In the world right now, there is undoubtedly a conversation being had about how ruthless, competitive, and “dog eat dog” nature is. Perhaps someone, somewhere, is even using this argument to defend, or explain, why humans are so competitive: “It’s just nature at work!” In such a discussion of human competition, it is tempting to turn to Darwin’s ideas of evolution to explain social trends and perpetuate the idea that “the insured outcome of the “most ideal” justifies any barbarity in between as natural.” We call this Social Darwinism, and it has served to justify an array of monstrous atrocities, most popularized being the Jewish Holocaust. Not only does this translation of evolution into Social Darwinism lack any sense of morality, it is also operating off of a false fundamental understanding of evolutionary science when it comes to the role competition has and the outcomes it creates.

“Survival of the fittest” is but one form that evolution takes in natural selection, and the phrase is largely misunderstood to mean that there is always a victor and a loser in evolution. However, the dominant driver in evolution, rather than death of the less fit under certain circumstances, is the adaptation of the less fit. Adaptation of a species plays the predominant role, a role so significant that the win-lose mentality wanes in comparison. The diversity of creatures on earth, and the array of niches they fill, prove the ultimate force of adaptation and symbiosis as the product of evolution. More shockingly, competition, which drives the need to adapt, is in a process of resolution as a whole ecosystem evolves.

As interconnected living systems evolve, they become more complex. In other words, the theory of entropy in life sciences and physics--the theory that energy and matter are continually headed towards a disordered array--seems to be working backwards. The theory of entropy can be thought of most concisely when putting it in the context of time. You can shatter a glass very easily, but you can never go back in time to put the glass back together exactly as it was. The metaphorical glass of the universe is shattering into a disordered form, starting with the Big Bang; thus, the universe is going from order to disorder. However, life is continually organizing itself, an exception to entropy; in a sense, it's time working backwards. Here’s where competition comes in: the more complex an ecosystem gets, the less competition there is and the more orderly it operates. Likewise, the more competition grows among species within an ecosystem, the more complex an ecosystem must, and will, become to end the competition and attain order. The founding principle behind these arguments is that it takes an incredible amount of energy for multiple species, or members within a species, to compete. It takes less energy for one of the species to adapt or a group of members within that species to branch off. In this way of branching off and adapting, what is creating tension between two competing groups no longer poses a threat to either. This is a complicated notion and requires an in depth example.

The research of finches in the Galapagos Islands conducted by scientists is extensive and not only proves that evolution occurs on a much more rapid scale than Darwin had imagined but also that the diversification of members within a species over generations enables broad success. Diversification allows the carrying capacity to increase as separate attributes develop to fill ever expanding niches. The below examples of Darwin’s finches is complicated and, to fully grasp, requires understandings of what carrying capacities and niches entail.

The carrying capacity is how many individual members a population can sustain in a specific environment under certain conditions. Any number above the carrying capacity will cause death within the population until the carrying capacity is once again stabilized. A niche is the role, or tactic of survival, an animal has in an ecosystem. For example, the consumptive niche a caterpillar has could be eating leaves. The more precise a niche is, the less competition there will be for that niche with other organisms. For example, the monarch caterpillar only feeds on milkweed; if all caterpillars were able to eat any kind of leaf, there would be a lot of competition, thus all caterpillars would be struggling against other caterpillars--not to mention every other leaf eating organism as well--making life very hard. Because of this competition, caterpillars like the monarch have evolved to eat specific types of foliage. This effectively eliminates competition by allowing organisms to fill their own specific niche.

Peter and Rosemary Grant spent 20 years researching Darwin’s theory of natural selection on a isolated island in the Galapagos Archipelago, very fittingly where Darwin first theorized and researched evolution. The Grants witnessed natural selection in motion, an occurrence Darwin thought only possible over thousands of years, as different types of finches mated with one another to produce a hybrid breed that prospered well after a major flood in 1983. More shocking is Dolph Schluter's research, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of British Columbia who has furthered the understanding of competition within an ecosystem. Schluter's Galapagos research on the competition between small beaked finches and other small beaked birds of overlapping territories yielded shocking results: there was virtually no competition despite the similar structure of the beaks because varying diets had evolved within the species to reduce inter-species competition. Instead of either the finches or another small beaked bird becoming dominant through a slightly fitter design--thus killing off all "inferior" small beaked birds--natural selection occurred within each species of small beaked birds to allow a specific niche that limited competition between species. Diversity was kept intact. Furthermore, Schluter's 1979 computer simulated study--in which algorithms modeled a hypothetical island with variables accounting for seed sizes and possible beak sizes--found that a single species placed on his island would adapt by branching off into different species to limit competition. Instead of one large population with inner competition and a low carrying capacity, three species eventually took hold to sustain non-competition. This proved Darwin’s “divergence” theory (Weiner). Divergence is the “struggle for existence” and it creates diversity: nature’s attempt to harmonize.

Divergence is why there is such a broad scope of organisms that, as many evolutionary scholars believe, originated from one organism. Instead of natural selection producing an overarching “victor,” natural selection causes species to adapt overtime to fill specific niches that don’t conflict (as shown in Schluter's studies). From the driving force of competition, the product of evolution is diversification. Only when changes happen in an environment extremely rapidly (such as floods, droughts, climate change in the Anthropocene, etc.) do extinctions occur. Furthermore, the more variations that exist among species, the larger a whole ecosystem's carrying capacity can be. This helps explain why in Schluter's study three species emerged from one, and this was also what Peter and Rosemary Grant observed in their studies of the many different types of finches on the remote island of Daphne Major.

With its branches stretching out horizontally instead of reaching towards the sky, it takes on the shape of an umbrella and, in turn, has become an iconic image of the African Savannah: the acacia tree. It would be impossible to describe the acacia tree without explaining its relationship with the acacia ant. The acacia tree and the acacia ant have evolved to cooperate with one another to such a degree that without one, the other cannot survive. The acacia ants consume nectar that the acacia tree secrets, and in turn the ants act as bodyguards to the tree. In the Amazon and African Savanna, the ants clip vines and foliage off of the tree so that sunlight may always reach its leaves for photosynthesis. The ants also act as bodyguards for the tree; when other insects climb aboard the tree, the ants attack to protect the acacia's leaves. In summary, the ants need the tree for the nectar, the tree needs the ants for protection (Acacia). Now, why would the tree and the ants evolve to rely so heavily on one another? 1) It’s a very specific niche fostering less competition and 2) it would have required more energy for the acacia tree to kill off the ants than it would to adapt/provide the ants nectar, and it would have required more energy for the ants to kill the trees and have to move on to a new food source than to be the stewards and the bodyguards of their resource. Humans can learn a lot from the acacia ant. Another example of this mutualistic symbiosis is the relationship between the Melissa blue butterfly and ants of the Rocky Mountains. Ants that feed on the butterfly's sugary secretions protect them while they're still caterpillars after they hatch from eggs onto lupine flowers and leaves (Melissa).

All of these examples are to say that on an ecosystem's scale, evolution is always tending towards cooperation and never done getting there. In a completely evolved world, there would be no such thing as parasites, only neutral or mutualistic symbiotic relationships.

To anthropomorphize for a clear understanding, nature and evolution are working to make neat the competition that arises between corp: a mother forcing peace between two arguing siblings. Nature’s evolution at large, despite all popular understandings, is fighting against competition and repulsed by it--constantly evolving to increase cooperative symbiosis. Competition drives the dance of biodiversity; a uniformity of “fittests” within a system is the opposite of what natural competition drives. Simply put, Social Darwinism, in a world where the word is connoted in the context of science instead of blind supreme licensing, is diversity.

Diversification is stability. What we can learn from what we understand of nature’s grand scheme is to be site specific and solution oriented within each niche. It is tempting to latch on to an idea of “one grand overarching solution” to problems such as climate change, water management, and globalization, but the fact of the matter is that there is no one solution, and the more “one grand solution” is forced, the more the majority will still face the problem. It is always sadly funny to hear someone say, “Yeah, wind power... but that won’t work everywhere. We need something that works everywhere. Solar doesn’t do that either...” What they are misunderstanding is that the more broad a system is, the more unstable it is. The answers to climate change lie not in one alternative energy, but in the application of many different forms that are best suited for their specific environments. In water management, to draw another comparison, there is no one irrigation system that will increase water efficiency. The success of the system has to do with crop type, soil type, regional precipitation, politics, etc. It would be impossible to engineer one efficient irrigation system: among some possible types are drip irrigation, indoor farming, sprinkler irrigation (dependent), and many more. All have immense potential in their given field, but only in their given field. In globalization, a first world country might have what it thinks is a good idea or system for another country, only to force the idea or system and find out that what would have best served the people is something entirely different. To help, in this case, would require an understanding of another culture’s identity from the culture's specific point of view. Some "innovation" thought to possess inherent inherent value may actually be empty of meaning where more relevant/immediate concerns are present. Helping other peoples, like combating climate change and water management, requires an understanding of specific environments and circumstances. Sustainable solutions lie in a billion minds and ideas, in micro advancements and collaboration. In summation, the more diverse and multilayered a system of energy is, the more stable it is, and, quite honestly, there can be no one simple solution to any complex system because--by definition--there are many factors continuously changing in a complex system.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, what we can learn from nature’s path towards diversification and cooperation is how to be human. Whatever competitive, manipulative, scheming aspect of our psyche exists, I believe it to be a factor enabled by the idea of fierce individualism within our culture. At heart, we are not separate from nature, so in the grand scheme of things I believe we as a species--too--are aiming towards diversity and cooperation. However we have forgotten this in our path, I believe it possible to remember in simple things as natural as catching someone before they fall. Such requires no thought, just the quick motion of a hand to steady another. This is not hardwired by an instinct of self preservation--if anything, it hinders it--so why do it? Why extend an arm? A scientist might say, “group dynamics,” which is just a fancy way of saying compassion. Compassion has a role in evolution: the hard wiring of the group dynamic. With this extended arm for another, in that precise moment, we exist as human because we exist together.

All exists together.

That is the story of evolution.

Works Cited:

"Acacia Tree Ants." Video. National Geographic, n.d. Web. 09 July 2017.

"Melissa Blue (includes Karner Blue) Plebejus Melissa (W.H. Edwards, 1873)." Melissa Blue (includes Karner Blue) Plebejus Melissa (W.H. Edwards, 1873) | Butterflies and Moths of North America. Butterflies and Moths of North America, 29 Aug. 2016. Web. 09 July 2017.

Weiner, Jonathan. The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. New York: Vintage, 2014. Print.