'I' and 'we' must cooperate for the survival of self and species

Published: Saturday, July 4, 2009 12:05 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 

There is a biological difference in the two versions of survival. The chemistry of self-preservation and the molecules of survival of the species are not the same. In fact, they involve opposite hemispheres of the brain. Perpetuation of the species is mediated by the hormone oxytocin, which is released in the mother during labor and nursing. Mothers make sacrifices daily, their sleep, their bodies, their total energies on behalf of their offspring.

In contrast, the atoms of stress and action, norepinephrine and epinephrine, are the instruments for self-survival. They follow the prime directive to stay alive. They are the biochemical power that drives the lost from abandoning hope and the trapped to keep digging. The genes must stay alive at all costs, and the body is equipped with a defense system against all threats, domestic and foreign. The problem is the two solutions are antithetical. Self-survival becomes self-sacrifice when you save others. The good of the one is subsumed by the needs of the many. Or in the words of Spock and Kirk of "Star Trek," "Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the ... one."

Story continues below

Can a solution in politics be a conscious effort to reconcile the apparent contradictions between self, "I," and species, "we"? Can the political parties grown up from the seeds of these contradicting biological needs come together somewhere midway between the two sides and realize the issues of survival apply to both bodies? The question is: Can the two parties exercise their core beliefs without denying or attacking the other survival solution? I believe that it is possible to identify mutually shared needs that can be realized to reach a common good. Compromise is essential for productive politics, because fulfilling mutual essential primal needs brings a feeling of security. It is critical that both parties feel their basic existence is ensured. Otherwise the result will be the majority will crush the minority. Or conversely, the opposite will occur: The few will rule the many.

The enslavement by excessive "we" thinking is represented by the totalitarianism of the masses. There is a loss of individual motivation and individual responsibility. The one is sacrificed on the altar of the many. The absence of personal freedom and personal identity is the end product of any state that is guided exclusively by the supremacy of the whole to the subjection of the single person. We have seen, and Europe and Asia have experienced, the brutal subjugation that is necessary to force uniformity.

Recent comments

The article is verbose and pedantic.

@Right On | July 5, 2009 at 4:57 p.m.

Dr. Cramer put this problem in very concise and understandable terms,...

Right On | July 5, 2009 at 3:45 p.m.

So, Dr Cramer, are you saying "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?

Clarification | July 4, 2009 at 10:20 a.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

BYU's old uniforms?

BYU's current uniform color is actually closer to the team's original color...

Obama to pledge 17% cut in CO2

Too bad he didn't pledge to cut methane gas in half by the year 2012, the...

Matt Reynolds vs. Koa Misi

The only thing that matters is emotion. Throw the game plan out the window...

This is so awfully sad. My heart goes out to his entire family and friends.

BYU's old uniforms?

At least BYU has tradition to look back upon, unlike the utes. Let's see your...

Thunder rolls by Jazz

will look a lot better in April than it does now. OKC is a second round...

Twilight

Worst movie ever. More bare chested men than "300" Dull, boring. Poor...

BYU's old uniforms?

Utah fans know all about that. They've become quite good at it....

Yeah right.

Rivalry has had some 'turkeys'

...I don't cheer on the Utes. 1. Red is a 3-letter word and so is bad....

Advertisements