The illusion of individual holiness and the power of mass collaboration

The history of the earth is largely determined by a single animal species, which stands out from all other living beings to the greatest extent through its ability to cooperate flexibly. This unique feature allowed humans to shape the entire planetary surface, dig deep into the mysteries of matter, and even reach space.Circumstances cast a critical light on the widespread assumption that each individual possesses an inviolable and sacred core. If the enormous success of the species is not based on a special soul, but simply on the sheer quantity and organization, then the concept of individual inviolability loses its previous basis. This realization forces usto look at human coexistence and the true driving forces of our societies in a completely new way.

The fallacy of special human nature

We tend to think of ourselves as the crown of creation and derive all sorts of privileges from it. As proof of this special position, we often cite the enormous structures and scientific breakthroughs that humanity has produced over time. These include monumental structures such as the ancient tombs in Egypt or the enormous fortifications inAsia. Likewise, deciphering the innermost structure of matter and researching the human genome are among these outstanding milestones. In addition, there are the physical expeditions to the remotest corners of the earth and to other celestial bodies.

The true source of our monumental achievements

If all these triumphs were the result of a special essence that lies dormant in each and every one of us, then the worship of individual life would be quite logical. However, since these tremendous achievements are in truth the result of the interaction of countless individuals, the justification for the sacrosanct position of the individual remains completely unclear. A huge swarm ofInsects undoubtedly have a far greater impact than a single fluttering animal. Nevertheless, no one would claim that a single insect from the swarm is therefore more sacred than a lonely butterfly. Likewise, a political organization in Eastern Europe successfully ruled over the unorganized population of their country.

Comparisons from wildlife and political history

However, this does not mean that the lives of the rulers were more valuable than those of ordinary citizens. Our species understands how to create effective structures far better than the great apes, which explains the construction of aircraft for the journey to the moon, while our closest relatives at the zoo only throw stones. However, this does not automatically mean that wehigher-quality living beings. Rather, it depends on which mechanisms enable us to interact in this way in the first place. Why are only we able to create such complex and extensive social structures?

The limits of personal acquaintance in the animal world

In most social mammals, joint action is based on personal acquaintance and close familiarity. Our closest relatives in the jungle only go hunting together when they know each other well and have established a fixed ranking. For this reason, these animals spend a lot of time in social interactions and constant power struggles. Meet strangersGroups, it is impossible to act together, which usually ends in loud shouting, fighting or immediate flight. In a different species of great apes, the approach to social bonding looks slightly different.

The strategy of peaceful conflict resolution among our relatives

These animals use physical love to relieve tension and strengthen the social fabric. Therefore, same-sex love is a frequent and completely normal means of maintaining cohesion. When two foreign groups meet, there is initially fear and hostility, which manifests itself in loud howls. Very soon, however, the females approach the oneGroup to the stranger and offer a peaceful and loving interaction. This gesture is almost always accepted, and after a short time the former battlefield is full of animals exchanging affection in every conceivable position.

The insufficient basis of personal relationships for large networks

Our kind is very familiar with these tricks of conflict resolution and bonding. Sometimes we form similar rankings to the more violent apes, while in other situations we strengthen social ties through physical love. But personal acquaintance, whether through struggles or through love, is not suitable as a foundation for cooperation on a huge scale.economic crises in Europe cannot be solved by inviting politicians and bankers to a fistfight or an orgiastic festival. Research clearly shows that a person can establish close relationships with at most 150 individuals.

The errors of small series of experiments for complex societies

Whatever enables us to organize huge networks, close personal relationships are definitely not. This fact is a thorn in the side of those scientists who want to decipher human society through small experiments in closed rooms. For organisational and financial reasons, the vast majority of such experiments will be conducted on individualsor small groups. However, it is extremely risky to infer the dynamics of huge societies from the behavior of small groups. A state with 100000000 inhabitants works fundamentally differently than a small community with 100 members.

The limits of rational economics in everyday life

A well-known example from behavioral research is a game that involves splitting a sum of money. Typically, one person will receive 100 monetary units to share with another person at their discretion. The recipient of the offer can either accept or reject it, whereby in the event of a rejection, both will be empty. The classical teachings ofEconomics claims that man is a purely rational calculating machine. According to this logic, the first participant would keep 99 units and the recipient would gratefully accept a tiny unit.

The emotional logic of human coexistence

The exponents of these ancient teachings have arguably never left their sheltered spaces to contemplate the real world. In practice, most people reject very low offers because they feel they are unfair. They would rather forgo a small gain than feel taken advantage of. Since the real world works this way, the initial participants usually make fair offers,which provide for an even or only slightly uneven distribution. This behavior refuted the old economic teachings and led to the realization that we are not controlled by cool mathematics, but by warm social logic.

The evolutionary roots of our sense of justice

Our feelings are in truth complex processes that reflect the coexistence in early groups of hunter-gatherers. If someone helped hunt 10,000 years ago and then kept all the prey for themselves, this was not tacitly accepted. Instead, the evolutionary programs were running at full speed, the body was pouring out hormones, and you brought your angereven if you starved or risked spanking in the short term, this anger paid off in the long run, as the scammer changed his mind the next time. We reject unfair offers because those who accepted such humiliations without complaint did not survive in the Stone Age.

The innate sense of equality in animals and early humans

Observations on today’s indigenous peoples support this assumption, as their groups are strongly concerned with equality. If a hunter returns with rich prey, each community member gets their fair share. Similar behavior is shown by our closest relatives in the jungle, who always divide hunted animals among themselves. In a revealing trial, twomonkeys sitting next to each other for handing over stones, first cucumber pieces as a reward. When one of the monkeys suddenly received grapes, while the other continued to receive only cucumbers, he was deeply outraged.

The discrepancy between small groups and huge empires

The betrayed monkey threw back his reward furiously and protested loudly against this injustice. Such observations led to the assumption that primates possess natural morality and equality is a universal value. These theories may apply to small groups of monkeys or primitive peoples, as well as to experiments in enclosed spaces. But as soon as youBehaviour of huge crowds reveals a completely different reality. Most historical empires were extremely unequal, yet they were surprisingly stable and functioned over long periods of time.

The Stability of Extreme Inequality in History

In ancient Egypt, the ruler rested on soft cushions in luxurious rooms, wore noble robes and let himself be fed with fruit by beautiful servants. Through the window he looked at the farmers, who toiled in dirty clothes under the burning sun and had to be happy if they were allowed to eat a simple cucumber in the evening. Nevertheless, these exploited people only covetedextremely rarely against their rulers. Millennia later, a Prussian ruler moved into an area, sparking a series of bloody wars that earned him the reputation of a great general. These conflicts cost countless lives or plunged them into the deepest misery.

The Riddle of Obedience in Military Hierarchies

The soldiers of this ruler were mostly unfortunate recruits subjected to an iron drill and harsh discipline. It is not surprising that these men did not love their commander-in-chief, but rather feared or hated him. The ruler once remarked that he was most impressed by how he stood safely in front of 60,000 armed men who were all his enemiesbut instead trembled in his presence. Despite all the hardships and misery, these vast armies never once rose up against their master, but fought for him with extraordinary courage. Many risked their lives and even sacrificed them for a cause that actually only brought them suffering.

The Mechanisms of Control in Mass Societies

This behavior completely contradicts the expectations one might have due to the small distribution games and the monkey attempts. The reason for this lies in the fact that a huge mass of people reacts fundamentally differently than a small group. If you were to play such a game with two groups of 10,000 people each, who would have to distribute huge sums, it would befascinating dynamics. Since 1000000 people cannot decide together, they would appoint small ruling elites. If these elites then negotiated extremely unequal offers, the leaders of the disadvantaged group could well accept them.

The Invention of Divine and Natural Orders

They would shift some of the profits to secret accounts abroad, while preventing an uprising of their followers through a mix of reward and punishment. The leadership would threaten to punish deviants harshly while promising eternal rewards to the tolerant in the afterlife. This is exactly what happened in ancient Egypt and Prussia of the past, and sothings are still working in many countries today. With the help of such threats and promises, it is possible to create stable hierarchies and huge networks. However, this only works as long as people believe that these orders are based on inevitable natural laws or divine commandments and not on human whims.

The power of shared imagination

Any form of cooperation on a large scale is ultimately based on our belief in invented orders. These are structures of rules that exist only in our imagination, but which we consider as real and irrefutable as gravity. Whoever follows the divine precepts and honors the ancestors is promised a place in the hereafter, while unbelievers face eternal damnationthreatened. As long as everyone in a certain place believes in the same stories, they follow the same rules. This makes it easy to predict the behaviour of strangers and enables the organisation of huge networks.

The Visible Signs of Common Faith

People often use visible features such as a certain headgear, beard, or business attire to signal their affiliation. These external signs show the other person that he adheres to the same faith and can therefore be trusted. Our closest relatives in the jungle are unable to invent and spread such stories.for this reason, they cannot work together in large numbers and over long distances. Humanity, on the other hand, has subjugated the entire earth through the power of common myths and fabricated truths.