Altruism and selfishness have been in the lexicon of human behavior since the inception of our species. They have been selected through the process of evolution for their fitness surviving into our contemporary society, a society in which their fitness and manifestation have been altered, calling for the reevaluation (something not even possible in our more primitive state) of their place in society and their benefits and detriments on those who act through them on their own behalf and in the interests of others. I will be speaking mainly of selfishness in two senses, the first being the short-sighted goal of personal happiness (psychological selfishness), and the second being the excessive practice of consumerism (material selfishness) which is often used without consideration for its wider ramifications in an effort to fulfill the end of personal happiness sought by selfishness in the first sense. The commonplace nature and consequences of consumerism are described by Schlosser, (although, rather rhetorically), quoting members of the London Green Peace, stating, "the company [McDonald's] 'epitomizes everything we despise: a junk culture, the deadly banality of capitalism'" (493). Just why the banality of capitalism (a system of minimally regulated consumerism) is so virulent is something which I will go on to discuss later, but suffice it to say that such a triteness of something so allegedly deadly, lends particular importance to my consideration of why it is so commonplace and seldom seriously questioned, and whether it is indeed such a bad thing. I will be attempting to argue in this paper that beyond selfish and unbridled consumerism's negative impacts on society as a whole, its attempt to fulfill the end (personal happiness) of selfishness in the first sense described is contradictory to that end because of its means. I will suggest rather that altruism (psychological and material) is, in addition to being something which assuages the ill effects of consumerism and other social problems, infinitely more conducive to personal happiness than raw consumerism.

The Contemporary Struggle for Existence

Humans are members of a k-strategist species. That is, we produce relatively few offspring, and certain evolutionary controls have been put in place through natural selection to ensure that those that are produced are sustainable. One control selected to meet this need is our species' strong kin-bond without which our species would have long ago died out, as not nearly enough of our offspring would have survived through infancy. This was particularly necessary during our species' more primitive pre-agrarian state during which resources were particular scarce and the tendency for parent-offspring altruism had to be strong enough to override selfish considerations over the distribution of resources. This kin-bond was in De Waal's view (and I concur) the original precursor of modern altruism. He writes, explaining the process by which altruism is extrapolated from the kin-bond, "from an evolutionary perspective, care for non-offspring may be maladaptive, but from a psychological perspective, it remains entirely authentic and fitting behavior for the species" (323). Here described, is not only the reason for the original extrapolation of altruism, but also the personal (psychologically selfish) reward reaped from the implementation of altruism, which gives incentive for its initial use.

Such a theory of naturally selected altruism is not however free from duality, in fact there are cynics who would claim that altruism is not a part of the natural state of humans at all, cynics like "Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Henry Huxley - who both preached that the original state of humankind, and of nature in general, is one in which selfish goals are pursued without regard for others" (De Waal 339). And clearly Hobbes and Huxley are correct in their assumption that selfishness (material) is part of the natural state of man. Were this not true, it would not be so readily observed in society and nature, but their absolutist view and their assertion that these goals are invariably "pursued without regard for others" are misleading. Selfishness, like altruism, was selected in order for our species to perpetuate itself. It was necessary in our first stage of independent development in order to ensure that we were aware of our self-interests, our material needs (on a basic level, food and shelter). When it came time for reproduction it was then needed to amass material security, thus creating (optimally) an elevated status, one which would attract mating partners who would see the material abundance, signaling that here was a good mate who would be able to provide for offspring, making likely the perpetuation of the bloodline of both. Indeed, such material selfishness is pursued with regard for others. From an evolutionary perspective, such selfishness selected, is pursued in the interests of offspring, and more generally the interests of the species.

Such material selfishness is, however, no longer necessary for the perpetuation of offspring or of the species in our industrialized society. In fact such a tendency, still present, may in our time of technological advancement be the cause of the deselection of its carriers (our species), although it has yet to be seen. Few would refute a claim that the majority of our global problems (e.g. war, pollution, nuclear arms) are the products of no more than our greed combined with our industrial capacity, a capacity which, if untamed, could be the source of our demise.


The Carrot on the End of the Stick

There are two primary qualities of contemporary human behavior, which have been extrapolated from the naturally selected tendencies of altruism and selfishness. These are humanity and consumerism respectively. The contrast between the prevalence of the first in ours and in other species is referenced by De Waal stating, "it is only when we make general judgments of how anyone ought to be treated that we can begin to speak of moral approval and disapproval. This is an area in which humans go radically farther than other primates" (352). The sole reasons for this contrast, I submit, are our society's advanced state of communication, and our advanced state of industrialization (in turn a product of communication). It is first of all easier for us to opt for humanity, since in our state of industrialized society there is an abundance of the necessities of survival to go around. Secondly, it is easier for us to recognize the altruism (or selfishness) of our actions if the joy or pain they cause is communicated to us. The place of communication in our moral decision-making is exemplified by Schlosser citing the McLibel controversy, stating, "One of the company's undercover agents later had a change of heart and testified on behalf of the McLibel defendants" (496). It seems unnecessary to point out that the agents moral decision was the product of exposure to the defendants' perspective, an exposure which showed her the immorality of McDonald's stance, forcing her to opt for the more psychologically rewarding and altruistic course of action.

Consumerism is similarly extrapolated from the ends of natural selection, however it is further emancipated from the rewards and purposes (perpetuation of species) of it. Humanitarianism extends the ends of altruism from kin to non-kin, while fundamental consumerism confines the ends of material selfishness more directly to one's self, alienating it from the evolutionary cause and leaving happiness to the caprice of one's material status. Such absolutist consumerism is parable to Schlosser's description of Las Vegas, as he quipped, "it is the ultimate consumer technology, designed to manufacture not a tangible product, but something much more elusive: a brief sense of hope. That is what Las Vegas really sells, the most brilliant illusion of all, a loss that feels like winning" (486). Similarly, that is what consumerism sells. There is a loss of any tangible tie with the purposes for which selfishness and altruism were selected, a loss that feels like winning (although only ever briefly) because of the entrenched nature of the drive for material wealth and status. It is a loss, which reaches for the extremes of excess, extremes which there is always someone else struggling for. It is a game, which no one wins, and whose only fulfillment is winning.


Dropping Out of the Hierarchy

For anyone who is currently mired in feelings of inadequacy because of your commercially ascribed status, on which consumerism is fed, my suggestion is your immediate withdrawal (psychological) from that system by which you are (as most consumers are) oppressed. It is important in doing so, I think, that you create your own attainable ends (free from the influence of consumerism) towards which to work, thus abdicated corporations' power to arbitrarily attach a value to your social status. Stille illustrates this distinction between the empirical world and internal interpretation writing of Mishra, stating, "If his lower body is slow and awkward, from his broken thigh, his face is highly mobile and expressive, as if to underscore the Hindu belief that the body is but an imperfect vessel for the noble spirit" (569). True is that belief, not only of the body, but also of the world. It is, as well, an imperfect vessel, one that can be used towards your nobler ends, whatever they may be. I am confident that if separated from social status they will be ones at the least consistent with altruism, because besides being antithetical to consumerism, besides having the psychological benefits put in place by natural selection, altruism is the only honest way of rejecting a system which depends on society for personal status, a system, which is, as before mentioned, a product of the mating system. Altruism reminds us of our own sentience and inherent value, by acknowledging that of others.


Disclaimer

Although consumerism as an end in itself is not conducive to happiness or altruism, the globalization that it has created, will, I believe, have the effect of increasing humanitarianism, by creating a common, homogenized culture through which we can understand each other, propagating the idea of human equality. I think this is something of which Schlosser was aware when he wrote, "and for a few hours the spirit of the American West fills this funky bar deep in the heart of Saxony, in a town that has seen too much history, and the old dream lives on, the dream of freedom without limits, self-reliance, and a wide-open frontier" (500). Like any facet of globalization (the increased abundance of food sources for example) this common culture is something, which could be used for the better. Or as Mishra states, "'these things - satellite television, this Internet surfing - are with us whether we like it or not…They are means. They can be used in a beautiful way. It is as if you were riding a lion - you should be strong enough to tame the lion, or it will eat you" (579).

Because consumerism (at least the kind that lacks any tangible ties to other ends), apart from being detrimental to society as a whole (when unfettered), doesn't even meet its goal of short-sighted (psychological) selfishness, it is absurd for anyone to pick this course of action over altruism when pitted against others, because humanitarianism, in addition to being beneficial to society, does fulfill the goals of short-sighted selfishness (personal happiness).

Back to top