I was awakened unusually early this morning by the hum of a nearby highway, perhaps caused by atmospheric conditions that favored sound's travel.  It was my good fortune that the freshness of an abruptly interrupted dream revealed to me thoughts for an answer to my long quest for an understanding of the question: Why is there a fundamental difference in attitude toward one's fellow man that seems always to divide people into two distinct types?  I believe that I can now describe the types in terms of their essence, and give an accounting for its origins in the ancestral environment.

In the dream I was at an airport, waiting in line to board a plane that would take me away from a country in chaos.  Some people were more experienced in air travel than others, and I was trying to be helpful to the less experienced.  However, I noticed that others were taking advantage of the confusion by quietly reforming a line that would get them ahead.   That's when it occurred to me: Some people believe that the strong should protect the weak, while others believe the strong have a license to exploit the weak!

I was reminded of the quote my mother pinned on the wall above our family desk, which baffled me for years: "For unto those to whom much has been given, shall much be expected."  I eventually realized that this was a motto for the nobility, who felt an obligation to protect those less favorably endowed.  I must have internalized this motto, for I feel a "noblesse oblige" obligation to those who cannot navigate life as well as I can.

The differing attitudes of whether to help or take advantage of others define a spectrum with opposite poles, in many realms of social interaction. I now understand a factor that causes people to naturally associate themselves with either the Democratic or Republican political ideology.  The Libertarians are an extreme example of the latter.

The structure of law must have been put in place to protect the weak from the strong.  The fact that lawful societies do better than lawless ones means that the weak, in spite of their physical weaknesses, must have something of value to contribute to the group.  By restraining the strong from a tendency to exploit the weak, the group of differing types form a stronger whole.

There are many analogs to this fundamental conflict of what to do with one's strength.  A parent protects its offspring until they are strong enough to enter the adult world without protection.  A society could not function unless other adults respected this special category for children.  Related individuals remain loyal to each other throughout life, whereas unrelated individuals become fair game under most circumstances.  Only when a tribe is attacked by another will all members of one's own warrant protection, for genetic relatedness within ones own tribe is likely to be greater than with members of neighboring tribes.

A society is challenged when it grows to such a large size that the body of behaviors based on genetic relatedness break down.  When a person can walk among the general public and not recognize anyone, we should not be surprised if their attitude undergoes a slow change.  This situation resembles finding oneself alone in a neighboring tribe, where you are not closely related to anyone, and where mutual trust is not adaptive.  At such times it is appropriate to abandon the "noblesse oblige" attitude, and become willing to exploit others when opportunities occur.

This attitude of "opportunistic exploitation" must be the enemy of every civilization successful enough to sustain a growing population.  It is a challenge for every advanced society, and laws alone may be inadequate to preserve the dynamics that create and sustain civilizations.  Human Nature evolved in delicate balance with its ancestral environment, and it's fate in a novel future is an untold story.

This site opened:  January 8, 2002.  Last Update:  January 8, 2002