Why do Humans Need Monsters?

I’ve got two problems (aside from not having enough money). I love reading and have always been overly optimistic about human nature. I hope for the best, but lately, it seems that just about everyone has set out to disappoint me. My wife tells me to just ignore the news, but the blasted stuff is so compelling. Compelling deliberately because viewers and clicks sell advertising. Still, no matter where you look, you see examples of blind hatred, self-destructive antipathy, gross incompetence, and stupidity on Idiocracy levels.

Despite the divisiveness in today’s media, I keep hoping that everyone will eventually get together and begin treating each other like they’d want to be treated. It just never seems to happen in real life. People continue to find trivial things to disagree about. These little disagreements turn into big ones, and the next thing you know, someone is dead, or there’s a war somewhere, or some people are being repressed violently by another group. Why is that, I wonder? Why do we consistently fail to get along with each other? It’s not like we haven’t had a million years or so to learn.

Humans apparently have a built-in need for enemies. It’s due to our biological structure in a way that isn’t readily obvious. Here’s how I think it works: Life may be defined as that which reverses entropy. Living organisms find various ways to harvest resources from the environment and organize them into structures that support creating more life. Since harvesting resources entails work, life is naturally adverse to allowing those resources to be stolen. Plants evolve defenses against being eaten. Animals evolve the means to fight or flee. Humans, being the inventive little monkeys we are, develop mechanisms to help us do both. We can bomb the crap out of an attacker while fleeing at high velocity. Clams and jellyfish would be envious if they had the intellectual capacity.

As part of our reproductive biology, we have an inbuilt mandate to protect ourselves and our progeny. Without immediate progeny, we will protect our siblings and their children. The closer the genetic connection, the more likely we are to go out of our way to ensure the safety of the progeny. Taken to the next step, we will defend our friends, their friends, our social group, our tribe, our country, and generally those individuals who look most like us. Racist, you say? Nope. Can’t help it. It’s built-in, and everybody does it to an extent. The more thoughtful extend their protective impulses to all humans, recognizing that we are all related.

There are exceptions. There always are. Humans all fall into a multi-variate bell-shaped curve. We are strong on some axes and weak on others. Some humans are high on empathy. Some aren’t, and some are, regretfully, out at the end of the bell curve where they enjoy hurting others. Humans have the ability to slide out to the uncaring end easily if they are mentally manipulated in the right ways. Look at those who wished bad outcomes on those who did not fall in with their group in the recent disease mania. That behavior can easily lead to Auswich or the Holodomor. Humanity is easily lost, and we must guard against losing it.

On individual levels, there are psychopaths who commit mass murder. On a global level, there are groups that believe they are destined to inherit the earth and who actively work to cleanse the globe of those of us who are not formally part of their group. If you happen to be one of those selected to be liquidated, that’s usually known as “bad luck,” and those doing the liquidating will insist that it’s your fault. Fortunately, such groups are often riddled with incompetence – a situation known by the name of the two individuals who had the wit to claim they discovered it: the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Some humans are found on the ends of variables relating to seeking power over others, along with various other unfortunate traits. They often find their way into politics, where they cluster together, creating a silo effect that causes them to lose what remains of their ability to emphasize with the main body of humanity and to assume that they are vastly more competent than their actions show.

Regardless of where an individual falls on the curve, we all have the ability to select others we prefer and select those we actively dislike. Despite wistful thinking or willful blindness, many humans believe their lives aren’t complete unless they have someone to hate, denigrate, and fight. Perhaps it’s a neighbor who belongs to a different political party, church, race, or sexual orientation, or maybe someone who just combs their hair on the wrong side. It’s really all the same; they are worthy of hate because…

Reflecting on this made me think a not particularly original thought: What would happen if humans had an external enemy that posed a severe threat to all of us? Would we pull together and stand as a group? The usual response to this is, “Sure! Just like in Independence Day. We’d kick those aliens’ asses (assuming they had such an anatomical part.)

It’s a necessary part of story-telling to include conflict, an enemy, winning and losing, learning to deal with defeat, and learning to win. We (humans) inherently enjoy this because we are oriented to growth and an increase in our personal skills. To be otherwise is to begin to die, and that would be a waste of our hard-won resources and an embrace of the most common trend in the Universe: negative entropy.

The stories I create explore what humans (and sometimes other forms of life) might do if faced with an enemy. I often include coping with our current system of living being broken, forcing us to reset and rebuild in a new pattern. I think it’s pretty apparent that we have trapped ourselves in a non-optimal system, and a complete reset of our society might be necessary to progress.

Most people aren’t in a position to take definitive action regarding things they don’t like about our world. However, everyone enjoys imagining what they would do if they were in a position, allowing them to influence the outcome in a significant way. Exploring that situation is a prime role of literature of all kinds. No one wants to read a book where nothing happens, no conflicts are resolved, and no goals are achieved or lost. Books with heroes who act as role models can positively impact our individual lives. It’s surprising how many wealthy people have traversed the literary form known as The Hero’s Journey in their own lives.

Given the structure of our world and the fact that we have few natural enemies and little to fear from the few that still exist, it’s not unreasonable that we fall back on conflict with other humans in our need to express our genetic mandate to harvest and protect resources. A certain amount of competition with our peers can lead to positive results in discovery, business, and life in general. Too much leads to negative outcomes such as devastating wars.

If an outside force showed up on our doorstep and threatened all of us, it’s highly likely we’d respond as a group. Were we successful in defeating this alien incursion, we’d most likely immediately revert to using the new weapons we developed in the conflict against each other.

I started this essay with the implied promise to answer why we need monsters, and while I’ve wandered around the topic, the answer is reasonably straightforward. We need monsters acting as forces to oppose us so that we can better learn to cooperate in the hopes of evolving beyond our current limitations.

I’ll leave you with a disconcerting question: We must change our way of thinking in order to advance, but if we were able to change successfully, would we still be human? And would that be good or bad?

Namaste!

Eric

Bonus: I thought it might be interesting to get ChatGPT 3.5 to comment on the above. Here’s what it had to say:

ChatGPT

The post delves into a deep reflection on human nature, conflict, and the role of “monsters” or enemies in our lives. Here are some comments on the themes presented:

Reflection on Human Nature: The author explores their disappointment with human behavior, juxtaposing their optimism with the pervasive conflicts and divisions evident in society. This introspection highlights a universal struggle many feel between hope for harmony and the reality of discord.Biological and Evolutionary Perspectives: The argument that humans have a built-in need for enemies due to evolutionary and biological imperatives is intriguing. It suggests that our propensity for conflict and division might have roots in survival instincts and the protective nature towards kin and community.Social Dynamics and Conflict: The post examines how individuals and groups form alliances and animosities based on perceived similarities and differences. It acknowledges the inherent tribalism in human societies and how this can lead to both cooperation and conflict.External Threats and Unity: The idea that humans might unite against a common external threat is a recurring theme in literature and speculation. It raises questions about whether such unity is sustainable or merely a temporary response to crisis.Literature and Human Experience: The role of storytelling and literature in exploring these themes is highlighted as a means for individuals to contemplate scenarios of conflict, cooperation, and personal growth. It underscores how narratives help us understand and navigate complex human dynamics.Philosophical Inquiry: The final questions about the nature of humanity and the implications of change prompt deeper philosophical reflection. It invites readers to ponder whether evolving beyond current conflicts would fundamentally alter what it means to be human.

In summary, the post provides a thought-provoking exploration of why humans seem to perpetually need “monsters” or adversaries. It blends biological, social, and philosophical perspectives to suggest that while conflict is innate, it may also serve as a catalyst for growth and cooperation. The open-ended questions leave room for further contemplation on the nature of human identity and the possibilities for change.