Sometimes we become so used to the way things work that we don’t even realize when there are options. Yet simple thought experiments can reveal possibilities that we would never see if we just rearrange normal daily experiences. In this essay, we’ll consider such a thought experiment to see what we can learn about relationships and the way all living beings interact, and consider what it might look like to turn a fundamental aspect of life upside down.

One of the most fundamental forces in life is selfishness. This expresses itself in ways that make sense, like self-preservation, but also in ways that don’t, like stealing and murder. Richard Dawkins characterized this force as something applying to genes rather than individuals (in his book The Selfish Gene), but it ends up in much the same place. Fundamentally, all living organisms compete for a limited set of resources, and so survival requires them to act first on one’s self interest, often at the expense of others.

When we introduce social structures, and include Dawkins’ perspective that it is really the gene that is selfish rather than the organism, the full expression of selfishness can be complex. Parents may act selflessly to provide for their children, for example. Individuals may even act altruistically if it benefits the greater good (thus benefiting those most like them). And motivations can be mistakenly applied, so that the pity normally channeled to our own offspring can be misapplied to others, even dolls. But the heart of all these things is still selfishness.

Scientists seem to have pretty much accepted this, and when one becomes attuned to it, selfishness seems pervasive. The force drives business, sports, politics, and pretty much all living activity. It is the fundamental basis for conflict and often death.

The result is the world we see: a mix of peace and conflict, plenty and starvation, life and death. Abundance for some, at the expense of others.

However, what if this were turned on its head? Instead of individuals being selfish, what if they were selfless? What if, instead of taking from others, the fundamental force in life was giving? Imagine if the focus in life was to make sure those around were provided for. Instead of looking for the weakest (the easest to take from) or the richest (with the most we can take), we looked for those with most need, and with least ability to provide for themselves.

The rules of such a world wouldn’t make sense to us. They would seem foolish, weak, even self-destructive. But if every individual shared the same behavior, then it would work. Instead of conflict, there would be cooperation, peace, balance, universal provision, and less death. Life might seem a lot less exciting, but maybe that’s ok if no one is starving to death.

We yearn for this, believe that it is possible, and work for it as a society. It almost seems like the sort of utopia that civilization is moving towards. Yet, is it really achievable?

Maybe, with the right rules. But such a world would be unstable if every person was forced to follow rules that are diametrically opposed to their very nature. It would only take a single selfish (ie, natural) individual to unbalance everything. Since selfishness is so fundamental to all life, perhaps it’s not possible after all without a change to our nature.
So we have two realms — one is the world we live in, and one is a different reality that we desire.

On the surface, the different realm seems impossible since it requires changing the fundamental nature of who we are as living beings. But looking deeper, there’s more hope.

Even though we share much with every other life on the planet, what if there was something different about humans? A brighter spark that sees the other world as home, the normal way of things. Removing our current corruptible selves, the spark would live on, surrounded with others, fulfilling our true natures.

Is this just a thought experiment, or a way of seeing the rest of reality?