Can we co-exist?

I work with rehabilitation of criminals, extremists and people claiming broken souls. People contemplating ending their lives and survivors of sexual abuse. People wishing to win the football championships or olympic games. People moving past addiction to recover their lives. Successful people with loving families and burnout. Refugees, incarcerated people and wonderfully neurodiverse people. In other words, people.

Looking at the news lately I ask myself, if, as a species, we can co-exist.

We seem to be simple in many ways, similar to most mammals. My interactions with thousands of clients have led me to what I call the Four Laws of human behaviour:

1. We seek to avoid pain and death

2. We seek to gain safety, procreation and pleasure

In addition to this we are flock animals, which means we need other individuals to achieve these two gains. How we do this seems to fall into two general categories:

3. We seek our goals at cost of others, by manipulation, enslavement or annihilation.

4. We seek our goals in collaboration with others, seeking mutual success.

Regardless of how we dress this in theories of psychology, philosophy of morals or religious ideas, our actions seem to boil down to the same actions, as defined above.

In addition to this, we do not seem to be born "the same" and a myriad of environmental and social factors seem to groom and nudge us into "being" a certain way - which is perceived as our "personality" or "character".

My practical experience is different. It seems we can adapt and evolve into a plethora of "personalities" with widely differing moral values and beliefs, depending mostly on the situation we are in and whom we are surrounded by.

Anyone can evolve into a criminal depending on circumstances.

Anyone can evolve into a successful contributor to society depending on circumstances.

It is true that we show our true colors in the eyes of adversity. This explains how humanitarians can travel from safe well paid jobs to zones of war to help others, and it explains how hundreds of thousands of refugee women and children from Venezuela fleeing into Colombia can be picked up by criminal networks and put into human trafficking to be exploited.

And it is not that most people are either "good" or "bad" - it depends. On the circumstances. I was told by a scholar of morals "fill a theatre with humanitarians and religious leaders and drop a fire bomb in the middle: a surprising majority will trample others to get out, especially if they do not know each other prior to the event".

The science of this looks at three main moral categories (study here):

1. Unconditional operators - they will always contribute and fight for the collective good
2. Free riders - they will always look out for themselves at cost of others if necessary
3. Conditional operators - the large group, that will adapt to what most accept ("I was only following orders")

The question arises what makes us one or the other:

Can loving academics raise a serial killer?

Will every child born into a criminal environment be a criminal?

Can a pillar of society turn out to be a pedophile or wife beater?

Can a megalomanic psychopath become a president or corporate leader?

Can collectives of humans conspire to maim or annihilate everyone else to gain from it?

Are there humans who knowingly destroy earthly resources for generations to come in the name of personal profit right now?

All of the above happens all the time, and it seems like it would be great to understand the mechanics so we can pave a road for something better (if we are among those interested in that).

Can a criminal be reformed?

Is there a way to co-exist within these Four Laws and human traits?

We know it has worked in pockets of time and space. Some of the most wonderful human beings I have met are those who have come through the dark void of unjust life circumstances and ended up in addiction or jail, to come out as individuals I respect and would give the keys to my house or take care of my family.

We also know the opposite just by looking at the news.

In the spirit of Robert Sapolsky, an American academic, neuroscientist, and primatologist we may consider the concept of "free will" to play a much minor role than we may find comfortable. Basically he says we are the sum of innumerable factors and coincidences and good intents and bad intents and parenting and the internet and..

And this is not something we can "design" or "change" in a simple way. It adheres not to deconstructive logic such as that of mechanics and machines, it is the kind of logic that shapes a cloud: a field called chaos logic. It all boils down to one answer to every question: "it depends".

In Sweden we come from a generally naive culture of trusting authorities with all our personal information and politicians to be looking out for our best. Lately scandals are unravelling at a pace where we seem to be, globally speaking, much more normal.

If true, would it be crazy to talk about this more?

‍