Altruistic behavior in the natural world

 Last time, we considered altruistic behavior in the human world. Since humans are social creatures, even the most egoistic person must work to earn a living, and work means contributing to the benefit of others, thus inevitably leading to altruistic behavior. Furthermore, acts that seek only one's own benefit without altruism are often defined as crimes and subject to social sanctions.

So, what about animals and plants other than humans?

First, let's look at the relationship between plants and animals. Plants bloom flowers and bear fruit. Insects suck nectar from flowers, and animals eat the fruit. At first glance, it seems that plants are unilaterally used by animals, but when insects suck nectar, pollen attaches to their bodies, and those insects then go to other flowers to pollinate them. When animals eat the fruit, seeds are excreted in their feces, but sprouts grow from those seeds, so the plant, though unable to move, expands its habitat.

In other words, even though each acts only considering their own benefit, they are cleverly being used. This suggests that altruistic behavior is inherently built into the very act of living.

Even in animals, ants and bees live social lives. This means that each individual is highly specialized. There are those who scout, those who carry food (worker ants, for example), those who lay eggs (queen bees, for example), those who fertilize eggs (male bees sometimes have only this function), and apparently there are even ants that fight and self-destruct when the nest is attacked (it seems there are kamikaze pilots among ants).

Even in monkey groups, the leader will fight to protect the group. Lions also hunt in a coordinated manner.

Surprisingly, altruistic behavior exists even in the natural world. This is likely because cooperation is advantageous for the survival of the species. In other words, altruistic behavior also benefits the individual. Furthermore, wouldn't developing altruistic behavior increase one's chances of survival?

Even so, when you look at fish, it might seem like they're simply surviving by eating lower-ranking fish and plankton, but even if they live by such ultimately selfish behavior, it all balances out in the end when they are eaten by other fish. Being eaten is the ultimate act of altruism, or rather, an altruistic outcome. Because they're offering their own life to another. Unwillingly, though. In Buddhist scriptures, Buddha is given his life to a hungry tiger as an example of extreme altruism, but krill do it all the time in practice. Unwillingly, though. But it's okay to be reluctant. When we eat meat, we don't think, "Did this chicken willingly offer its life to me, or was it unwilling?" The fact remains that by being eaten, they are contributing to the life of another. And the whale that continued to eat its fill of krill eventually reaches the end of its lifespan and dies, falling into the deep sea. There, deep-sea creatures await, providing essential food for deep-sea crabs, giant isopods, and deep-sea sharks. Whales are so large that their carcasses alone form a small deep-sea ecosystem.

So, the ultimate selfish act of killing and eating is balanced by the ultimate altruistic act of sacrificing one's own life to be eaten?

When you think about it, all living things are integrated into the natural ecosystem, living interconnected within that web. No living thing can survive in isolation. They must live in balance within the ecosystem, utilizing and being utilized by each other. And at the root of this is the plant, which, along with water and inorganic substances like nitrogen, converts solar energy into a form that other living things can use. In other words, plants are connected to the material world, and connected to the sun, that is, to the universe.

Ultimately, no living creature can survive unless self-interest and altruism are balanced. Therefore, when we live, consciously engaging in altruistic behavior can lead to a much better life.

Ninomiya Kinjiro once said that his concept of giving to others is like sowing seeds in a field; it will return hundreds or thousands of times over later. However, he also said that simply giving money isn't enough; the recipient might succumb to laziness and it won't necessarily bear fruit. It's crucial to give in a way that allows the recipient to recover and achieve great success. Giving money only for them to spend it on drinking or gambling is meaningless.

But wouldn't it be amazing if altruism came back to you hundreds or thousands of times over? If altruism equals self-interest, then it's just a 1x return with no gain or loss, but if it's hundreds or thousands of times over, then it's a huge gain, right?

Led by love and compassion.

←