Evolution, Adaptation and Work

[Gary Childress]

I love to play. I hate to work. In this I believe I am not alone. If given a choice which would you rather do, play a game of Civilization or mow the lawn?

Something seems strange about this. Why should I love to do things that will lead to no tangible benefit to me and hate to do things that will have tangible benefit to me? I've always believed in the theory of evolution but one thing that doesn't make sense to me is why we humans seem so socially dysfunctional? If survival of the fittest is the rule then it seems like the better we are adapted to society the more likely we and society will thrive. Those who like to do things that will ensure survival like work should fare better than those who do not like to do things that will ensure survival like play computer games.

Thank of an ant colony. I typically view an ant colony as a homogenous, harmonious system. Every ant knows its place and does its job to ensure survival of the colony. But we humans are different. We seem maladapted to the world. What is the evolutionary value of playing games versus doing work? Why do we like to do things that will not get us anywhere important and hate to do the things that will get us to important places.

If I were ideally suited to my environment then it seems to me that I would like to mow the lawn and trim the hedges as a matter of joy and fun. If I were better adapted I would like to dig ditches or fry food or work on an accounting spreadsheet. Just think if I LOVED accounting? I could become a millionaire if I were good at accounting. Wouldn't that be the ultimate expression of survival of the fittest. In a world where accountanting pays well I should love to do accounting.

So why is it that we humans often love to do things that are of little real benefit to us and hate to do things that are of great benefit? Isn't that bassackward? Was Darwin wrong? Is it really survival of the cheesiest?

 

[Tambien]

Well, much of it is probably harwired into the way our brains work and our evolutionary history.

Imagination has always been the way that humans have survived. When we make better things, we do better. Stuff that requires little thought, such as mowing the lawn, is not imaginative and requires little brain activity.

I have always noticed that while it may make me a little tired, I always come away from intellectual or imaginative activies feeling satisfied, while when mowing I am bored out of my mind and hate such non-thought tasks. I also always preform much better during those thought-provoking activities than non.

What I'm trying to say here is that your brain is hardwired to think that activites requiring imagination are GOOD and FUN, because that is what got our ancestors through life. You cant always hunt the same way, for example. You need to be able to make up things, and be able to imagine how to get that great beastie. Thus, imagination is a survival skill.

On the other hand, boring things register as BAD and NOT FUN because that stuff just takes time away from our productive imaginitive time.

I hope that made sense.

Regards,

TAM

 

[emzie]

A few things. Evolution is not survival of the fittest. It's reproduction of the fittest. That's a crucial difference. If you work yourself to death to rule the country, but never have kids, that work didn't matter as far as evoltuion is concerned.

There's very little that's "natural" about the world you and I live in. Most of history has been in small tribes where no single person was able to accrue a massively disproportionate amount of power. Put another way, the situation where emperors had hundreds of concubines was not possible until empires formed in the first place. As such, there was only a finite reward for working harder than everyone else in your tribe: perhaps you got an extra wife.

Before a creationist jumps in, what I just said was a very basic version of what probably goes on. It's not a polished description. Don't misquote me.

 

[Gary Childress]

A few things. Evolution is not survival of the fittest. It's reproduction of the fittest. That's a crucial difference. If you work yourself to death to rule the country, but never have kids, that work didn't matter as far as evoltuion is concerned.

Whether its survival of the fittest or reproduction of the fittest, either way it seems to me that if we loved to dig ditches or balance spreadsheets we would do much better for ourselves and for others in general than playing around at leisure diversions. I should love to work my fingers to the bone. In fact those who love to work their fingers to the bone should attract more mates and reproduce more.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

My answer is pretty simple: Your survival (or as contre correctly pointed out reproduction) never depended on moaning your lawn, or cutting your hedge. In a more general sense, your survival never depended on activity which has nothing to do with your survival. Sounds logical, right? But only thinks which will actually cause your species to not be able to continue are relevant factors in the sense of the theory of evolution. Though it is always important to point out, that evolution is no clockwork. It is a matter of chance, so not everything will make sense. So as useful as it is to understand why we are what we are - take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I should love to work my fingers to the bone.

Evolution is not about you being happy. "Love" is only utilized in so far as that it is actually necessary. You don't need to love making a speer. You just have to need to hate to starve and need to love to have gained the means to prevent that. As a moaned lawn has no such implication - duh.
In deed, that is a way more flexible and hence effective approach.

 

[Kozmos]

If mowing lawns would get you laid with a near certainty you would be out there mowing lawns.

 

[emzie]

Whether its survival of the fittest or reproduction of the fittest, either way it seems to me that if we loved to dig ditches or balance spreadsheets we would do much better for ourselves and for others in general than playing around at leisure diversions. I should love to work my fingers to the bone. In fact those who love to work their fingers to the bone should attract more mates and reproduce more.

If anything, social interaction -- aka not working your ass off -- is likely to lead elsewhere.

If mowing lawns would get you laid with a near certainty you would be out there mowing lawns.

Related:

Spoiler :

Link to video.

 

[timtofly]

A few things. Evolution is not survival of the fittest. It's reproduction of the fittest. That's a crucial difference. If you work yourself to death to rule the country, but never have kids, that work didn't matter as far as evoltuion is concerned.

There's very little that's "natural" about the world you and I live in. Most of history has been in small tribes where no single person was able to accrue a massively disproportionate amount of power. Put another way, the situation where emperors had hundreds of concubines was not possible until empires formed in the first place. As such, there was only a finite reward for working harder than everyone else in your tribe: perhaps you got an extra wife.

Before a creationist jumps in, what I just said was a very basic version of what probably goes on. It's not a polished description. Don't misquote me.

I would have to agree with this evaluation.

 

[warpus]

Whether its survival of the fittest or reproduction of the fittest, either way it seems to me that if we loved to dig ditches or balance spreadsheets we would do much better for ourselves and for others in general than playing around at leisure diversions. I should love to work my fingers to the bone. In fact those who love to work their fingers to the bone should attract more mates and reproduce more.

Gary, jobs didn't exist for most of human existence.

For most of human existence most people didn't get any leisure time (or we got a bit but not much) - that's why we enjoy it so much.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This thread comes close to being an example of social Darwinism. I think we need a different word to describe either human development or Darwinism, or both, to keep them firmly separated.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

For most of human existence most people didn't get any leisure time (or we got a bit but not much) - that's why we enjoy it so much.

Hunter and Gatheres had easily more leisure time than your typical guy working 40h a week + driving + other choirs and duties.

This thread comes close to being an example of social Darwinism. I think we need a different word to describe either human development or Darwinism, or both, to keep them firmly separated.

They are not firmly separated.

 

[Slobadog]

You'll find that many so called useless, fun activities are in one way or another utilizing useful survival traits. For example civ allow oneself to exercise their group and resource managements skills . Its basicly practice. If you played call of duty you'd be practicing you self defense skills. If you'd be playing Wii Sports Resort you'd be practicing quite complex hand/eye coordination skills. If you'd be playing tetris you'd be exercising your rabid puzzle solving skills . If you'd be playing Banjo-Kazooie or similar platformer you'd be practicing your foraging/collecting/exploring skills . If you'd be playing harvest moon you'd be practicing way more homestead managements skills than just cutting grass. Why are you just cutting grass? What did that teach you? To move a machine simply straight back and forth? From nature's point of view you sure chose a dumb survival strategy. And besides cutting grass is not why your here. Your here for advice from a community. Civ led you to that community. And now here we are pointing out the silly error of your ways. Notice the grass didn't do that. While touching. Nevertheless its time to reconsider you relationship with the grass.

 

[warpus]

Hunter and Gatheres had easily more leisure time than your typical guy working 40h a week + driving + other choirs and duties.

They are not firmly separated.

You think so? Didn't they spend all of their time hunting, gathering, and sleeping?

 

[Leoreth]

Hunter and Gatheres had easily more leisure time than your typical guy working 40h a week + driving + other choirs and duties.

Civ was clearly invented during the wrong stage of human society

 

[Murky]

You can often mix both work and pleasure. For instance you could listen to music while cleaning the house. I sometimes have a youtube video playing on one monitor while I'm working on another.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You think so? Didn't they spend all of their time hunting, gathering, and sleeping?

I do from all I have gathered.
Here is a quote from wikipedia

According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well. Their "affluence" came from the idea that they are satisfied with very little in the material sense. This, he said, constituted a Zen economy.[22] These people met the same requirements as their sedentary neighbors through much less complex means.

Just think about it logically - must hunting and gathering really be that hard? Why would it? If your entire communal culture is designed to perfectly match this lifestyle - won't you be pretty good at it? What are the chances that it has to take all day?
But not enough with that, their "working time" was still a lot more like leisure than modern working time. Think of people who hunt as a sport or go hiking - for leisure. You will hardly fine one who does the various tedious kinds of modern work for fun.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think Sill's hitting on a very important point, here: that in hunter-gatherer societies, the "work/leisure" distinction was/is not clearly-articulated, and in fact only really attains the stark contrast we experience with the emergence of industrial capitalism. I would go so far as to argue that the whole mental construction of "work v. leisure" is a form of internalised discipline, a reflection of the interests of the slave-owner/landlord/employer rather than a simple, common-sense distinction.

 

[emzie]

You think so? Didn't they spend all of their time hunting, gathering, and sleeping?

No. The downside to hunting and gathering is that if people choose to take up farming, they will out number you pretty quickly. Thus hunting and gathering as a life style goes extinct rapidly everywhere but where farming is not practical (think Namibia and San people). It's a nasty twist but taking up farming didn't improve the lives of our ancestors -- in many cases, the individual was much worse off -- it just allowed for their populations to grow larger.

 

[Winner]

Gary, jobs didn't exist for most of human existence.

For most of human existence most people didn't get any leisure time (or we got a bit but not much) - that's why we enjoy it so much.

Actually, hunter-gatherers had plenty of free time (time not spent obtaining nourishment). Much more than people had for most of our "civilized" history. Which would explain why we are naturally not-so-happy about doing chores.

---

My answer to the question - we evolved to like obtaining food through hunting/gathering, not by doing repetitive, boring jobs. Hunting as a process is pretty exciting compared to mowing lawns, thus your brain feels underutilized and understimulated. You have to keep in mind that mowing lawns or playing Civ didn't shape our evolutionary history. Humans "finished" their evolution (I know, it's never finished, but I mean it as "reached their present form") as hunter-gatherers. Modern activities thus need to be seen through this lens.

Thus, the question is largely wrong - we do like things that ensure our survival... or they would if we were still hunter-gatherers. The "problem" is that we're not. Civilized life means we are forced to do many things that are very, very far from what our brains are optimized for. Therefore, we want entertainment.