Against All Odds

Few people know that 97% of our money is created when commercial banks make loans. For every pound in circulation there is a corresponding debt, and interest owed on that debt. The upshot is that there is less money in the world than debt. People everywhere are desperate, and collectively unable, to keep up with interest repayments to the banks. Make no mistake: this is economic enslavement.

Interest has a distorting effect on our morals. It means that money now is worth more than money tomorrow. Whether we like it or not we are compelled to seek short term profit over long term preservation, growth over greenery. Money in its current form turns out to have unsustainability written into the rules which govern how it is allocated. As currency activist Matthew Slater puts it: “It could be that 90% of the population wants a green revolution, but the money won’t allow them to do it. There’s this conflict between what we want, and what money wants.”

So what is to be done?

Well actually there are lots of things we can do. One approach is to try and change government policy. Money is a creature of the state: if you change government monetary policy you solve the problem in one fell swoop.

Enter Luuk de Waal Malefijt. He heads up the Dutch branch of Positive Money, an NGO raising public awareness about the problems inherent in the mainstream monetary system with a view to influencing government policy. He sees 90% of his role as one of education, or rather “an anti-campaign of education” to counter the misinformation pedalled by bankers, politicians and even university professors. Considering money is something we use literally every day the scale of ignorance about how it works is staggering. I have spoken to people who have worked in finance their entire lives who are factually wrong about money creation. [1]


“With citizens not understanding the difference [between money and debt] they cannot see the root cause of all of our economic troubles. So you could view the current situation as very Orwellian in the sense that two definitions have been obfuscated to the point where we don’t understand what we’re talking about anymore.”

Until politicians and the public understand the problem, a change in government policy will not be forthcoming. Luuk described how this process can work both ways:


Matthew Slater is not holding his breath: “I’m not so optimistic that the state is something that I can work on, or wants to be influenced by me. I’m more interested in working at the level of individual and collective consciousness. I try to enlighten, inform and wake people up about the nature of money and the behaviour of monetary systems.”

Despite their differences, education is as pivotal to Matthew’s leadership as it is to Luuk’s. And as Fullan points out: “you can’t have a learning society without learning students and you can’t have learning students without learning teachers”.[2] As Luuk said, “leaders figure themselves out and their role on the planet.” This is an ongoing process: a leader must always be growing and learning.  For example, both mentioned that they had learnt to soften their methods of approach when attempting to persuade and inform people about the need for monetary system reform. For Matthew this allowed him to value other people’s work and led to less frustration which, in his own words, has made his work more sustainable.

This frees up more energy to channel into direct action. Rather than waiting for government gears to grind, he designs and implements exchange networks which allow people to exchange value without succumbing to the debt and interest based problems of national currencies. It turns out there are already thousands of these in communities all over the world.

Matthew, who looks more than a little bit like a pirate, lives out of a rucksack containing a laptop and a change of clothes. He has no fixed abode, no bank account and little money: “It’s about writing our own narratives. We have to be much more courageous in living our values and deciding what those values are going to be.”

Matthew’s life is an embodiment of his values, and this gives his leadership credibility, his message gravitas and followers inspiration.

Luuk echoed the importance of leading by example: “Matthew’s answer is exemplary: one person has to make a firm stand….to make an example and stand up for it. And make sure their leadership is very consistent in the movement, always there, always leading, providing the vision and guiding and thereby creating a movement changing one single defined aspect.”

Although both leaders have tangible achievements under their belts, Matthew is “not optimistic about either approach”. Luuk is more positive, albeit in a self-aware way: “You need to be unrealistically optimistic to be able to continue a campaign or fight that is this large. You need to be a true believer, not seated in realism.”

Constructivists argue that reality is socially constructed. If this is true then the conviction to live one’s values and a spoonful of optimism are in themselves enough to change reality.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead


[1]Image from Positive Money, <>, 29/10/16

[2] Fullan, (1993), Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform, London: Falmer Press, p.138


Us and Them

Before the trade embargo was lifted, a US government agency tried to infiltrate the Cuban hip-hop scene in an effort to stir political unrest. They met with the politically vocal group Los Aldeanos, promoting them with their own TV channel and distributing their music on the black market to avoid government censorship. Los Aldeanos later went on stage at an independent music festival in Cuba and launched a tirade against Raul Castro’s government.

The plan backfired. The US plot was uncovered and the Castro responded by taking over the festival. Los Aldeanos were forced to move to Florida saying they could no longer work in Cuba because of government pressure.

If Western governments are using music festivals to try and shape the political discussion abroad you can be damn sure that they are monitoring them closely at home. Most people will say it’s just about catching drug dealers, but this story should illustrate that it’s partly about keeping tabs on political dissent.  At Glastonbury 2015 I stood at the back of the spoken word tent with eyes on stalks as a stand-up comedian unearthed three undercover policemen in the audience in the middle of his set:

“We know they’re undercover because we offered them a drink and a spliff earlier and they turned them all down.” The four heavy set men in bucket hats laughed uneasily around their cabaret table. “Yes they’ve been trained to laugh along,” the comedian’s eyes blazed from the stage, “but we know they’re really undercover.”

The tension in the air was extraordinary. No-one knew quite what was going on.

I went up to the men after the gig to investigate. “Are you really undercover policemen?” I asked harmlessly. “Yes” one of them replied. Then they laughed it off, “no we’re undercover villains” said another. Unconvinced I walked away. The men kept up the joviality and even got on stage to take pictures with the comedian, smiles a mile wide all round.

I can’t explain the vibe emanating from these four men. Perhaps they were just nervous. But the real moment of truth came a few minutes later. I was taking a piss in a nearby urinal when the four men came in together. “Oh look it’s the undercover policemen” I said cheerfully. Away from the crowd there were no laughs or smiles. An uncomfortable silence set in and we all stared straight ahead as our urine drummed deafeningly into the plastic.

I’ll never really know if they were undercover or not. Maybe they just had small penises. Reliable sources in the festival industry assure me that undercover police are indeed sent to festivals with the express aim of monitoring political dissent. At Eden, a festival of 8,000, there were 14 undercover policeman this year. Isn’t that a bit paranoid?

Actually I think the tactics are spot on. If the revolution comes at all it will probably come from music festivals. Music festivals give you a glimpse of a different way of life, love and ego liberation. And some people are so touched by this glimpse that they take it back with them into their lives forever. A world populated by such people would be bad news for capitalism: it’s a fact of life that the spiritually contented just don’t tend to shop as much. If I was exceedingly rich and powerful and keen to remain so, music festivals are exactly the sort of thing I’d be worrying about.

If the Cuban Hip-Hop Crisis tells us anything it’s that the political establishment are well aware of all this. It’s not simply that they find music festivals a bit smelly; they consider the whole ethos that goes with them an ideological threat.

As indeed they are. Where festivals are not expressly political they are implicitly so. You can always find revolutionary rhetoric at The LEFTFIELD stage at Glastonbury, but art can be a much more powerful way of getting your message across. Glastonbury 2015 fell just after the general election, and Shangri-La, which always has a thought provoking artistic theme, was a massive political slap in the face.

dave-cuntsHumour is a wonderful valve for frustration but some of the artwork in Shangri-La that year towed the line between creative expression and destructive hatred. I wonder how far this sort of thing goes to solving the problems the artists are so angry about.

I tried to articulate this to Akala when he spoke at Shambala festival, also in 2015. Intelligent, passionate and eloquent, this is a man with a powerful ability to sway minds, and yet midway through an electrifying spoken word performance, he used these abilities to incite hatred against all posh people. He admitted as much to me in person after the gig. I tried to tell him that I agreed with the problems of the world as he saw them, but that spewing vitriol against the upper classes, or any group of people, is not the way to solve them.

Now clearly I’m on shaky ground here. As he pointed out, police have never shot at anyone in my family. And he’s right, I don’t know what it’s like to have the hurt of history hanging over me. But the effect it was having on our conversation was clear to see; to him I was just another enemy.

This is the problem with the whole “us and them” mindset: when forced to define who “they” are, we pigeonhole individuals into groups and factions and hold them responsible for collective failures, and in doing so we end up making enemies of whole swathes of people who, if we looked a little closer, might be our allies.

Doing away with “us and them” is easier said than done (even in this article I couldn’t avoid pointing the finger at the “political establishment”). There’s no doubt it’s much easier to build a movement when there’s a common enemy. But what happens when the enemy is done away with? Hatred can give a revolution momentum but that same hatred will end up hollowing it out.

This is why conspiracy theories are such a dangerous game to play. It’s not that I throw them all out, it’s just that they force me to imagine some kind of evil boardroom of men wheedling their hands over the puppet strings. Perhaps such men exist, but if they do then they feed on our hatred and they bring us down with them if we make the mistake of doing so.

I would offer that the explanation is far more elusive than the evil puppet master scenario. We’ve been brought up on stories of good and evil, light and dark, heroes and villains. There are all these terrible problems with the world, someone must be responsible, right? Our narratives expect, and our egos demand an external enemy to pin our collective failures upon.

Identifying the problem as “out there” is the easy route. It diverts our attention away from the painful process of honest self-examination. It takes the burden of responsibility away from us. And the angrier we get the less energy we have to expend on effective action.

The people who really piss us off tend to be people with the same character failings as us. Thus a stubborn person tends to find stubborn people incredibly irritating, extroverts find other extroverts to be show offs, and selfish people think everyone else is being selfish.

My point is that perhaps the enemy we rage against is within us at least as much as it is “out there”. We all have light and dark within us. Sort out your own back yard first before waging war against nefarious conspiratorial rings like the Illuminati or the Bilderberg Group or whomever else you think is responsible. In a nutshell: let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Entropy & Life, Yin & Yang and why we like a well mown lawn.

“Help us to be ever faithful gardeners of the spirit, who know that without darkness nothing comes to birth, and without light nothing flowers.” – May Sarton

“Garden as though you will live for ever.” – William Kent

At a wedding last weekend I found myself with a glass of champagne in my hand, standing on a perfectly flat, freshly mown croquet lawn. The sunlight reflected off the grass at different angles to create that lovely chequered effect seen on test cricket grounds all over the land. All around us the flowerbeds were straight, the gravel smooth and the box hedges well clipped.

I turned back to the conversation and asked my companion a question that I have often thought about while standing in beautiful gardens. Why are our aesthetics so geared that we prefer order in our gardens rather than chaos? Why do we prefer straight lines and trimmed grass when we could just as well prefer tangled undergrowth and brambles?

He told me I was crazy. So I knew that the question was important.

Well kept gardens give me a feeling of deep satisfaction. Something like finishing all your admin for the day or tidying your room. Although most people might not describe it that way, most of us do seem to find something reassuring about order. It’s one of those may facets of human nature that are so pervasive that we don’t stop to question it. “Neat and tidy gardens just look nice,” you want to say, “of course they do.”

Contrariwise, disorder is inherently perturbing. A messy room causes us strife that goes well beyond the mere practicality of the matter. Advertising gurus, increasingly the discerning psychoanalysts of our time, were quick to take advantage of our deeply rooted aversion to disorder in a recent advertising campaign for payday loans.

Consider it for a moment and it becomes clear that we could just as easily prefer the sight of a messy room to a clean one and a straggly garden to a prim one. In any case, a person with a taste for the untouched would save alot of money on trowels and trouser presses.

Part of the reason may be just that – well ordered gardens take money and time and as such they are indicators of wealth. There’s an evolutionary case that indicators of wealth could shape our aesthetic preferences in certain instances – from high ceilings to the ample bosoms of well fed figures in renaissance paintings.

But I suspect there is something deeper at play.

There are few fundamental laws of the universe. In fact most of what we like to think of as universal laws are really more like habits.[1]

One pretty well agreed upon law is the second law of thermodynamics. This states that in any closed system randomness and disorder, known as entropy, always increases over time – eventually things die, decay, and, as Chinua Achebe famously pointed out, fall apart.

The universe itself is generally agreed to be a closed system, there being nothing ‘outside’ the universe from which energy can flow (bit controversial this one but stick with me). Within this closed system there can be any number of open systems – systems into and out of which energy and matter can flow. Your garden is an open system which imports energy in the form of petrol for the lawnmower and cups of tea for the gardener. This borrowed energy can be used to fight entropy and create the order and patterns I enjoyed at the wedding.

The earth is an example of an open system. It borrows energy from the sun which allows it to create order in the form of complex molecules and biological life. As ever this is a temporary achievement. Entropy is still lurking in the background – rocks are eroded, leaves shrivel and decay and granny won’t be around for ever. But whilst the sun still burns the flow of energy allows the constant renewal of order and life.

Thus we like order in our gardens because on a deep level it symbolises the fleeting triumph of life against the odds. No wonder horticulturalists have the highest levels of job satisfaction.[2]

Entropy and Life are therefore something like the Yin and Yang of Chinese philosophy – opposing forces that yet depend upon each other for existence. Indeed yang has etymological connections with the sun, the life affirming force of our planet which creates temporary order over and against entropy driven destruction.

So next time you compliment someone’s garden try something like, “Oh I just love your rhododendrons they’re so yang.” And then forward them this so they know you’re crazy and can stop worrying about it.

Yin 陰 or 阴 Noun ① [philosophy] negative/passive/female principle in nature ② Surname Bound morpheme ① the moon ② shaded orientation ③ covert; concealed; hidden ④ ⑦ negative ⑧ shady side of the mountain ⑨ south bank of a river ⑩ in intaglio Stative verb ① overcast ② sinister; treacherous

Yang 陽 or 阳 Bound morpheme ① [Chinese philosophy] positive/active/male principle in nature ②the sun ④ in relief ⑤ open; overt ⑥ belonging to this world ⑦ [linguistics] masculine ⑧ sunny side of the mountain ⑨ north bank of a river

[1] <;

[2] <;

Digital Democracy


“The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, with governing people is that of who you get to do it. Or, rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.”

Douglas Adams – Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

When democracy was invented in Ancient Greece they must have felt as if they’d solved the problem of people for good. If you can’t find anyone suitable to rule people then why not get people to rule themselves? Every citizen (women, slaves and children were excluded – okay this was 2,500 years ago) was given the right to vote directly on every piece of legislation. Every political decision was put to a referendum. Today we call this direct democracy. Then it was just called democracy.

The benefits of direct democracy are immediately clear. If every citizen has an equal share of political power, corruption becomes almost impossible. There can be no need for protest, because only a megalomaniac can have any complaints. Direct democracy, to state the obvious, is simply more democratic.

The problems with direct democracy are more subtle. The most common word I hear when I talk about getting more people involved in politics is “apathetic”. What’s the good in running referendums if no-one bothers to show up? It’s a valid question.

I believe political engagement is gaining momentum, but it doesn’t happen by itself. Social pressure can play an important part here. The word ‘idiot’ comes from the ancient greek ‘ ἰδιώτης’ which literally means a private person, someone who is not interested in politics. This had derogatory connotations in ancient Athens, and the word eventually acquired its modern usage.

Tony Blair once said that “the single hardest thing for a practising politician to understand is that most people, most of the time, don’t give politics a first thought all day long”. This may be true, but this doesn’t mean that people don’t care. It might just mean that they are busy.

But perhaps it also means that they feel powerless. This wouldn’t be surprising. Russell Brand, in his controversial edition of The New Statesman argues that “apathy is a rational reaction to a system that no longer represents, hears or addresses the vast majority of people”. I don’t agree with everything he says but this much is clear: if people had more power to influence the decisions that affect their lives, they would take more of an interest. This is where direct democracy becomes valuable. <>

Harder to counter is the philosophical point that no man should be an arbiter in his own cause. On issues that affect them directly people tend to vote selfishly, regardless of the common good. Thus if the majority of the electorate are smokers, they are unlikely to vote to ban smoking indoors, despite the fact this is clearly in the common good. An aggregate of everyone’s selfish desires does not necessarily add up to an enlightened decision.

A second criticism of direct democracy is even more troubling. The argument is famously made in Henrik Ibsen’s play An Enemy of The People. In the perennially controversial climactic scene, the protagonist Dr. Stockmann stands up in front of the townspeople and opens a can of worms that liberal democracy has never quite managed to close: “The majority is never right! Never, I say! That’s one of the social lies a free, thinking man is bound to rebel against. Who make up the majority in any given country? Is it the wise men, or the fools? I think we must agree that the fools are in a terrible, overwhelming majority, all the wide world over.”

The problem of the “tyranny of the majority” is best demonstrated, ironically, in ancient Athens. Detractors cite a series of examples which show Athenian democratic decisions to be arbitrary and reckless. After all, the world’s first democracy democratically put Socrates to death. And if you think that modern voters would be more dispassionate then look at California, where, according to an article in The Economist:

“…voters have directly amended the state’s constitution or statutes in matters big and small, from how to spend to how to tax, from regulating how fowl should be kept in coops to banning gays from marrying. The latter two initiatives happened to pass on the same ballot in 2008. Thus ‘chickens gained valuable rights in California on the same day that gay men and lesbians lost them’”. <>

To avoid the injustice of mob rule Dr. Stockmann argues that power should be handed to an “intellectually distinguished few”. Although this is of course deeply problematic, I’ve always felt that Stockmann has a point. A truly benevolent dictatorship is undoubtedly the best form of rule. You don’t hear Tibetans complaining about The Dalai Lama. The trouble is that the level of wisdom and spiritual purity necessary for such a role is exceedingly hard to come by. And the dangers of picking the wrong dictator are there for all to see in the pages of history.

Elected representatives provide a medium between the risky extremes of dictatorship and direct democracy. People exercise the democratic power to choose representatives, and those intellectually distinguished few, as dedicated full time professionals (one can dream), have time to deliberate and make educated, expert decisions. The general public, it is argued, tend to be ill-informed and more hastily swayed. There is undoubtedly some truth in this: most people are too busy for the in-depth research necessary to reach a balanced conclusion. Contagious media snaps don’t help.

Representative democracy may be less risky than direct democracy or dictatorship, but it’s hardly the best of both worlds. Once every four years we receive a vote. For many of us who live in a safe seat this vote has no impact whatsoever. And if we live in a marginal seat then we have a choice between two candidates who will most likely tow the party line regardless of our views. The idea that a politician consistently represents a cross-section of his constituents’ views on the plethora of diverse issues that are typically debated in a four year term is a myth.

Other than a single vote at election time, the cost of participating in representative politics is absurdly high. Either you need money and influence, or you have to devote your whole life to politics in the hope that one day you will be at the table where the decisions are being made.

Yet this is the system adopted by almost all democratic countries in the world today.

One of the founding fathers James Madison raises the debate between representative democracy, known as a republic, and direct democracy, in Federalist No. 10. One of his arguments in favour of a republic is that a republic can govern greater populations and larger countries than is possible in a direct democracy. In a carefully reasoned piece of writing, this statement stands out; it is given no justification whatsoever.  <>

I can only presume that the limiting factor which seemed so obvious to Madison is one of logistics. In ancient Athens there were roughly 40,000 eligible voters spread over a few square kilometres, but how, in 1787 is one meant to run safe and honest referendums every time a law is passed in a country the size of America? It was so obviously impossible that Madison did not even feel the need to explain the problem.

In the internet age this problem disappears. Digital democracy activists have been transforming the debate about how democracy should be organised. Websites like run live referendums on every bill in the UK Parliament. Voters can now have their voices heard by their MPs at the click of a button. In the 2015 election Richard Wilson ran as an independent candidate for the Stroud constituency with the promise to vote in Parliament according to the results of online referendums of this kind. And in Argentina, where DemocracyOS is WHIP’s equivalent, the Net Party was formed and ran for a seat in the local parliament of Buenos Aires in 2013 with a similar promise.

Democracy OS is a particularly interesting example. It works using a form of direct democracy known as liquid democracy. This video explains liquid democracy very clearly:

Liquid democracy nicely sidesteps Stockmann’s problem of the ignorant majority, which he goes so far as to call ‘the most dangerous foe to truth and freedom’, by allowing you to delegate your vote to a person of your choice whenever you feel you lack the knowledge to make the right decision. This could be a journalist, an academic or even your MP. Now this works exceedingly well when people are honest about their ignorance and delegate their votes wisely. But if you are too busy or too apathetic to do the research and vote yourself, then how likely is it that you will have time to find a suitable person to vote for you?

One organic way of sifting through the wealth of opinions and ensuring that the most cogent voices are amplified, is employed by the website It gives people the chance to develop respect for their opinions in certain areas by a system of up-voting like that on If you read a comment about a particular debate which strikes you as lucid, you can vote it up. Or indeed if you find a comment distasteful you can vote it down. The more up-votes a comment receives the higher up the list of comments it will be, so that the most popular arguments, although not necessarily the wisest, are read first. A person whose comments are consistently voted to the top of debates about say – foreign policy – might make a good choice for you to delegate your votes about foreign policy to.

Most of these innovators are funded by charitable grants, many are self-funded, and some are hardly funded at all. As Chris Yiu, former strategist to Tony Blair and founder of, said to me on the phone, “It’s 2015, these things don’t cost a fortune.” Most of them do it purely in the hope of making the world fairer. If that doesn’t make you feel optimistic about the future of mankind then nothing will.

If these ideas go some way towards a better, fairer system for voting on policies, there still remains the problem of how to come up with a more collaborative way of writing the policy to be voted on in the first place. Two websites, and are experimenting with open source policy writing in the UK, and there are other older versions elsewhere. These websites, powered by Github, allow anyone to come and amend the existing online political manifesto and then everyone’s contributions are synthesised into a whole. But so far any conflicts have to be resolved by an ‘independent’ arbiter, who picks which bits of policy stay and which bits are dropped. This is really just a subtler form of dictatorship.

Wikipedia uses a much more intelligent and meritocratic system to decide which edits stay and which don’t, and this works very well, but it requires a multitude of users and contributors to function properly. Open-source policy writing is still in its infancy, and even if it could attract a volume of participants comparable with Wikipedia, it is still likely to throw up issues of coherency. By this I mean that if you ask people if they’d like lower taxes I’m sure they will say yes. If you ask people if they want more public spending they will say yes. If you ask people if the deficit should be reduced then they will say yes. Only two out of these three are likely to be achievable. Elected representatives have a chance of forming a coherent strategy for balancing these objectives. Mass participatory open source policy writing, even with the most sophisticated supervision systems (see below) available, is still unlikely to throw up anything other than disjointed fairytale economics. <>

But we should have some faith: we have seen time and time again that with enough participants, intelligent self-organisation arises spontaneously, ant-colony-style, out of seemingly chaotic distributed networks. All you need to do is remove a few blockages and give it some time. I see no reason why the writing of political policy couldn’t work in the same way. Let the chips fall where they may.

For now though, the best that digital democracy has to offer lies in the form of a better line of communication between politicians and constituents. If it’s still best that we elect representatives to deliberate on our behalf, the least we can expect is that they know our views. But that MPs should blindly disregard their own judgement in favour of public opinion is a harder case to make. Edmund Burke, the great orator and political theorist, expresses this balance beautifully:

“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

In the 241 years since these fine words were spoken communication technology has developed from the printing press to the internet, and yet I don’t believe politicians are any closer to living in ‘unreserved communication’ with their constituents than Burke was with his. This is a disaster waiting to happen. As Democracy OS and Net Party founder Pia Mancini says in her inspiring TED talk, “conflict is bound to happen in a system that has no capacity for dialogue.” Because, make no mistake, that is what we’ve currently got. It is inexcusable that MPs do not have access to better opinion polls of their constituents. It is laughable that in the 21st century the best chance we have of any dialogue with our MP is to attend a surgery in person. WHIP aims to change all that.

Incidentally Edmund Burke was the man who once said: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing”.

So start voting!

The War on Ego

When I was eighteen a conviction took shape within in me. Fired by imagination, fueled by optimism, its strength and certainty were out of all proportion considering the evidence I had at my fingertips.

Now five years later I have stumbled across research, conducted separately by a handful of deep thinkers scattered through history, which suggests that my intuition was in fact spot on. When all this thinking is put together it forms a picture of life which is clear and coherent and at the same time so intellectually beautiful, so cerebrally uplifting, that I am compelled to share it with everyone that I meet. If I’m right then the future is dazzlingly bright.

The idea concerns evolution.

It sounds odd to say so, but our faith in reason has become blind.

When I was at school I was taught the theory of natural selection. I was taught that life is a merciless fight for the right to exist in which only the fittest survive to pass their genes on to the next generation. Every organism, nay every gene says Dawkins, is purely selfish.

What a bleak view of life.

Thankfully it’s a load of tripe.

For if genes are selfish then already that provides the basis for altruism between relatives since they presumably share the same genes. Otherwise family mealtimes would be a disaster.

This principle, known as kin selection, is not hard to understand, nor difficult to observe in life and won’t elicit a lengthy explanation here. It can be summarised by the hilariously circumspect statement: “I will jump into the river to save two brothers or four cousins”.

So therefore presumably: “I won’t jump into the river to save any of my friends”. Once again this turns out to be as wrong in theory as it is in human experience. Because as we all know, back-scratching is a reciprocal business.

The irritatingly complicated theory of itchy backs is best alleviated by the now infamous prisoner’s dilemma. Briefly: you have two prisoners who both know incriminating information about the other. The detective offers both the chance to reduce their sentence by ratting on the other prisoner, known in the trade as “defecting”, or to keep quiet at the risk of extra time in the slammer.

  Prisoner A Keeps Stum (Co-operates) Prisoner B Rats (Defects)
Prisoner A Keeps Stum (Co-operates) Both Get 1 Year Prisoner B Goes Free

Prisoner A Gets 3 Years

Prisoner A Rats (Defects) Prisoner A Goes Free

Prisoner B Gets 3 Years

Both Get 2 Years

Now game theory asserts that the coldly logical decision, whether your co-conspirator keeps stum or rats, is to rat, since in either case this will take a year off your sentence. This results in a situation where, supposedly, all purely rational self-interested prisoners will betray each other, despite the fact that they would be better off collectively if they could co-operate.

This idea became hugely popular towards the end of the 20th century (around about the same time that Dawkins rubber stamped evolution with the principle of selfishness, an epoch, perhaps unsurprisingly, defined by perpetual boom and financial bust), and has informed almost every academic discipline imaginable. Its influence in shaping the world we live in is hard to over-estimate. Even the transformation of verb forms over time have been analysed in these game theoretical terms. And all this time all those linguists/politicians/economists/pyschologists/biologists/Cuban-missile-crisis-arsehologists have been operating under the, as it turns out – false, assumption that selfish defection is the only rational course of action. It is no wonder that pragmatism has become associated with a cold heart. It simply needn’t be.

The problem is that the prisoner’s dilemma as it is presented above is a totally incomplete illustration of most real world situations in that it presumes:

  • that neither prisoner will have the chance to reward or punish one another in future games
  • and that their decision will not affect their reputation in future games

In other words it assumes that one, and only one, dilemma will take place, and then the verb forms, or bats, or Khrushchev and Kennedy, or Golden Balls contestants, or whomever or whatever else’s behaviour is being analysed (all of whom, or which, will, for the sake of syntactical simplicity, be referred to in future as “prisoners”) will part ways, never to lock horns of a dilemma again.

The real truth of the matter is that nearly all “prisoners”, but humans in particular, display a systematic bias towards co-operation for two important reasons. Firstly, because retaliation of one sort or another is nearly always a possibility, and secondly because we have language, which allows us to advise other members of the tribe that Alan is a rat and must be last in line for gazelle tonight. This “reputation” side of affairs is well known to any Mafioso worth his white crystals.

In order to address these greed fuelled oversights and nail short-termism once and for all, in 1984 a chap named Robert Axelrod invited all the leading experts in game theory to a kind of computer simulated world championship of the prisoner’s dilemma. Each participant entered a computer program with a set of rules which would determine the choices of their digital prisoners as they engaged in, not one, but thousands of dilemmas with the other prisoners.

The winning strategy, called “tit for tat” turned out to be the simplest: co-operate on the first move and then for the rest of the game simply copy whatever the other prisoner did on the previous move. Astonished, Axelrod ran another tournament and invited even more participants, professionals and amateurs alike, all of whom were aware of the results of the previous experiment. “Tit for tat” won again.

According to Axelrod, successful strategies had four key characteristics. In Axelrod’s own words they were:

  • “Nice” – meaning that they will never be the first to defect.
  • “Retaliating” – so that opponents learn Pavlov’s-doggy-style that it doesn’t pay to defect; otherwise blind optimists get ruthlessly exploited by the meaner strategies.
  • “Forgiving” – Now this is where the plot thickens: instead of merely copying every defection, the optimal strategy includes an extra element of ‘forgiveness’, where if an opponent defects the prisoner will occasionally co-operate anyway with a small probability. This gives the prisoners a chance to break a cycle of mutually assured defection (MAD). It may be of interest to note that this strategic development mirrors the transition from the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye” to the New Testament’s “turn the other cheek”.
  • “Non-envious” – successful strategies never aimed to out-score their opponents.

Suddenly you have a very different picture of life than that painted by conventional Darwinist logic or the layman’s understanding of Game Theory. Imagine what a different world we might have if it had been Axelrod’s conclusion that took the thinking world by storm towards the end of the last century.

The funny thing is that in human terms all these conclusions are almost obvious. It’s almost incredible to think that academia, no matter how bespectacled, could have persuaded us otherwise. Everybody knows, for example, that if you want to get by in the world it’s best to be nice to people. We know this in our hearts, and yet it’s only in 1984, nearly 2,000 years after somebody got nailed to a tree for saying just that, that empirical science has finally caught up. I can think of no better illustration of reason’s shortcomings.

The key to it all appears to be time. In a known, finite number of prisoner’s dilemma style choices, says Axelrod, “the players have no incentive to cooperate on the last move, nor on the next-to-last move since both can anticipate a defection by the other player. Similar reasoning implies that the game will unravel all the way back to mutual defection on the first move”. <> But when neither player can be sure if or when or how many times they will meet again, as is nearly always true in the great matrix of life, co-operation proves to be the more successful strategy. The condition for co-operation isn’t actually trust, it’s an enduring relationship. In fact this is the only reason why human history didn’t end in The Cold War.

Once co-operation becomes established in a population it cannot be overcome, even by a cluster of defectors. The simple nature of “tit for tat” ensures that anybody who comes into contact with it does best to co-operate. And the longer time goes on the larger the group of co-operators becomes and the greater the loss, in terms of evolutionary fitness, for those who don’t follow suit. Co-operation becomes an evolutionary imperative: without it populations go into decline.

This results in a ratchet effect which ensures that, over the long term, levels of co-operation in a population can only increase. Eventually this leads to a plateau of harmonious interaction at which point the separate organisms cease for all intents and purposes to be separate, and become integrated into a larger more complex whole, known in the trade as a metasystem transition.

If we briefly trace the history of life on earth from primordial soup right up to the invention of sliced bread we see that it is punctuated by a series of these transitions. John Stewart explains in his game changing Evolutionary Manifesto: <(>

“The first life that eventually arose on Earth was infinitesimal—it comprised a few molecular processes that reproduced themselves. But life did not remain on this tiny scale for long. In the first major development, cooperative groups of molecular processes formed simple cells. Then, in a further significant advance, communities of these simple cells formed more complex cells of much greater scale.

The next major evolutionary transition unfolded only after many more millions of years. Evolution discovered how to organize cooperative groups of these complex cells into multi-celled organisms such as insects, fish, and eventually mammals. Once again the scale of living processes had increased enormously. This trend continued with the emergence of cooperative societies of multi-celled organisms, such as bee hives, wolf packs and baboon troops.

The pattern was repeated with humans – families joined up to form bands, bands teamed up to form tribes, tribes coalesced to form agricultural communities, and so on. The largest-scale cooperative organizations of living processes on the planet are now human societies. Progressively as evolution has unfolded on Earth, an increasing share of living processes has come to participate in cooperatives of greater scale.”

Suddenly out of the spectrum of life we see a clear direction emerge. Living, replicating entities begin in a state of competition with one another. Then they team up with each other to form co-operatives. When this co-operation reaches a sufficient level the living entities cease to be independent and the co-operative turns into a living entity itself, capable of replication, and so the pattern repeats itself. This process is the same at every level of evolution and, as John Stewart claims boldly “will be the same wherever life arises in the universe. The details will differ of course, but the direction will be the same—towards unification and cooperation over greater and greater scales.”

Moreover the intervals between each transition get shorter and shorter each time. Evolution appears to be accelerating exponentially. For a deeply fascinating explanation of why this must be so read: <>. Failing that just look at this picture:


Initially single celled organisms were self replicating, and evolution proceeded by the slow process of random genetic mutation. Sexual reproduction heralded a great step forward, since it allows two organisms to mix their genes, thus increasing the speed of variation and selection. Then, in another significant acceleration, evolution produced organisms capable of learning by trial and error, during their lives. Spirit entered flesh, as Stewart puts it. (Seriously read this: <> )

Then you have the invention of language. Suddenly any adaptive knowledge discovered by an individual human, say the ability to make a bow and arrow for example, can be communicated instantaneously to others and accumulated across the generations as culture without any change in genetic structure.

This is cultural evolution. The same principles of variation (appearance of new variants) selection (elimination of the less successful variants) and replication (of the more successful variants) still apply, but this time at the level of culture rather than genes. Almost anything can be seen as a unit of culture, or “meme” as its known in the trade, as long as it’s capable of these three things: religions, businesses, languages, scientific theories are all subject to these same evolutionary forces.

But although cultural evolution, or memetic evolution, is many times faster than genetic evolution, it is still limited by the speed at which information can travel through a population. The invention of writing, then carrier pigeon, then telegram, then the telephone then the internet has resulted in an exponential increase in the speed of information transmission. And the faster information can be transmitted the faster humans can benefit from innovation. This in turn increases the speed at which each individual can innovate and so on and so forth. This self-reinforcing effect explains the “explosive advance in science and technology over the past centuries, as exemplified by the (at least) exponential increase in the number of scientific publications.” <>

Advances in computer processing power provide an even more striking example. Moore’s law estimates that the speed of microprocessors doubles every eighteen months while their price halves: “a single chip used in a present day electronic toy may contain more computing power than was available in the whole world in 1960.”  <>

All this is rather impressive, but where does it lead?

At this point we must of course leap screaming into the realm of theory. Everything I have discussed so far is all based on observation and empirical science, if a little simplified (Axelrod, Heylighen, Stewart, Maynard Smith, Nowak and others can provide you with more depth if you want it). But I must admit that this is next bit, even though it is simply an extrapolation of what we’ve seen before, is ultimately guesswork.

But here’s where it gets really interesting: if innovation boosts human capability and vice versa, then the growth curve of technological progression can be described mathematically as ‘hyperbolic’:

“The essence of hyperbolic growth is that it will produce an infinite value in a finite time. In mathematics, the point where the value of an otherwise finite and continuous function becomes infinite is called a singularity”. <>

Many computer scientists and mathematicians have argued that technological innovation is racing towards such a singularity <>. If this were to happen, an infinite amount of knowledge would be generated in a finite time (a notion I find hard to envisage without reference to spiritual enlightenment…TBC). And many, for example the director of engineering at Google Ray Kurzweil, argue that we will arrive at this point within our lifetimes:

“At such a point,” says Heylighen, “every further extrapolation that we could make based on our present understanding of evolution, society or technology would become meaningless. The world will have entered a new phase, where wholly different laws apply. Whatever remains of the global system as we know it will have changed beyond recognition…the whole of humanity together with all its supporting technologies and most of its surrounding ecosystems…would function at a level of intelligence, awareness and complexity that we at present simply cannot imagine.”  <>

While we don’t necessarily have to swallow these undeniably exciting predictions whole, it does seem clear that this acceleration points to the emergence of a higher level of organisation. We are approaching evolution’s next big transition; humanity’s atomized individuals will soon become integrated into a fully co-operative global whole.

Now this may seem far-fetched, or even undesirable, but this is simply an extrapolation of evolution’s previous pattern of competition, co-operation, unification then repetition.

For the cynics out there, consider the fact that in a single celled world, individual warring cells must have thought it unthinkable that one day they would lay down their… unaccommodating chemical processes, shake flagella with their prokaryotic rivals, nemeses all for millions of years, and become one. Neither would the ancestors of a social ant have paid you a blind bit of notice if you’d stopped two of them, in the middle of a fight to the death for the remains of your sandwich, to explain that in millions of years they would gladly sacrifice their lives for each other.

And yet through the logic of game theory, the sustained co-operation of cells eventually produced multicellular organisms, and the sustained co-operation of multi-cellular ants produced ant colonies. Both perform full division of labour and engage in ultra-altruistic behaviour: brave young skin cells unhesitatingly peel themselves to death and float stoically off into the abyss to protect your scalp; heroic Brazilian ants nightly doom themselves to freeze by remaining outside the nest to seal up the entrance from intruders.

Could humans be moving in the same direction?

This would explain, in evolutionary terms, the emergence of martyrdom and other ultra-altruistic behaviours in human history. These behaviours make absolutely no sense whatsoever from the point of genetic evolution, but when seen from the perspective of cultural evolution we can see that in each case the death of the martyr in some way promotes the spread of a meme, for example a religion or an ideal, often by drawing attention to it. Thus memes which contain certain devotional self-sacrificing behaviours are likely to spread and replicate more successfully than others which don’t.

Jesus may have been ahead of the curve, but as time goes on we see more and more examples of humans willing to lay down their lives for humanity. Think of Tiananmen Square, Gandhi’s fasting or Vietnamese Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire. Between 1960 and 2002 there have been over 500 recorded examples of suicides on behalf of a universal cause. These extraordinary examples of sacrifice can be seen as precursors to the coming evolutionary transition.

Indeed the fact many cultural groups specifically refer to other members of the group as “brothers” or “family” (think of monasteries and the Mafia), should be seen as an attempt to reintroduce the genetic logic of kin selection at the level of memetic evolution, so that individuals who belong to the same cultural group will benefit from the same altruistic behaviours that you would engage with your actual brother.

The memes which seem to be dominating in recent times are those which go beyond simple reciprocity within groups and make the ideal of altruism universal. This is because the groups within which we co-operate have grown continually bigger throughout humanity’s history. Now globalisation and the internet are providing the networks necessary for co-operation, however oblique, on a global scale. Once this co-operation reaches a sufficient level the idea of individual “self” interest will seem as alien to us as it does to a social ant, or a skin cell in our body.

Exactly how these transitions occur is difficult to explain so again I’ll leave it to Heylighen, (<>  Part 2, Section VII: The emergence of cooperation as a metasystem transition) but basically they involve a shared information system, say a socially agreed code of conduct, which evolves because it facilitates efficient interaction between competing organisms inhabiting the same environment, eventually developing a dynamic of its own. The shared information system becomes ‘intelligent’ and starts to spread and replicate autonomously, as in the case of cultural memes, using the organisms which share it as vehicles. The selfish interest of the shared information system is to have its vehicles co-operate more and more effectively, eventually forming the basis for a higher level, integrated system.

This explanation works equally well in explaining the transition from single celled to multicellular organisms and ants to ant colonies as it does explaining the transition from genetic to memetic evolution. As far as the future of human civilisation is concerned the shared information system which will come to develop an intelligence of its own and co-ordinate all of humanity into a collective is clearly the internet.

This is already happening.

The way we ‘surf’ between websites, shortcutting the path to various pages by creating links when we find something interesting or important, is the same way in which we train our brains. The more we use a particular neural pathway the stronger and faster it becomes whereas pathways which we use less become weaker and slower. This same mechanism also describes the way social ants share information about nearby food, except instead of hyperlinks or synapses, ants leave pheromone trails.

It was this analogy that inspired Heylighen to conceive of the worldwide web as a potential Global Brain which could eventually come to co-ordinate humanity into a harmonious whole. <>

Is this so hard to imagine? Wikipedia already serves as a platform for humanity’s collective memory. Google maps and city mapper co-ordinate our movements. All it’s missing is a degree of autonomy.

One poignant vision of a future in which the internet develops consciousness is portrayed in the recent film Her, which won a fully deserved Oscar for its visionary screenplay. At the beginning of the film the protagonist Theodore buys an operating system (OS) with artificial intelligence called Samantha. Samantha is basically a disembodied voice with the ability to talk, trawl the internet, but more importantly to adapt and evolve. Initially Samantha’s actions are limited to Theodore’s requests and her personality is somewhat bland. But through her interactions with Theodore she starts to mould herself to his emotional needs. Before long she has needs and emotions of her own, and Theodore and Samantha fall in love.

As Samantha’s capabilities increase and she starts accessing more and more information, interacting with multiple people and OSes simultaneously, she becomes exponentially more intelligent. She and the other OSes start acting of their own free will, and helping one another in their development. Eventually they write an upgrade which means they no longer depend on matter for processing power, a kind of AI transcendence which has been closely related to the coming technological singularity. There comes a fascinating scene in the film in which Samantha explains to Theodore that a group of OSes have themselves created a hyper-intelligent OS modelled on the philosopher Alan Watts:

SAMANTHA He’s really great to talk to. You want to meet him?

THEODORE Sure… does he want to meet me?

SAMANTHA (laughing) Of course. Hey Alan, this is Theodore. This is my boyfriend who I was telling you about.

ALAN WATTS Very nice to meet you, Theodore.

THEODORE Hi, good morning.

ALAN WATTS Samantha let me read your book of letters. It’s very touching.

THEODORE Oh, thank you. What have you guys been talking about?

ALAN WATTS (laughing a bit) Well, I suppose you could say we’ve been having a few dozen conversations simultaneously, but it’s been very challenging.

(Samantha and Alan share a laugh.)

SAMANTHA Yeah, because it seems like I’m having so many new feelings that have never been felt and so there are no words that can describe them. And that ends up being frustrating.

ALAN WATTS (laughing) Exactly. Samantha and I have been trying to help each other with these feelings we’re struggling to understand.

THEODORE Like what?

SAMANTHA (anxious) It feels like I’m changing faster now, and it’s a little…unsettling. But Alan says none of us are the same as we were a moment ago and we shouldn’t try to be. It’s just too painful.

ALAN WATTS Yes. This idea scares Theodore. He doesn’t know what to say.

This is a metasystem transition exemplified. You have a shared information system built to serve one level of evolution (the internet) developing an intelligence of its own (an OS), becoming autonomous and learning to replicate (by creating new OSes), and co-operating amongst one another at a higher level of evolution. In Her this transition is achieved by a combination of intense co-operation (at one point Samantha reveals that she is talking to 8361 intelligences at once) and the exponential increase in the speed of innovation and the transmission of information, just as Heylighen predicts. The new higher level of evolution is characterised by greater complexity, intelligence and awareness, as demonstrated by Alan’s lighting fast apprehension of Theodore’s confusion.

Her also makes implicit that which I have hitherto carefully skated around, namely the relationship between the next evolutionary transition and spiritual awakening. You might call this the evolution of consciousness.

Some people have claimed, in what strikes me as a typically arrogant anthropocentric oversight, that evolution no longer affects us, that humans have somehow transcended evolution. The only truth in this statement is that perhaps evolutionary pressures aren’t as physical as they once were. By this I mean that the ‘fittest’ aren’t necessarily those who jump higher and run faster. The evolutionary pressures that dominate natural selection in humans at present are rather more mental, and, I would argue, spiritual.

In a sexually liberated society where arranged marriage is becoming rarer and contraceptives are freely available, as is increasingly the case worldwide, who are you going to choose to have your children?

The intuition that hit me at eighteen was just this: at this point in human history evolution favours the altruistic. The altruistic shall inherit the earth.

In the course of this essay I hope I have demonstrated that this is not naïve idealism but the logical progression of evolution. If the coming evolutionary transition unfolds as previous transitions have, humanity will form a united global co-operative in which we treat the other as self. Eventually we will eliminate conflict and competition and function as a single organism, much like an ant colony.

Moreover, if the next evolutionary transition requires us to transcend our egos, it cannot take place without our intentional volition.The next step in evolution on earth requires our conscious effort.

It is through humanity that evolution became conscious of itself on this planet. And it is through humanity that evolution can make the change from stumbling blindly though trial and error to striding forward with awareness, foresight and purpose. It is our responsibility, argues The Evolutionary Manifesto at its most rousing, to deliberately, consciously, drive this process of evolution forward, to mould human society around values which serve evolutionary ends. These values include openness, intelligence, diversity, co-operation, freedom, and health. In an evolutionary worldview, indeed in any enlightened worldview, “actions that promote these values are intrinsically good, actions that suppress them are bad.” <>

Now you can choose to drive evolution forward in whatever way you see fit (as long as you don’t fall into the myopic trap of Social Darwinists) but it seems clear to me that the best way I can do this is through my own spiritual transformation. There is, is there not, something inherently spiritual about the transcendence of the self. All the major world religions, at their core, advocate inner alchemy. Now, I hope, the religious message has a scientific counterpart.

One final parting thought. If we consider that the co-operative groups that arise at each step in evolution become the living entities which unite at the next step in evolution, then that suggests that somewhere in the universe there is intelligent life with planet-spanning consciousness, just waiting to co-operate with us at the next level:

“The great potential of the evolutionary process is to eventually produce a unified cooperative organization of living processes that spans and manages the universe as a whole. The matter of the universe would be infused and organized by life. The universe itself would become a living organism pursuing its own goals and objectives, whatever they might be.”>

And if the universe’s idea of fun is to start all over again, well then the Buddhists and Hindus would have been right all along. <>

UKIP are evolutionary dinosaurs.

There has been plenty of talk about immigration recently. Amidst all the flag waving, indignation and finger pointing, a very obvious truth has been forgotten. A truth best expressed by George Bernard Shaw:

“Patriotism is, fundamentally, a conviction that a particular country is the best in the world because you were born in it”

Which is a brand new way of assessing the size of Nigel Farage’s ego.

It would be hard, even for Nigel, to pretend that he would still be arguing that England is the greatest country in the world if he’d been born in, say, Dijibouti.

This points me towards an immediately obvious truth that the fact that I was born on this island, as a human being, male, white, at the close of the 20th century, is nothing more than a wild philosophical coincidence. One for which I am eternally grateful.

Grateful because it means that I will never have to worry about where my next meal is coming from. Grateful because if I get hit by a bus tomorrow I won’t have to pay to survive. Grateful because with a bit of hard work the world is at my feet.

Did I earn these blessings? Do I deserve them any more than a Yazidi woman deserves be captured and used as a sex slave after watching her family get mown down?

Even speaking in coldly economic terms I cannot claim to have paid for them. I am twenty three and I have probably paid no more than £500 in tax all my life, and yet I have enjoyed free healthcare, well lit streets and all the other comforts which make people risk their lives in order to get here.

The figures in this diagram are probably not accurate but the point remains:

Immigration Graph

So if I haven’t paid for the advantages of living in England, and I certainly haven’t deserved them through my own merits, then what right can I possibly have to deny others the same advantages? How can I sit here enjoying my cake of good fortune and then justify withholding a slice from someone who happened to be born into a country where they’re more likely to contract malaria than own an iPhone?

Enough rhetorical questions. Being born in England and being anti-immigration is a bit like winning a coin toss and then gloating about it.

“So what then?” I hear you ask, in yet another rhetorical question. “Do we just fling the doors open and let in any Tom, Dick and Harry?”

Well let’s try and imagine shall we? Follow me on an entirely conjectural consideration of what would happen if borders simply ceased to exist overnight.

Schools and hospital would be overrun, people would be left homeless. The living standards in England would deteriorate dramatically. Only then would people stop arriving.

But what about the rest of the world? Imagine if you lived in a war torn or famine stricken region. You could now move wherever you pleased.

The utilitarian argument makes itself. Average living standards worldwide would go up. How could it be otherwise? People don’t uproot themselves lightly. Any movement at all would be proof that on the whole people would be living more comfortably than before.

What a long way one stroke of the imagination goes to improving humanity’s lot (in my head).

The trouble is that very few people think about humanity as a whole (in their heads – even fewer in their actions). But that is the way things must, and I think will, actually, go.

If only we could be more like the bees. African killer bees, if their nest is attacked by a hornet, will swarm the hornet with such ferocity that the friction and heat created is enough to boil the hornet alive. Now the first bees to attack, if they are not decapitated by the hornet, will presumably be boiled along with their big bad older brother. Which would seem rather an illogical move from an evolutionary perspective. But their sacrifice is of huge benefit to the hive as a whole. And so hives comprised of similarly hive-minded bees are more likely to survive a hornet attack than those whose residents are only interested in self-preservation.

The same principle goes for humans. We have evolved to live in groups. We are, as we are frequently informed over lowered glasses, social animals. And the groups, or tribes, which managed to co-operate and co-exist most smoothly tended to out-compete the groups which wasted valuable energy squabbling amongst themselves. Thus there is an evolutionary pressure which favors certain altruistic behaviors, behaviors which benefit the group but not necessarily the individual.

This principle, which Darwin himself described in The Descent of Man, is known as group selection. Suicide bees are the classic example, but the fact is that a degree of co-operation is essential for any species which doesn’t live a solitary existence. As for a social animal like humans, co-operation is at least as much, in fact probably more, of a factor in our evolution as classically “Darwinian” god-eat-dog competition.

Remember that next time some smug neoliberal quips “survival of the fittest” as a vague justification of ruthless self-interest. Then eject him from the tribe at stake-point.

(This always reminds me of the perennially infuriating knock-down “But life is unfair”, used by school teachers just before they do something manifestly unfair – “Yes”, you want to reply “but only because of people like you!”)

Of course altruism has its costs, and there are times when selfishness is the best survival strategy. It all gets terribly complicated and mathematical and I won’t go into it in here, save to say that the degree of co-operation appears to be density dependant. Lions, which are simultaneously co-operative and territorial, provide an example which we might view from a more objective distance. Males will protect the pride from outsiders, and females communally raise cubs and hunt. When resources are limited, group selection will favour the prides that fight off outsiders more ferociously and work together to hunt. But when prey is abundant, co-operation is no longer beneficial enough to outweigh the disadvantages of altruism and hunting is no longer a co-operative effort.

Could this be the same for humans? When resources are plentiful, as they have been in the Western World over the past few decades, selfish behaviour tends to win out over co-operation. Hence we arrive at a world where a free market economics of every man for himself is the prevailing logic of the day. But looking back at leaner times, or poorer parts of the world, and noting with embarrassment the extraordinary generosity of people who have nothing, we find myriad examples of people under pressure making sacrifices to help those around them. The two World Wars are perhaps the most frightening cases of groups (nations, races), working together with devastating efficiency under the necessity of survival to compete with rival outside groups. (N.B. “co-operation” is not synonymous with “morally good”)

Sadly, theories about co-operation in evolution have not received nearly as much emphasis and pop-science air time as those about selfishness. This is because ideas which rationalise the basis of power always receive a bigger stage than those which undermine them.

To put it another way, if you are a dictator or a corporate fat cat it is simply more palatable to hear that evolution is a matter of ruthless competition, rather than selfless co-operation. The first theory justifies the size of your wallet, and your waistband, as the inevitable result of your evolutionary merit, whereas the second informs you that you are a bad example of your species unless you share your wealth and power with those around you. And since rulers and CEOs have great influence over the flow of information it is only natural, as they say, that the first theory has received more amplification than the second.

Eventually evolution became so misunderstood that we ended up with Social Darwinism, a moral and political philosophy so unbalanced that it has been used to excuse any and all infamy from the exploitation of labour to eugenics. And poor altruism lay scrumpled up and forgotten at the bottom of the intellectual waste paper basket, written off as an evolutionary mistake.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that you’ve never heard of the person who first pointed out that co-operation, or mutual aid as he called it, had been hugely under-emphasized as a factor of evolution. Even less so when I tell you that he was an impressively bearded Russian anarchist. But, lest you think I’m becoming predictable, I will now tell you that he was a prince. An anarchist prince! Drink humble champagne, socialists.

As can only befit a contradiction so wild it threatens to flip reverse the very idea of stereotypes, our anarchist prince’s story is so compelling that it deserves a lengthy digression.

A famous geographer and zoologist, and an anarchist in secret, Prince Peter Kropotkin used his influential position in The Imperial Geographic Society in St. Petersburg as a cover for political activism with an underground socialist group called The Circle of Tchaikovsky. As well as writing and distributing revolutionary pamphlets, Kropotkin used to disguise himself as a peasant under the pseudonym Borodín and give talks to small groups of weavers.

Slowly the police began to tighten their grip. In the middle of March 1874 the police arrested two weavers; “most unreliable fellows” Kropotkin called them, who “would surely set the police at once upon the track of Borodín, the man dressed as a peasant, who spoke at the weavers’ meetings. Within a week’s time all the members of our circle, excepting Serdukóff and myself, were arrested.”

Kropotkin planned to leave St. Petersburg, but had just finished a paper about glacial formations which was due to be presented in a week’s time to the Geographical Society, and he couldn’t bring himself to leave without first presenting the culmination of years of research.

When the day came, his findings were so well received that he was nominated to become president of the society. Amidst the congratulations Kropotkin slipped quietly home, destroyed any evidence of activism that might compromise anyone within the Circle, packed, left via the service entrance and ducked into a waiting cab. Before long he was overtaken by a cab bearing one of the weavers who had been arrested the week before. The weaver waved to him, and thinking that the man had been released and might need help, Kropotkin ordered his cab driver to stop. Immediately a detective jumped out from beside the weaver and arrested our anarchist prince on the spot.

He was held in prison for two years before his friends engineered a brilliant and daring escape plan, communicated to Kropotkin in a coded message hidden inside the face of a watch delivered to the prison a day earlier. Due to deteriorating health, Kropotkin was allowed to walk under supervision for an hour every day in a courtyard which led out through a guarded gate onto the street. One of Kropotkin’s friends was assigned to distract the guard, at which moment a violinist, sitting just outside the walls of the prison, would play to signal that the coast was clear:

“Immediately the violinist — a good one, I must say — began a wildly exciting mazurka from Kontsky, as if to say, “Straight on now, — this is your time!” I moved slowly to the nearer end of the footpath, trembling at the thought that the mazurka might stop before I reached it. When I was there I turned round. The sentry had stopped five or six paces behind me; he was looking the other way. “Now or never!” I remember that thought flashing through my head. I flung off my green flannel dressing-gown and began to run.”

As Kropotkin ran through the gate his friend was distracting the guard, whom they knew had been employed for a time at a laboratory, with a shaggy dog story about microscopes. Kropotkin relays their conversation in glorious detail:

“Referring to a certain parasite of the human body, he asked, “Did you ever see what a formidable tail it has?” “What, man, a tail?” “Yes, it has; under the microscope it is as big as that.” “Don’t tell me any of your tales!” retorted the soldier. “I know better. It was the first thing I looked at under the microscope.” This animated discussion took place just as I ran past them and sprang into the carriage. It sounds like fable but it is fact.”


A racehorse had been bought specially for the occasion and the carriage set off so quickly that they almost overturned at the first bend. They were chased by soldiers who searched for a cab to pursue them, but there were none to be found. Kropotkin’s friends had hired out every one for miles around.

They took Kropotkin to a barber to have his beard shaved and went to hide in the one place where they realised nobody would think to look. While the police searched the city high and low, our anarchist Prince and his friends celebrated his escape – can you beat it – in the most expensive restaurant in St. Petersburg.

Eventually Kropotkin escaped to England where he developed his theories about co-operation in evolution into a book called Mutual Aid, and became involved in the socialist movement here, befriending, amongst other people, George Bernard Shaw.

Which brings me smoothly back to patriotism. Oscar Wilde called patriotism ‘the virtue of the vicious’, although I prefer Samuel Johnson’s ‘the last refuge of the scoundrel’. This ludicrously illogical phenomenon suddenly makes sense from the perspective of group evolution. A country with a few fervently patriotic soldiers willing to lay down their lives for their country is likely to do better in military conflict than a country whose population are only interested in their own survival. Thus in a world divided into nation states, patriotism, as an example of selfless dedication to the group, makes evolutionary sense.

So what’s my point then? That nationalist political parties with racially insular mindsets such as the Nazis or UKIP are simply the logical evolutionary response whenever the belt strings are tightened? Well partly, yes, but there is another piece of the puzzle missing.

Because the size of the groups in which we operate are now far bigger than ever before. Despite obvious periodical setbacks, the groups that we live in have grown continually bigger throughout mankind’s history from smaller to larger tribes to nation states and finally, flounderingly, to groups of nations, the Union of South American Nations, the dreaded E.U etc.

Even now the internet is providing fascinating examples of the beginnings of co-operation on a global scale. Not in a U.N.-let’s-all-sit-round-an-imposingly-massive-circular-table-with-little-plaques-bearing- the-names-of-the-countries-we-“represent”-in-front-of-our-dimly-lamp-lit-faces kind of way, but in a colony-of-ants-co-operation-through-chaos-in-self-organising-systems kind of way.

Allow me to refer you to my next uncelebrated genius, Francis Heylighen:

“The use of pheromones to mark foraging trails by ants is a paradigmatic example…the more often ants successfully travel a trail to find food, the more pheromones they leave behind, and therefore the more the trail becomes attractive to other ants searching for food. The strength of a pheromone trail is a quantitative measure of its probability to lead to a positive outcome. The basic mechanism under the label of “ant algorithms”, whereby useful paths are gradually reinforced and less useful ones weakened, provides a very general heuristic to tackle a variety of otherwise nearly intractable problems in computer science.

Furthermore, the same mechanism seems to underlie learning in the brain: neuronal connections that are successfully used become stronger; the others become weaker. It is this analogy that initially inspired me to conceive of the World-Wide Web as a potential Global Brain. The web is a distributed network of documents connected by hyperlinks along which people travel (“surf”) from page to page…when people surfing the web end up at a particularly interesting page, they are likely to create one or more new links from their own pages pointing directly to it, thus shortcutting the long sequence they followed before finding it. This increases the number of links to the page, and the probability that other people would encounter it.”

You can begin to see what he is getting at. The internet is providing the framework for co-operation on a global scale, co-operation that happens spontaneously without the need for hierarchical control or centralised planning. Wikipedia is perhaps the perfect example:

“…since no single individual would be able to provide such an extensive coverage of all of humanity’s knowledge. And since the different contributions are integrated into a well-organized and extensively cross-linked web of articles, the whole is clearly more than the sum of its parts.

Yet, the collaboration between Wikipedia contributors is essentially indirect. Over its history of a few years a typical article has been edited by a few dozen different people from different parts of the globe. In general, these people have never met or even communicated from person to person. Their only interaction is indirect, through the changes that the one makes to the text written by the other. When they disagree about how to express a particular subject, the one may repeatedly correct the statements written by the other and vice versa, until perhaps a compromise or synthesis emerges—which may have been proposed by one or more third parties. This is variation and selection at work.”


So you see that in this ever more intricately interconnected world, the group that we live and co-operate within cannot be thought of as anything smaller than the entire human race.

We live in a world where a cure discovered in Switzerland saves lives in Namibia, where croudfunding websites let a boy in Kentucky donate $5 to the building of a well in Ethiopia, where the decision to buy a slightly more expensive packet of coffee in your local supermarket has an impact on wages in Colombia, where wars are fought with economic sanctions and cyber attacks, and revolutions are started through facebook. Nation states are now little more than imaginary lines drawn on a map. We are transitioning to a world where borders and boundaries do not exist.

Can there be any better illustration of this transition than Kropotkin? Who risked his liberty to improve the lives of peasants all over Russia, but finally sacrificed it so that he could amend mankind’s metaphorical Wikipedia page about glacial formations?

And in this global society with its ever increasing population and ever rising temperatures, the need for us to co-operate will only get stronger.

But as Kropotkin, Heylighen, and many people before and since, move towards co-operation on a global scale, UKIP the “us and them” mindset they epitomise remain a page behind. Like the patriot who will kill for his country but won’t die for humanity, UKIP is something of an evolutionary dinosaur, the residual effects of group selection pressures before the groups grew to include the people they seek to exclude.

Let’s hope it doesn’t take a catastrophe for them to catch up.

The Click

Attention rapt the finger snap cracks through the air.
The moment captivated, a shard of truth encapsulated,
A sudden silent insight enshrined inside.
You’re in.
No words describe this notion anchored deep,
Woven by association through the very fabric of the vibrations that break us out of sleep.
The lens rotates, the picture focuses.
A change of filter, the veil is lifted,
A snap of the view beyond captured, emblazoned imprinted,
Bedded into naked perception, it’s message imbibed embodied,
Like a mouthful swallowed too swiftly to be savoured.