Skip to main content

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative. 

Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest. 

 We don't all have or need the same levels of ability.  In that sense, the extent to which genes might be involved, we share such genes as a community.  This is what we really mean when we refer to a 'gene pool'.  It is odd that we made such a fuss about 'selfish genes', yet failed to realise that, on the contrary, 'genes' are social too - they can't work without being so.  

The checks and balances in ecosystems depend more on cooperation than on a simplistic notion of aggregate individualistic behaviour, or self-interest. Teamwork is the glue that holds the ecosystem together. 

So it is with the relationship between lions and wildebeest.  Putting aside humans, predators do not, as a rule, overexploit their prey.  The behaviour of both lions and wildebeest is dynamically interactive.  

Ecologists studying their behaviour found that when wildebeest aggregated in clumps (close groups), the lions were less likely to catch them, resulting in a lower consumption rate for each lion than when the wildebeest lived as individuals.   When both lions and wildebeest act as a group, the kill rate falls.  But the lions don't go hungry; lions working together will share a kill.  

A Pride can be as many as 30 lions living together, hunting as a team, and sharing.  When food is scarce, the pride gets smaller.  Within a pride, there is a division of roles.  The males will protect the pride and its young.  They will often be seen separated from the pride, but this is because they are defending the territorial boundary of the group.  They communicate by their roar, which can be heard over long distances.  Females are the primary hunters.  They bring down their prey working as a team, in constant silent communication with each other, fanning out to surround their target.  After the hunt, all the lions in the pride share the meal.  Cooperation works. 


Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As