:02 AM ET



Black-and-white colobus monkeys scrambled through the branches of Congo’s Ituri Forest in 1957 as a small band of Mbuti hunters wound cautiously through the undergrowth, joined by anthropologist Colin Turnbull. The Mbuti are pygmies, about 4 feet tall, but they are powerful and tough. Any one of them could take down an elephant with only a short-handled spear. Recent genetic evidence suggests that pygmies have lived in this region for about 60,000 years. But this particular hunt reflected a timeless ethical conflict for our species, and one that has special relevance for contemporary American society.
The Mbuti employed long nets of twined liana bark to catch their prey, sometimes stretching the nets for 300 feet. Once the nets were hung, women and children began shouting, yelling, and beating the ground to frighten animals toward the trap. As Turnbull came to understand, Mbuti hunts were collective efforts in which each hunter’s success belonged to everybody else. But one man, a rugged individualist named Cephu, had other ideas. When no one was looking, Cephu slipped away to set up his own net in front of the others. “In this way he caught the first of the animals fleeing from the beaters,” explained Turnbull in his book The Forest People, “but he had not been able to retreat before he was discovered.” Word spread among camp members that Cephu had been trying to steal meat from the tribe, and ...

continues: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/groups_and_gossip_drove_the_evolution_of_human_nature.html

My own comments: Further written corroboration that there is an evolutionary benefit and advantage to a group species over a solitary species and, indeed, to me, that is what the author is illustrating in this piece. There is safety and strength in numbers and a species able to cooperate and share resources will almost always be in a better position for survival than a solitary species that is unable to cooperate with fellow members of its species over such basics as food and territory. As a interesting aside, since almost all species seem to retain inner species aggression over mating to one degree or another, one could only wonder what evolutionary advances would be spurred if such instinctual competition were also overcome. Probably diseases.

[lalalu]

1. I am not sure about this.

Group think and pressure to conform can be just as destructive. OK, their collective method worked but anyone thinking outside the box is condemned? Isn't that how progress is stagnated.

In this case the guy was just a greedy pig. But the same group condemnation is often applied to people who just want to try something different.

[Shankapotomus]

2. True

Dependent on how any idea is applied, the law of diminishing returns can sometimes kick in.