replicators (the genes) construct each living entity using as construction material the molecules available to them, for example as supplied by food. Dawkins calls all living entities “survival machines” constructed by and for the genes. We can also call them ‘gene vehicles’. The process of evolution by natural selection begins with a gene mutation which alters the vehicle it constructs. If this vehicle is better adapted to its environment than other vehicles it is more likely to survive and pass on its genes. It will have ‘evolved’, but since the mutated gene builds the next generation it could be said that the gene has evolved. The successful vehicles that genes build soon die, but the genes live on indefinitely.
Whether life exists elsewhere in the cosmos or not, it is an infinitesimal fraction of the lifeless part and its continued existence depends on there being no local disturbance of the cosmos such as an exploding sun or a stray meteor. Also what caused the initial replication and its endless repetition is not explained by the ‘scientific idea’ referred to, and being beyond explanation in terms of current physico-chemical knowledge, may be dependent on a cosmically unstable force. Such a force being unstable could cease at any time and life would no longer exist. Perhaps there is a molecular tension generated by the instability, that produces via the genes a constant fear in the organisms they build of not surviving.
Alternatively it might be argued that fear would have evolved anyway as an aid to survival in a threatening environment, rather than existing as a primal fear, and if there is a persistent general fear it could simply be a personal memory of many past fears. A Jungian idea of inherited memories of routine dangers and natural catastrophes such as earthquakes and thunder storms could also account for it. But the symptoms described suggest a fundamental source, and a primal fear explains them better. Whatever the case, it can be said that a “cosmic threat” to life exists, and it is notable that all of life’s molecules ultimately return to the inorganic cosmos.
The foregoing and related observations lead to the hypothesis that:
There is a ‘cosmic threat’ to the survival of life. In humans it produces a non-specific entrenched fear of which we are usually unaware, because it is routinely assuaged or suppressed.
Normal survival activities such as working and eating usually reduce the entrenched fear to some intermediate state of vague unease. At times when the fear is reduced by ongoing successful survival activity, or the anticipation of special pleasure, the emotion is joy. When the fear is not being assuaged or suppressed the emotion is anxiety or depression.
The entrenched fear initiates the fight against perceived danger to survival, and becomes part of the total fear of the danger. If the expectation is imminent violent death the sensation is terror. If the total fear has been completely assuaged in some way the emotion is ecstasy.
Techniques for assuaging or suppressing the entrenched fear
Three techniques were implied when evidence was presented in support of the hypothesis – fantasizing protection by gods, adopting superstition, and seeking ‘distractions’. In the case of protection by gods the fear of actual dangers can also be assuaged by prayer. The price of this relief is the pain of periodic doubt, the occasional commitment to holy wars and the acceptance of various obligations. Distractions have an emotionally dulling effect, and superstition substitutes one fear for another. The important thing for the individual is the net effect of whatever techniques are selected. If the net effect is general contentment with life or better, the techniques can be regarded as desirable. If not, alternative techniques can be sought.
It can be assumed that the sensations of pleasure and pain evolved at much the same rate as the structure of the ‘gene vehicles’ became more complicated. The survival value of pain becomes clear when we withdraw quickly from a pin prick. The evolution of pleasure presumably progressed from when a mutant felt better while eating nutritious food or experiencing an optimum temperature and so on. Feeling better became the sensation of pleasure, which then directed the organism towards activity favorable to survival. It is not surprising then that pleasure is associated with survival and capable of assuaging the entrenched fear. Does this mean that hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake, is the beginning of all action and that the progression of the action then depends on balancing pleasure against its disadvantages? It seems so, though in most of life there are many routine actions that have been established as survival activities and generally outweigh any loss of pleasure they necessitate. Going to work each day is an example.
It is also possible to experience pleasure that has no survival value, but assuages the entrenched anxiety. This happens when eating tasty food beyond basic satiety or copulating beyond basic satiety or resting beyond necessity. It can also be achieved by ingesting various drugs that mimic the effect of the natural sources of pleasure. It is proposed in the hypothesis that fighting against perceived danger (any danger is a threat to survival be it ever so small) is initiated by the entrenched fear of the cosmic threat. If so, constant use of pleasure sources that suppressed fear without the need for survival activity would be potentially lethal, and hence they could have only a temporary effect. People tend to find a balance between using pleasure relief and engaging in survival activity, for example by doing a useful day’s work and enjoying some alcohol thereafter. If using pleasure relief becomes excessive, the person begins to exhibit symptoms of anxiety between usages, such as irritability, negativity, intolerance of petty discomforts and irascibility, and most significantly, finds it increasingly difficult to work. There is also a progressive increase in severity of the symptoms, until they become intolerable and at this point there are two ways for the person to go. The discomfort of the craving can be endured until the entrenched fear is controlled by survival activities, or the pleasure relief can be used again. The second way leads to addiction. It is worth noting that apologists for drug addiction (drugs include alcohol and nicotine as well as the so called hard drugs) assert that addiction is physiological. This conflicts with the evidence that while forced removal of a drug sometimes leaves a physiological ‘withdrawal’ distress, this soon wears off, but the addiction usually returns when the drug is obtainable again. Sometimes the addict is able to endure the distress or anxiety long enough to return to more active ways of relieving the entrenched fear. Such a desirable move is not assisted by labeling the addiction a ‘sickness’ presumably incurable. It is also interesting that contrary to the apologist’s denial mode, society in general has understood one addiction by labeling unnecessary food “comfort food”.
The natural technique for dealing with the entrenched fear is by learning and practicing skills. Most skills have potential survival value and require effort. In a broad sense all ‘work’ requires skill of some sort, and rest and recreation are natural accompaniments of work.
Social living
Another method of assuaging the hypothesized entrenched fear of the Cosmic Threat is by an intimate association with a small number of other individuals and a general association with the community. Apart from the psychological assistance provided by interpersonal relationships, social living is a technique of fundamental survival, since humans cannot survive alone in the wild. It has been practiced for many thousands of generations.
Much can be said about the theory of evolution but the essence of it is that since the quantity of food and water in a particular area is finite and the reproductive potential of living entities is infinite, a point will be reached when there are as many eaters and drinkers as there are eats and drinks, and thereafter there will be competition for eats and drinks and the better competitors will survive and become the occupants of the area. An obvious example of this at present is the decreasing population of wild animals in areas won by humans.
For more than two billion years animals have survived, or not survived, by ruthless individual competition with others. While even very early animals tended to live in close proximity, for example jelly fish, it is assumed by most theorists th
at individuals (or more specifically genes) were the evolving units, and significant social living is a relatively new phenomenon. Social or group living requires that individual members suppress at times the operation of instincts that aided their individual survival. This is clearly necessary since a society requires that all members do some things in a similar way whether that suits certain members at the time or not. Since suppressing the operation of instincts is difficult, and in a particular situation might reduce the survival potential of the individual, the overall value of group living must be great to more than compensate for the loss. In lower animals group living is still marginal and requires minimum restraint of individual behaviour. Watch a flock of seagulls attacking a picnicker’s scattered fish and chips and the competition is still clear, yet seagulls do flock. Perhaps mere companionship is the attraction and has survival value in reducing the nervous strain of survival in isolation. More obviously the warning of danger that follows by chance when one part of a flock flies off suddenly, would have survival value for those that did not notice the potential