Obligate and Facultative Mutualism in Homo Sapiens
Not all of us are Borg…
The learned Eugyppius, speaking of some recent salient developments in Western culture, recently opined:
“All these are very good explanations for the rise of wokery, and they clearly all play a part. Not just social media, but the expansion of the technological apparatus in general, has had a destabilizing effect on western culture. We are all of us increasingly withdrawn from natural conditions, we spend most of our time in artificial environments. Our experience of the world is mediated by technology, and so we see corresponding cultural and social tendencies to deny our biological essence. This is important, because most of leftist wokery is about overcoming our animal and physical natures – whether it is denying sex differences, the influence of genes on behavior, unequally distributed cognitive capacity, and so on.”
Reading this reference by Eugyppius’ to a humanity “…increasingly withdrawn from natural conditions”, led me back to thinking about the long run and overall importance of cooperation to homo sapiens, and the significance of acute and chronic mass formation behavior in humanity.
Biology classifies organisms that are dependent on other organisms as mutualists:
“Mutualisms are defined as interactions between organisms of two different species, in which each organism benefits from the interaction in some way. These types of interaction are common and ubiquitous throughout all ecosystems…
Mutualisms may involve either the exchange of resources, such as shelter, food and other nutrients, or they may involve the exchange of services, such as protection, transportation or healthcare.
Sometimes mutualisms are symbiotic relationships. In such cases, the two species live in close proximity to each other for part or all of their lives;[1] however, not all symbiotic relationships are mutualistic.
If the mutualism is vital for the growth, survival or reproduction of an organism, it is obligate; this is the case in many symbioses. If the mutualism benefits an organism, but the organism is not so dependent on the mutualism that it cannot survive without it, this is called a facultative mutualism. [Emphasis added.]
Mutualisms may also be species specific or diffuse. In specific interactions, each species only has a mutualism exclusively with the other, whereas diffuse interactions involve multiple interactions between many different species.
The concept of a mutualism is in contrast to interspecific competition, which occurs when organisms from different species compete for a resource, resulting in reduced fitness for one of the individuals or populations involved while the other benefits.”
It is the idea that there two varieties of mutualism, obligate and facultative, that is pertinent to Eugyppius’ commentary quoted above. His viewpoint apparently is that all humans in modern developed countries are “…increasingly withdrawn from natural conditions”. I agree that this is likely very true for many, if not most, of those urban and suburban occupational specialists who are more or less totally and perpetually immersed in the modern culture of profession and weekend. I think, however, that this is not at all true for many, if not most, of those more generalist human beings living outside and in the margins of the more urban home territories of those occupational specialists.
In scientific ‘biology-speak’, those occupational specialists are largely obligate mutualists, while those living out in the spaces between metropolises tend to be facultative mutualists. Put in older, more traditional ‘Christian-speak’, the obligate mutualists are ‘of the World’, while those facultative mutualists living in ‘fly-over country’ can, from time to time and for purpose to purpose, be ‘in the World, but are not of it’.
Consequently, facultative human mutualists can and will use modern technology to the extent that it fits their purposes and needs, but can dismount from that carriage and walk if a new, more pressing need requires. Not so for the obligate human mutualists as they are tied much more closely and irreversibly to the modern complex of technology, government, and industry.
Because technology is only a handy tool selectively employed by facultative human mutualists, that tool does not, as Eugyppius says, “mediate” natural conditions for those mutualists. Consequently, wokery (and its various appurtenances) is not a “thing” for them. Because technology is, however, a fixed, programmed substitute for generalized individual problem-solving ability, experience, and knowledge for obligate human mutualists, it is indeed possible for them to be confused and/or unaware of their “animal and physical natures”, and to be led astray en masse by that confusion and lack of awareness.
[1] For a familiar example of symbiosis, think of a mutually beneficial, lifelong marriage between two humans (or geese).
Thanks for the new word Facultative. It resembles Faucilative...