Home Maxwell Mary W Maxwell Writes to Sociobiologist EO Wilson

Mary W Maxwell Writes to Sociobiologist EO Wilson

5
Edward O. Wilson, Harvard's Pelegrino University Research Professor and Curator in Entomology in the Museum of Comparative Zoology inside his office, Tuesday, December 17, 2002. Staff Photo Justin Ide/Harvard University News Office
EO Wilson (b. 1929) “entomologist of humans” 

 

My dear Ed, Professor of All Things Bright and Beautiful,

In your latest book, The Meaning of Human Existence (2014), you say that 20 separate evolutionary lines led to 20 species having a complex society with division of labor.  Most of them are found among the insects, a few are shrimp, and three are mammals. Two of the mammal species are African mole rats and the other is, needless to say, us.

Too bad this wonderful sociobiological stuff is not taught in schools. I suppose it is kept off the curriculum on the pretext that it wouldn’t give sufficient glory to God. I mean we’re supposed to think human social behavior came about by a special divine action, and is in no way related to the social behavior of insects, shrimp, or, heaven forbid, rodents.

(When I say religion is invoked as a pretext, I have in mind that that’s NOT the real reason sociobiology is kept out of schools. Sociobiology is the true key to knowing who we are, and “certain persons” would rather we stay unenlightened about that. By the way – and just on a personal note — I think God could hardly have done anything more inspiring and thrilling than invent evolution!)

Your book, page 32, nicely sums up that every one of those twenty ‘lines’ of social evolution had the same basis. Namely, the original creature was selfish, but developed a living pattern that involved a ‘home,’ a nest. Then the creature (single, or in mated pairs, or in groups) went out to get food and bring it back to the young. They raise the young to maturity.

Since altruistic treatment of the offspring brings “reproductive success” (i.e., those offspring survive), altruism becomes an adaptive trait and can flourish. Yipee!

I will state below your report of the “multilevel” selection of humans. That is, you say humans have been subjected to both individual selection and group selection.

First, within a society, selfishness can have a good payoff; a thief may get more resources for his kids. This is a drain on the group, so people start to forbid such behavior. Biologically we develop “conscience” and “honor.”  (I feel sure morality is partly innate; why else would those traits have such emotional power?). Still, the urge for some rip-roaring sinning remains.

Second, we fight other groups. Here, selfishness (for one’s compadres) is a winning trait. Go hard against the enemy; your own society will support you in that. And, as Richard Alexander pointed out a long time ago, some of our group-loyalty traits evolved biologically in this context. I have in mind especially our fury with citizens who criticize our leader, and our avoidance of any sympathy for the enemy.

On page 63 of your new book, The Meaning of Human Existence, you note: “The two levels of natural selection, individual and group… are in opposition …. Their action is summarized in this maxim: selfish members win within groups, but groups of altruists best groups of selfish members.”

I am pleased that you do not try to offer a solution to the problem of the conflict that exists between these two drives. It cannot be resolved. It will always be a problem.

As you know, Ed, I labeled that problem ‘dual morality’ in my PhD thesis, which was published in 1990 as Morality among Nations: an Evolutionary View. The dedication of that book is:

“To EO Wilson, humanist, conservationist, friend.”

And how I do thank you for giving me the key, THE key.

Everything Has Changed!

But now I have a big disagreement to offer, Sir. Or maybe it’s not a disagreement, but a massive update. I want to argue that the instinct we all have, to be ruthless toward foreign groups, can become detached from that context. Humans can rather easily aim it against their own people by envisioning them as ‘enemy.’

Here are three elements in my new view:

  1. Thanks to modern structures, the ability to be the leader of one’s group does not necessarily entail any experience of shepherding the group, protecting it from outsiders, or winning the admiration of the people by, say, physical prowess.

A 97-pound weakling might rise to the top. He may be escorted to the top by a ‘hidden force.’ The hidden force consists of clever individuals who see how to manipulate any group for their own gain. They run puppet leaders, as it were.

  1. Ah, “hiddenness” brings up the subject of deception. Even individuals with no particular urge to harm outside groups engage in cheating. We evade taxes, we cheat on our spouse. And as I said, there can be hidden rulers who fool us by not showing their own face; they show us somebody else’s face. Another tool of deception is language. Words, phrases, and symbols can distract or to mislead. You have only to pick up today’s newspaper to see politicians speak gobbledygook.
  1. Dual morality — by which we hold quite different ethical sensibilities when dealing with own group or outsiders – has never been well-recognized. People are truly in the dark about this. When we go on a foreign raid to grab resources we never appeal to our soldiers by saying “Come on, today is resource-grab day. Load your gun.” It’s funny, we say “Load your gun so we can stand up for human rights.” Ah, doublethink.

To repeat the three elements of my proposition:

  1. A ‘leader’ today needn’t have proven any leadership qualities (and he may be fronting for an out-and-out baddy).
  2. Deception is a common trait; cheating is practically a human’s best subject. And language’s flexibility helps this.
  3. Folks are generally unaware that their morality stops at the border. They don’t realize we all practice a dual morality.

The Emergence of a Powerful World Government

Ed, your “multi-level selection” thing posits all people belonging to their tribe or nation. It implies that an individual looks to his group for the best protection. That is how I pictured reality when I wrote Morality among Nations in 1990.

The 327 (Dewey decimal) section of my university library at Adelaide provided mainly British sources for the theory of international relations, “IR.” There were discussions (which now look very silly to me) about such things as diplomacy, the just war, and the League of Nations. I didn’t catch on to the existence of a unified world government.

Of course there were overseas empires, not only in ancient days but in my lifetime. The British one and the Soviet one were visible enough to me. I also knew that there were “ruling families’ in many Latin American nations and was miffed that the US supported them (and puzzled that the Church did, too).

Still, I did not grow up till around 2005, when I got informed as to the nature of the 9-11 false flag. I now assume that one cabal runs all leaders. I have devoured all the literature on the hidden government. Much of it was sitting there all along in the library. Yes, proper scholarly conspiracy theory. (See my Youtube on this.)

I can’t say I have lifted the veil on these guys to the extent of being able to name them. I think they are based in the UK, but Wall Street is certainly a mainstay. Other possible locales – if they indeed need a locale – could be Netherlands and Switzerland, and maybe Japan. Some say the Vatican! For sure they own Tavistock, re ‘psy-war’ and Ft Detrick re bio-warfare.

By the time I published Prosecution for Treason in 2011, I had worked out that the US Congress is a joke, a front for this secret group. Pa-the-tic. As for the White House, all occupants since at least FDR are beholden to, or are members of, this World Government, this cabal). Have I been able to discuss this with any of my fellow Americans? Nah!

Why the Guys at the Top Are in a Bit of a Pickle

Ed, ya taught me all I know. Every thing that goes on in human life I view from the evolutionary perspective. So of course I see the Top Dogs as having the standard problem of the alpha male. (OK, OK, I realize that in ants and in the African mole rat it’s a female that runs the show.)

The main thing is that alphas have to worry, 24/7, about challenges from below.  Maybe in some species the old boy can retire, but in humans, each member of the top echelon today knows he’s done for if he slips.

I think that’s because the populace does in fact have some sort of weapon against these oppressive bastards, namely: law. You may think the heavies are too confident to worry about it, but I’ve seen them perform many machinations to stave off potential ‘legal redress.’ (Frankly, I think we should start negotiating with them; this could bring relief to both sides.)

I theorize that the idiots at the top are now putting all their effort into the protection of their respective hides. It must be exhausting! They have another handicap, too. How can they get their young’uns to pull their weight? Most of us can’t get a teenager to mow the lawn, never mind stay focused on directing every nuance of the world economy.

As you must have heard, Prof, the Gates family and the Rockefellers are interested in ‘depopulation.’ This is sometimes expressed as a desire to make the earth more habitable for our species, but of course that couldn’t be their motive. No way.

I believe there are indeed far too many of us dear little H sapiens; we are courting a crash. I regret that I’ve never put my time into trying to preach a moratorium on breeding. But the World Government rulers never try to use persuasion on that important subject.  They are, instead, busy planting poisons in vaccines or lowering human fertility by eliminating mating!

It must be obvious to you, Ed, that a hidden group wants to harm the earth rather than help it. After diligently looking into this for ten years I conclude that they are in fact sick, scared characters. Do they love “all creatures great and small” No. Would they know the principles of ecology if they tripped over them? No. Yet we permit them to dictate cultural change and make decisions about every damn thing in our lives.

Pierre van den Berge taught me that mafias are the norm in human society. I have to agree that such an arrangement works like a charm. A mere pair of men, or a triad, can be enough to intimidate people into submission. Pierre also holds that national governments are mafias. I can say for sure the FBI is indistinguishable from the mafia in many ways.

Do you recall the scene in The Godfather where Diane Keaton tells Robert DiNiro that she has just had an abortion, as she can’t see the point of bringing another child into such a terrible family? That scene made quite an impression on me. Mainly it conveyed the hopelessness of all mafia men — they simply cannot extricate themselves from their situation.

Mind the Planet

Ed, I have not regaled you here with what these idiots get up to. You may prefer not to hear about the weird things they do to children and to prisoners.  But of course you need to know the plans they have for wrecking the planet.

I see you working hard, in Bammy and elsewhere, to do the right thing for the earth. I acknowledge that you have done as much as anyone, maybe more than anyone, to figure out ways to correct people’s behavior in that regard. But your work is for naught if these maniacs are able to hold power.

I see them control the legislatures and the courts with an iron fist. (Ask me about the Boston Marathon case. Go on, ask me! Or google for “Maxwell, podstava”) The same cabal creates

an army, known as NATO, that can and does kill and destroy any nation, any old time. Right now they’re changing the nature of the ordinary cop to a Gestapo-like entity.

Note: academic people simply will not talk about this. I guess many of them are scared or hypnotized. Or else they’re in on it!

Let me recap. Centuries ago, some smart individuals got together to rule the roost, over any country they could reach. They are, for all practical purposes, a secret society: members are not identifiable, much less accountable. They feel no moral restraint.

I claim they’ve been able to utilize the evolved trait that permits one to be ruthless about destroying an enemy. It’s a trait we’re all “blessed with,” but unfortunately those guys view everybody as the enemy! My explanation for this, above, was that the precariousness of their position makes them get twisted. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” — bigtime.

In short, to save our magnificent planet we need to deploy some sociobiological concepts pronto. The public’s ignorance of our dual morality is costing us everything, and time is running out.

Well, I hope I’m wrong.

Lotsa love, Mary

 

— Mary W Maxwell, PhD (Politics), LLB, lives in Australia. She can be reached at her website maryWmaxwell.com. Her latest books are Fraud Upon the Court and, co-authored with Dee McLachlan, Truth in Journalism. Fancy that!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 COMMENTS

  1. Mary,
    Very thoughtful dissidation which needs time to contemplate.
    However, for most readers, you have left out two important considerations for the populace, being:
    Why did Thurstin’s kick at goal hit the right hand post and bounce to the left and what is the concept/entity you refer to as God?
    Any reference to God perhaps should be prefixed with a writer’s definition or concept perhaps?
    Claims of God vary, in short, some kings have described themselves as God and some accepted that.
    Examples of God are found everywhere, heaps of politicians act as Gods and many people claim to be his/ her CEO, especially when they convince followers to go kill and theive because it is God’s will.
    Atheists scoff at the concept of God but are short at defining what they are scoffing at.
    Oh well, , big subject but consider poor old God please, without defining the concept being referred to and who and in what form ‘she’ exists, if at all.
    (:-0

  2. EXAMPLE. I just happened to come across this quote in the melbourneunitarian.org.au:

    “Witness the latest hypocrisy from the United States, 12 June 2013:
    White house spokesman Jay Carney said Obama’s Syria policy was under constant review to find ‘what policy tools will help achieve our goal, which is a transition in Syria to a post-Assad government that respects the rights of the Syrian people and that gives that country a chance for a better future, a democratic future and an economically prosperous future.'”
    Oh my.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion