Life as an experiment
The significance of random variations in a population
It’s possible to see each person as an experimental variation created by the universe. Most of us are distinct genetically, and all of us have different experiences and learnings (even those unusual people who are genetically identical to someone else). This observation has implications for humanity as a whole, as well as for how each of us sees ourselves. Each person is an element in the variability of the human population. We tend to take this variation for granted, but it’s a component in the survival of the species.
If we were all identical, we’d have identical strengths and weaknesses. For example, a virus that could kill one of us could kill all of us. We’d have little or no ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The presence of traits that are harmful at the current moment allows for the possibility that some of those traits might become beneficial in the future.
A population benefits from random variations among individuals, even though a particular individual may not receive any benefit from those variations. But in this scheme of diverse individuals, it’s worth underscoring which entity adapts and survives: the population as a whole. Indeed, it’s possible that an entire population consists of individuals with one or more problematic variations. Any specific individual of interest may well perish or suffer, because of being poorly adapted to many (perhaps most) environments.
[There’s also a computer-security version of this set of ideas; however, the issues of diversity are a little trickier and less clear-cut there, because of economic forces that tend to drive corporate fleets of devices toward common configurations.]
Taking this perspective, each of us is some random grab bag of traits. In any specific time and place, some traits are advantageous, some are neutral, and some are disadvantageous. The same can also be said about our learning and experience: the knowledge that we retain may or may not be helpful in the environment where we find ourselves.
Accordingly, there are two fallacies to avoid: one is the idea that there is a correct or ideal form to which we should aspire, and the other is the idea that our success or failure is entirely in our hands. Let’s take up each in turn.
No ideal form
First, there is no single correct or ideal form, because any such ideal could only exist with respect to a particular set of circumstances. In a dynamic world, having a fixed set of “ideal” characteristics risks being wiped out – as is true of any monoculture. If the world changes so that some particular characteristic is no longer ideal, but is instead a fatal vulnerability, it is important that at least some individuals don’t have that specific characteristic.
If the goal is to survive and thrive into the indefinite future, rather than achieving optimization for a particular setting, then the diverse-population strategy is effective. At any single point in time, there may be some particular set of characteristics that is the best available combination for that particular environment. However, because the world is dynamic, there is no reason to think that the current “winning combination” will stay in that position.
Not all about us
The second fallacy to avoid is believing that our success or failure is entirely up to us. Instead, success is at least partly determined by how well our personal attributes are suited to the world in which we find ourselves. Although we may all be equal in a legal sense, we do not have identical endowments in terms of genetics, growth, or learning. For the reasons previously outlined, it would be a mistake to drive for uniformity in any of these areas. Today’s disadvantage may become tomorrow’s advantage.
If we accept that there is diversity, some of it currently disadvantageous to individuals, and that some of this contributes to the success or failure of individuals, we have a much better handle on the ways in which everyone’s life is an experiment.
Against fatalism
However, it would also be a mistake to take these realities and turn them into fatalism. It is possible, but incorrect, to see that one’s current endowment and one’s current station are fixed and that one should simply accept the situation. That seems like an overreaction to these ideas. Instead, there are clearly opportunities for self-improvement, as well as reasons to work at being the best possible version of ourselves.
Another closely-related kind of fatalism would be to decide that success was entirely out of our hands, that everything is already determined. Instead, it’s clear that one’s success or failure is not completely independent of one’s efforts. Trite as it is, the Serenity Prayer makes an important point here about the need to be prepared to make changes, to accept what cannot be changed, and to intelligently discern which choice is appropriate.
Pursuing a middle path
What we need is a kind of middle path. On one side, we strive for improvement, and work toward success. On the other side, we are kind to ourselves and others about failures and limitations.
Capitalism and competition seem to be good at providing the incentives for improvement and work. Unfortunately, those systems can seem needlessly cruel to those who fail or fall short. All the clever reasoning in the world can’t keep a strict libertarian from seeming like kind of a heartless jerk.
However, we can’t go to the opposite extreme either. If we have a very socialist and accepting kind of perspective, the temptation is to just bask in a semi-uniform semi-mediocrity. It would be better to have some motivation to do well or to do better, but it’s not clear where it would come from. So arguably we need something that gives us opportunities and incentives for improvement.
As a society, how do we organize ourselves for a middle path? Is it possible to approach that as a coherent design goal, or are we doomed to repeatedly overshoot and then correct our course by overshooting in the opposite direction? It feels important to acknowledge diversity and disadvantage as relevant concepts in such a design, rather than implicitly assuming a population of more-or-less identical rugged individualists.