The Fatal Inheritance
by John Bligh
A serialised synopsis by Martin Desvaux, PhD MinstP CPhys
Tribalism
‘The social history of mankind’, asserts Professor Bligh, ‘rests upon the instinct in each of us, as in animals generally, to survive for long enough to reproduce and nurture our progeny. This survival depends upon achieving three primary conditions: 1) finding, aggressively if needs be, enough food for oneself and one’s still dependent progeny; 2) finding a mate, or mates,and breeding successfully; and 3)being able to protect oneself and one’s still immature progeny from predation.’
In the prosecution and refinement of what is essentially a survival instinct, Tribalism has evolved as a major facet of human nature.
‘Homo Sapiens is, in strictly biological terms, a pack animal that lives in communities, and operates communally in the acquisition of food, in the defence of group territory and, when necessary, in the extension of territory by aggression … this instinctive behaviour is overlaid with learned social behaviour with strong tribal connections. Thus tribalism is based upon inherent properties with many differing degrees and patterns of cultural development and sophistication, which are passed on from generation to generation by processes of instruction through example and learning. … What is now dignified and cherished as national identity is really little more than functional tribalism reinforced by sundry cultural or learned influences … passed from generation to generation as matters of national pride.’
To the three basic drivers, namely territory, food and mating rights, humanity must add a perceived larger arena of needs which includes the urge for power over others, an urge that is commonly reinforced and justified by indoctrinated beliefs in a tribal deity demanding obedience.
Because of the basic urge to breed described in previous issues, there is an innate tendency of tribes to multiply beyond a level that their food supply can sustain, leading to the need to extend territories and leading, in its turn, to inevitable intertribal conflict. Suppressing this instinct, or inheritance, by cultural efforts, faces inherent difficulties.
Animosity is only reinforced by differences in language, culture, creed and appearance which ‘show that they are “not us”, while repeated legends of past belligerent contacts will reinforce the prejudice and sense of hostility’. When such perceived differences between potential adversaries are reinforced by allegiances to different deities (or even different manifestations of the same deity), then religious propaganda can get used to reinforce that of rulers to convert the issue into crusades or holy wars.
Illuminating accounts of conflicts over land and food abound from the Old Testament onwards. Genesis describes Abraham and Lot grazing their livestock over the same pastures. When it became clear that there was not enough land in the Negeb for both their growing herds, Abraham (being the senior) told Lot to go and find land elsewhere. Lot obliged, but found no spare land and attempts to settle among the Sodomites in their well-watered lands resulted in him being ousted and he had to settle for lower-quality and arid grazing elsewhere. Lot’s wife died as he retreated to the dry lands, causing his daughters to elect to seduce him in order to preserve his germ line. Bligh comments: ‘This story has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with the instinctive endeavours to survive and to breed. Indeed, the entire story is essentially biological … and is a lesson in the realities of life, and serves to illustrate the instinctive urges that dominate our lives.’
The Old Testament also provides us with more examples of combined land grab and deity-approved ethnic cleansing. When the Israelites’ population increased their grazing needs to unsupportable dimensions their deity sanctioned the murder of the neighbouring Amalekites. Saul was put in charge of the mission and achieved it with bloodthirsty attention to detail with the exception of sparing King Agag’s life - perhaps out of compassion or self interest. ‘This failure to comply strictly with the real or imaginary, but convenient, orders of the tribal deity was said to have angered the deity (Samuel 15), and Samuel was dispatched to complete the grisly job. He duly “hewed Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal”, and presumably the deity was well pleased that the genocide had been made complete.’
Such incidents occur throughout human history and demonstrate that genocide, the root cause of which is population growth beyond sustainable numbers, has been the only certain way to gain vacant possession of more land. Tribal and ethnic conflicts were always thus. As recently as the last century, Hitler’s ‘detestation of a non-Aryan, ethnic minority within the federated German States is evident throughout the text [of Mein Kampf]’. Hitler was also conversant with the land-population equation as already stated by Plato and he restated it more politically as: ‘Only a sufficiently large space on this earth can assure the independent existence of people. We must take our stand on … the necessity of bringing our territorial area into just proportion with the number of our population.’
Germany’s population was rising rapidly at the time, so we know now that he meant land grab, except he called it Lebensraum! As frequently occurs, when food supply is inadequate to support an aggressor’s population, this heralded a tribal war: to colonise a neighbouring country by defeating it and then displacing or annihilating it.
Bligh puts tribal conflicts into uncomfortable perspective since, as habits become ingrained, the transition from a perceived necessity to persecution goes unnoticed in the minds of the perpetrators.
‘All histories are full of examples of intra- or intertribal cleansing, and none of us are historically innocent of such involvement. The clearances of the native occupants of the colonised territories of Australasia and the Americas were not even done because the land was needed to feed the newcomers.’
Bligh continues the roll call of inhumanity with reference to: English invaders taking the best land in Ireland and sentencing the poor to subsistence farming … ; the banishment of crofters in the highlands to provide sport for the ‘gentry’ … ; the collapse of imposed inter-tribal cohesion in the Balkans …; inter-racial hatred between the tribes in Rwanda where six million people lived with food only sufficient for five million.
Historical examples of controlling populations through controlling the birth rate have been documented in China and Egypt but, overwhelmingly, the impasse is left to Darwin’s simple ‘survival of the fittest’ for its solution; ‘The progenitors of succeeding generations are those that succeed in the competitive struggle for survival, which includes that of gaining and keeping the territory needed for food. It is manifestly evident that aggression in the pursuit of self-interest is a crucial aspect of natural selection. In the natural environment in which the evolution of Homo Sapiens occurred there would have been no future for those more passive individuals that were unwilling to compete successfully. Likewise with the pack formation, which serves to enhance the prospects of individual survival. No doubt tribal cohesion also evolved on the basis of collective success and survival selection in consequence.’
In closing his appraisal, Bligh notes the importance for the future of our species of establishing an approach based on reason, self-restraint and good laws in order to keep human numbers within sustainable limits, particularly ‘as progressively more nations are acquiring the ability to exterminate more than just their opponents, it may no longer be a matter of which side in an intertribal conflict wins and which side loses. All could lose.’
Only when it is generally understood that the natural tendency to reproduce in excess of survivability is the basic cause of tribal conflict, and is the major source of human misery, will we be able to agree upon population limitations and cease to quarrel over the control of the land from which food is obtained.
Such understanding is the imperative axis upon which the course of human behaviour can be directed for the common good. The genetic inheritances of the instincts of self-preservation and genetic spreading cannot be changed, but their expressions can be modified by the influence of reason and resultant social pressures. That is how good laws come about and become accepted by most of us. Maybe we do not like curbs on our freedom to be what we are. Most of us understand, however, that the restraints of law create the prospects of living with our neighbours at peace, rather than at war … [but their effectiveness] depends upon the extent to which we can accept the restraints of a pantribal system of law. If such an enforceable legal framework could be used to keep world population within the limits of feedability our futures - even our very future as a species - would then be more secure that it is now. Without it, our uncontrolled genetic inheritances could have disastrous consequences.
This chapter alone makes this book compulsory reading for politicians.
Professor John Bligh was born in London in 1922. He received a PhD and DSc from University of London; later an honorary LL.D. from Simon Fraser University, British Columbia. He was Senior Principal Scientific Officer to the UK Agricultural Research Council, before ending his career as Director of the Institute of Arctic Biology and Professor of Physiology at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. ‘The Fatal Inheritance’ is published by Athena Press, Twickenham TW1 4EG (UK) ISBN 1 84401 336 7
Thank you to the Jackdaw an Optimum Population Trust Publication for this article from the www.optimumpopulation.org February 2010 Edition
