I just don’t know what to do with myself, I’m in a limbo state of mind. Slowly I’m trying to rebuild my life, yet sometimes I feel it just too dam slow. Life seems grating, the world seems like it’s inching closer to totalitarian government. My government seems to me growing more fascist by day, there nothing I can do about it. I feel helpless. I’m forced to do things that make no sense and bullied by society to conform. I don’t like it. What are you supposed to do when the world turns towards tyranny? No one really covers that in school. Stoicism covers it a bit saying don’t be like them, don’t let what you can’t change bother you. Yet I find that I can’t help but be bothered by it.
It all seems silly at times, it’s just mask, it’s just a jab, its just critical race theory, its just your liberty. It deep down is question of identity of our social values, yet we seem to no longer value freedom liberty or any notion of true justice. Were being divided I feel and the outcome is something that will not be verry nice. I simply don’t feel motivated to build a life in the foundations of a social and political tyranny, I find myself becoming rather misanthropic about the world I live in. I can not seem to help myself and if I can not help myself I cant help others. My adult life has been a mess I wont to blame it all on my childhood, I cant though as we defined by our deeds my deed are my own my failure are my own. Not when it comes time to build something new something good I find the has decayed I feel like I am to late to help. I feel as though my trashed passed will tarnish anything new I tried to build and I am supposed to build this in a totalitarian world.
How can I possibly be a new myself when the world wonts me to conform rather than be individual, rather than being the superman the world seems to want cattle. I don’t like it, but I guess I don’t have to like it that’s what stoicism taught me, I don’t have to like the world I just have to be not like it. In Hegelian they would say that I must conform because to do anything or oneself that dos not contribute in some deed our outcome to the grater good of society it is amoral as in without moral principal there is a reason fascists and communists alike – like Hegel these Eusocialists have something to answer for in my opinion with the loss of individual rights and of individuality itself. We have become collectivist we have become more than social we are becoming Eusocial witch is a very bad thing for the individual. We if I am correct which I believe I am with such health fascism as wee unfolding before our eyes a dramatic loss of individual freedom and liberty. (see post 39) Which brings me to the origin of compassion care and concern.
To understand the origin of compassion care and concern we have to dispel an old myth. That myth being Group Selection. Group Selection was championed by V.C. Wynn-Edwards in 1960 and popularised by an American TV show “Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom”. This is a misconception of the evolution of behaviour, Group selection was done in by a series of theoretical and empirical studies showing key patterns of behaviour were incompatible with it. The key works done by evolutionary biology. George Williams of SUNY Stony Brook and Bill Hamilton of Oxford University.
Often referred to as Neural Darwinism Charles Darwin postulated that group selection could impact the ability of the individual to survival in groups. He was most certainly correct in this assessment as we learned over time The Group is unconcerned with the individual unit it is expendable. The importance of the individual was best Highlight by B.F Skinner and C.B Fraser in “Schedules of Reinforcement” 1997 wherein the Operant Behaviour was contrasted with the work of Pavlov in his approach known as Classical Conditioning. In studying individuals non normative behaviour and accumulating the individual cases, under controlled conditions for the purpose of studying when to schedule reinforcement for operant behaviour methods, learning how animals learn new behaviour form spontaneous acts. Noting that once you allow for the different ways different species make contact with the environment what remains of their behaviour shows astonishingly similar properties. The use of “operant” here is as a noun: “an item of behaviour that is not a response to a prior stimulus but something which is initially spontaneous, which may reinforce or inhibit recurrence of that behaviour”.
The sentiment here can be boiled down to a simple observation, most eusocial  insects in a colony or ‘society’ are non-reproductive. Why would the individual ant forgo reproduction? Group Selection would of course say for the greater good of the group. Though one might say this is naive of any person to assume. Animals don’t behave for the good of species but rather they behave to maximise the number of copies of themselves. Williams of SUNY Stone Brooks elaborates how this more standard genetic system, in species from non-eusocial insects to us was incompatible with Group Selection. So given that ‘selfish gene’ as coined by Darwin, were led to individual selection. Though if we are inherently selfish which we indeed are how has it been possible for our groups to survive?
Individual section seems to best describe the behaviour of survival or surviving, for non eusocial animals take for example: a Lioness chasing down a zebra, were the zebra a group selectionist it would stop and sacrifice itself for the group, but it does not. It runs like the wind. Another example might be the crossing heard animals at a river crossing laden with expectant Alligators In the program, “Mutual Of Oklahoma Wild Kingdom” it was presented that the oldest and sickly would gallantly wade out and sacrifice themselves for the group. While the Gators were busy with the sacrifice the rest of the heard could cross. Poppycock  as we can see in the video below no such thing occurs. Raising the question form where did such a notion come? Not something I feel I can answer here but I have an idea.
So, then if we are inherently selfish how then do manage to cooperate? Well, it would seem in endeavouring to propagate copies of ourselves we inevitably sacrifice ourselves for our copies. Yet this says nothing of how we learned to cooperate and not kill the young of another such as a Brown Bare Male might kill the young of a rival if the female allows, with him being the better mate. Well by the consequences of our own actions, we are very similar to our mammal friends in how learning new behaviour; we have some advantages a more developed nervous system allows us more adaptability. We learned over time to reciprocate social behaviour the outcome being less conflict. This is an important aspect to all animals, in the wild even a simple cut can be life threatening. So, animals will most often go to extraordinary lengths to avoid conflict, developing ritualistic behaviour to minimise risks. For example, the cuddly Panda! An extremely powerful but lazy animal, its ritual to protect resources from others with status by seeing whom can defecate highest on the trunk of a tree. That these things are respected show a high level of cooperation. Many such examples can be found in ‘animal’ Kingdom that includes like it or not ourselves. So, we learn operantly how to survive in groups, by respecting the individual; the individual being paramount, the individual’s behaviour being the fundamental component of any group. The irony is it is our selfish nature to survive that allowed us to care and by extension of consequence, ‘the fallout effect’ (if you like) we care about others. Research conducted by Frans De Waal a Dutch primatologist and ethologist. He is the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Primate Behaviour in the Department of Psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Discovered on average female chimpanzees were more empathetic, across all chimpanzees the most dominant males did most of the comforting. Highlighting that leadership has far more to it than power and dominance. 
 (of an animal species, especially an insect) showing an advanced level of social organization, in which a single female or caste produces the offspring and non-reproductive individuals cooperate in caring for the young.