I was just rereading my own article “Is don’t quit the best survival strategy” when I realised that I had absolutely no evidential base for making any assertions, except perhaps the observations of programs like Naked and Afraid, which are heavily narrated for a “story line” that is often patently false.

Then, I realised that we do have an evidential base: the survival of the human species and what is encoded into our DNA and expressed through out behaviour is clearly the result of millions of years of successful survival.

That means, that whether or not you like it, whatever you are, whatever your mental attitude, is likely to be the result of your DNA and that has proven to be the best survival strategy. So, if you are lazy, or if you are heroic, or if you are altruistic or if you are a Fauci, your DNA expresses what evolution has found by numerous trials and errors, to be the best survival strategies, at least in the natural world, and during many thousands of years of human technological-human living.

OK, evolution hasn’t had much time to work out the best strategy to cope with a nuclear bomb, because, except for a few in japan, there has been no opportunity for evolution to pick the best survival strategy. And, in any case, evolution picks the best strategy “most of the time”, which can also mean that some times, the strategy that works “most of the time” is the worst in that situation.  But that is why we have a brain!

However, I realise there is a big issue here. Evolution picks the best survival strategy for our genes. That doesn’t necessarily mean the longest life. So, (for men) that may mean, valiantly spreading our genes to as many gullible hero-worshipping women as possible, with a high risk that sooner or very soon we will die very early. So, the genes survive … but the hero worshipped man, gets eaten by a croc … but at least the numerous kids had a “great dad”. Of course I exaggerate a tiny bit, but the principle is still true. The best survival strategy for our genes, may be for us to take risks that are more than likely going to lead to an earlier death. So “being yourself” may spread more genes, but lead to an earlier death.

Another problem is that genetic survival mostly stems from a time when humans were much more active. So, “being lazy” … when someone had to be active 10 hours a day on minimal food, was good. But “being lazy” when food and labour saving devises are in abundance with the result you are so massively overweight you couldn’t make it 100m to safety because you are so unfit, is not.

Another huge problem, that evolution cannot provide an answer for, is new technology or new situations, or indeed rare situations that need a different survival strategy than normal. For these, we cannot rely on our “inbuilt DNA survival strategies” because in these situations evolution has not had the numerous trials it needs to pick the best strategy so there is no reason to believe evolution is going to help us. Instead, we need that new fangled device called a brain giving us skills, knowledge and communication … and above all else, the ability to adapt our survival strategy outwith what is encoded into our DNA.

Addendum

I realised after finishing the above, that whilst it is true that evolution provides the average person the best survival strategy for a fit, healthy individual facing the wild (with a lifetime’s knowledge of surviving in a similar environment), the average person usually has the “sense” to avoid doing things that would then later lead to them being in a survival situation.

So, if a plane full of (fit) holiday makers dropped them all onto a deserted island, on average, “being themselves” was the best survival strategy (in the past when everyone had more knowledge of the natural world).

But, if the SAS in their mission to assassinate Lenin in Moscow** were shot down … would the best advice to them be “be yourselves”? The average person would have been on the holiday flight, not on the flight to start WWIII. Indeed, I would hazard a guess that the average person in the SAS would hate being on the holiday flight and instead welcome the chance to start WWIII and “survive” in a rat and lice infested trench … so, I would argue that “being yourself” may not be the best way for the SAS to survive long term.

… I wonder if anyone has any data for “average age of death” for those who joined the SAS versus a similar “normal” group?

**It would be based on the very best UK “Intelligence” … which is only slightly behind the times.