As modern people in the 21st century, we should be able to learn from our past mistakes - as state institutions, as economic institutions, and also as individual citizens.
The evolutionary perspective
Group-focused hostility is often viewed through the lens of personal ideologies and interests, but rarely with consideration for evolutionary influences.
Human beings are subject to two conflicts in their self-identity: on the one hand, they possess animalistic/evolutionary prehistoric instincts, in which they act like puppets of nature; on the other hand, modern humans are trapped in their mental self-image - the concept of the «self» and all its values and foundations of existence. These two aspects overlap, creating an all-the-more-dangerous cocktail.
From an evolutionary biological perspective - and this can also be observed in animals - we follow an ancient instinct. Many animal species, especially those that live in social groups (such as primates or wolves), exhibit a strong bond to their own group and aggression toward individuals who do not belong. This often serves to protect resources, territory, or the genetic integrity of the group.
But humans go even further: the group becomes a state, and in extreme cases, group loyalty turns into ethnocentrism or even racism. Although most people initially think of the Western world when considering this issue, it occurs just as frequently in Africa, Asia and everywhere else on Earth, and cannot be attributed to any particular region.
From a biological perspective, these tendencies also follow the natural principle of an evolutionary mismatch, which is ignored and drives the need to preserve the «in-group.» Even infants show preferences for familiar facial types (Kubota et al., 2012). What was still an advantage in the Paleolithic era, in groups of only a few hundred people, becomes a challenge in our modern societies with millions of people. While, for example, the release of dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin once rewarded us for group membership and promoted cohesion, these neurobiological mechanisms may today fail to fulfill their original adaptive function and thus have a counterproductive effect. (See, for example, Nave et al., 2015, regarding the controversial discussion surrounding oxytocin and its role in ingroup/outgroup dynamics).
Such hostile behavior contradicts natural patterns of life: behavior reminiscent of war scenarios in our world has been documented in less than 0.001% of all known animal species. Even in this species of chimpanzees, it occurs only under specific ecological conditions. In humans, however, group-based hostility is widespread across cultures. This raises the question of what drives the human species to decouple itself so completely from evolutionary selective pressure and to inflict such dysfunctional harm upon itself and the Earth. Since our Stone Age instincts continue to perceive scarcity, loss of territory, and outgroups as existential threats, we will likely remain under this «curse» until we take control of ourselves - a process for which nature might otherwise allow hundreds of thousands to millions of years to pass.
The Modern Age and Self-Awareness
Today, for the most part, we not only have more resources on Earth; in some cases, we are even overwhelmed by them, and yet the «unconscious animal» within humans always wants more. If we are not already nature’s puppets in this regard - to the point that we do not even realize what we are actually doing - mechanisms such as endless greed, which has also taken an evolutionary wrong turn, come into play as well. The ingrained tendency toward resource acquisition and status maximization - shaped by a time when there was never enough - can no longer be turned off. This leads to actors with power and wealth - whether individuals, corporations, or states - being systematically driven to accumulate ever more.
In evolutionary psychology and evolutionary medicine, it is argued that many of the challenges facing modern humans - from the excessive consumption of high-calorie foods to the excessive pursuit of status - can be understood as mismatches (the so-called “Mismatch Theory”) between our evolutionarily developed psychological mechanisms and the new environments in which we live today. Our archaic “operating systems,” which were designed for scarcity and competition for resources, struggle to adapt to environments of abundance. This leads to maladaptive behaviors and chronic dissatisfaction, even when basic needs are more than met. The evolutionary drive for “more,” once crucial for survival and reproduction, can become an insatiable and ultimately self-destructive quest in this context. (Stearns, S. C. (2012); Sapolsky, R. M. (2017); Gluckman, P. & Hanson, M. (2006))
Amid this evolutionary discrepancy lies our human ego - in short, the modern «self.»
We must acknowledge that the human «I» is a narrative or mental construct that has not yet received real recognition from evolution. Regardless of how many aspirations, values, and achievements we may have, and how much recognition and validation we receive within our own social worlds for the reality of our «I» thoughts, this «I» remains merely a thought in the echo of the universe. If we look hard, coldly, and directly into our true roots, such constructs do indeed represent a spiritual legacy that we could pass on during our lifetimes; however, they lack any real permanence supported by nature.
Brain research finds no single “I-center.” Instead, the sense of self arises from the complex interplay of various brain regions and neural networks that integrate sensory perceptions, memories, emotions, and action planning. It is an emergent phenomenon that emerges from these processes but cannot be reduced to a single entity.
We could go even further here and describe the «true self» as the only real self, if there must absolutely be a sense of self. While we are focused solely on ourselves and define ourselves through our thoughts, feelings, pains, and sensory perceptions, this is merely an expression of a «function» in which what we call consciousness is reflected. Our very way of viewing these experiences divides us: we regard our thoughts and experiences as something happening outside of us. We are not our thoughts, but rather we think them. Now we limit ourselves solely to the body, which we in turn call merely «our body.» But who or what, then, is the self? The more one probes here, the clearer it becomes that this self does not exist as a single entity at all.
Human self-identification, the “I,” manifests as a neurocognitive construct that is inseparably linked to the limited capacities of our perceptual systems and the interpretive activity of the brain (see Metzinger, 2003; Damasio, 1999). This subjective reality is a dynamic, narrative self-model that is adaptive for survival and social interaction, yet does not represent the organism’s complete ontological reality. From a deeper biological and evolutionary perspective, the ‘true self’ of every living being can be understood as an expression of the emergent phenomenon of ‘life’ and the ongoing process of ‘evolution’. From this perspective, the organism is a complex, temporary vehicle for the transmission of genetic information that has been shaped over billions of years by natural selection. Persistence thus lies not in the static, conscious “I,” but in the continuity of biological processes and genetic inheritance, which have produced us as a product of evolution and constitute the molecular basis of every individual life.
This brings us back to the danger faced by modern humans, who identify too strongly with their thoughts. For it is these thoughts that attribute their own origins to themselves and, in the context of conflicts, give them undue weight. While some may find themselves within such thoughts, in reality we all trace back to the same species. Ethnic and cultural origins are not a legacy of DNA, but are influenced by environmental conditions. Evolution has indeed left us with genetic variations, but we must make a clear distinction here. While we tend to find lighter skin types in the Western world and darker ones in Africa, the existence of a culture or origin is merely a fictional construct of human thought and creativity. It is certainly valued, but at this point it loses any claim against evolution.
Evolution, as the originator of our species, has determined who we are. And although we as humans have accomplished miracles, our ethnic origin - or even our nationality - remains merely a reality within human concepts and boundaries. These adaptations, however, are not an indicator of a true, ontological reality. For example, people can often be identified by their origin because they send signals through clothing, micro-expressions, and emotions that allow inferences about their origin when it cannot be clearly assigned. Yet these conscious and unconscious signals are merely a construct we have created, one that can change at any time and has no true permanence.
Culture, in this case as such, is a human creation that is not inherited within evolution - and this should prompt us to view cultures not as a real, enduring aspect of identity, but as an expression of human creativity that can change at any time.
Leading scientific organizations have documented this position in official statements: The American Association of Physical Anthropologists published its “Statement on Race and Racism” in 2019, while the American Society of Human Genetics formulated similar principles as early as 2018 in its statement “The Use of ‘Race,’ ‘Ethnicity,’ and ‘Ancestry’ in Human Genetic Research.” These institutional positions underscore the scientific consensus in human genetics, population genetics, and anthropology.
This is not about undermining cultures. All cultures of the world - whether European, Asian, American, African, Arab, Oceanic, or any other - are fascinating in their own way and possess an inviolable dignity within human reality. On the other hand, it is precisely these factors that can sometimes lead to the conflicts of today’s world, because people are literally driven to do so by the strong focus on self-identification and self-worth in their minds and by evolutionary reward mechanisms. Then the mantra becomes: «Me, my family, my spouse, my city, my country, my language, my culture, my ethnic background» - and in rare, radical cases, even: «my race.»
Precisely because we as a species bear the responsibility to overcome such destructive dynamics, it is essential to understand the deeper psychological roots of racism and exclusion. From a psychological perspective, a mechanism of compensation is often at play here: Those who possess a genuine sense of worth and superiority generally feel no need to demonstrate this by devaluing other groups. Hierarchies and the denigration of other groups can therefore be interpreted as an expression of insecurity or a threatened sense of self-worth. When governments or other groups demonstrate superiority and insult others, this can fuel precisely the dynamic on the opposing side that refuses to be «less.» This gives rise to a dangerous will, fueled by the feared hatred of self-assertion, which manifests itself in such structures - a grim pattern found in many conflicts, including those between belief systems, and which ultimately contributes to the endless suffering in human history.
As animals in nature, we could have been superior, and the other mammals would likely have submitted to us. Humans, however, react to this with hatred. This is an underestimated emotion bestowed by evolution to teach a lesson: You cannot do whatever you want to others simply because, due to your superiority, you might actually be able to do so. Nature has turned humans into «monsters» by giving them hatred and revenge as tools to assert themselves. Yet the harm this hatred causes is meant to demonstrate that, collectively, we are not acting optimally in this world. Even though personal responsibility cannot be avoided here and a victim remains a victim who is never given responsibility, hatred is always an expression of a wound inflicted by others.
We return to the core message: one certainly harms oneself as well when one harms others. Scientific studies by Prof. Dr. Rachel Yehuda also show that traumatic experiences of ancestors can pass down a biologically sensitive stress system, which, together with stressful family histories, can reinforce the tendency toward aggressive retaliatory behavior in the next generation.
As an intense negative emotion, hatred fulfills an important social regulatory function in evolutionary terms by signaling violations of norms and unfair treatment and enforcing social boundaries. In modern, anonymous societies, however, this originally adaptive “lesson function” of hatred is often misdirected and is aimed at uninvolved third parties or entire groups rather than at the actual perpetrators of the harm. This displacement dynamic leads to a destructive cycle in which the original socio-psychological 'lesson' of hatred loses its corrective effect and instead victimizes new innocent parties." This displacement dynamic, which was already documented in early studies on the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939), leads to a destructive cycle in which the original socio-psychological 'lesson' of hatred loses its corrective effect and instead victimizes new innocent parties. Modern research on the psychology of hatred confirms these displacement mechanisms (Sternberg, 2003), while studies on self-regulation show how such maladaptive behavioral patterns arise and are maintained (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004).
The Underestimation of Evolution
Although natural selection is considered a blind process, when one considers the result of millions or even billions of years of this selective pressure, an immanent tendency of life toward self-preservation and reproduction becomes apparent, at least from an objective perspective. This may not be scientifically interpretable as a conscious «will of the universe,» yet the phenomenon itself is undeniable: Organisms are geared toward surviving and perpetuating their existence. No empirical measurement is needed to recognize that we have survived successfully as a species. This success is an expression of the fact that life, through this ongoing process of adaptation and selection, sustains itself and is evolutionarily persistent.
The history of humanity, on the other hand, illustrates an endless cycle of powers that were ultimately always replaced. Once-dominant empires, such as those of the Persians, Romans, Mongols, or British, all repeat the same pattern of misguided evolution, which ultimately brought their persistence into fundamental conflict with the fundamental laws of the universe. Our bodies may believe they are doing the right thing by promising us infinite resources, yet evolution did not anticipate that our rapid development would lead us to possess resources in excess. This results in systemic dysfunction within the overarching cosmic and biological framework of which we are a part.
Human history and geological time reveal a recurring pattern: extreme, reckless behavior driven by a desire for dominance - whether in social, ecological, or global power structures - is systemically unstable in the long term. Scientific evidence strongly suggests that extreme tyrannical and collectively harmful behaviors do not survive because they generate systemic instability, undermine cooperation and resilience, and lead to negative feedback loops that weaken the system itself or cause it to collapse. Nature (in the sense of the systemic laws of the universe and biological evolution) resists this in the very long term by eventually filtering out or transforming such systems. This is not a conscious decision, but a consequence of principles of sustainability and adaptability. These dynamics follow systemic feedback mechanisms as described in complexity theory and systems ecology (Holling, 1973; Gunderson & Holling, 2002). Historical examples of the collapse of unsustainable social systems are well documented (Tainter, 1988; Diamond, 2005), while the analysis of cyclical patterns in complex systems is supported by mathematical models (Turchin, 2003; Scheffer et al., 2009). However, these empirically verifiable feedback processes differ fundamentally from teleological interpretations of a conscious “universal regulation.”
Although one might think that our dominant behavior represents nature, human dominance has gone far beyond the threshold set by evolution. Our dominant and territorial behavior is no longer an expression of a healthy nature, but a disease that has plunged the entire Earth into chaos.
Dominance and Responsibility
If we view ourselves as puppets of nature, it is our responsibility to rise above our own nature, which chains us here. Thanks to our prefrontal cortex, we are the only living beings granted this ability. Instead, we abuse it to create and elevate fictional self-images and place them above others. At some point, we do this collectively as an entire government. Although we possess the technologies and means to do so, we remain, within the realm of great power, victims of evolutionary discrepancy, and thus harm not only others.
Many of today’s major powers find themselves in the position their predecessors once occupied. Yet in some areas, they continue to follow a pattern of unconscious behavior driven by deeply rooted, evolutionarily shaped behaviors. These include our territorial behavior as well as dominant and aggressive impulses influenced by archaic neural systems such as the amygdala or the basal ganglia. From an evolutionary perspective, it doesn’t matter much who holds the position: in this context, any other major power would likely exhibit similar dominance behavior. And if we go back even further, we find an example of how one of the most powerful ecological eras of all time came to an end: the age of the dinosaurs. Metaphorically and philosophically, the end of the dinosaurs could be interpreted as a correction of a system in which megafauna predators strongly influenced ecological cycles. Whether cosmic events function as stochastic regulatory forces in planetary ecosystems remains an open teleological question that goes beyond current models.
Beyond a strictly scientific perspective, in a more philosophical or existential view, it can be assumed that the laws of the universe and nature do indeed protect the well-being of the collective in the long term.
Furthermore, this omnipresent «self-regulating mechanism,» which encompasses all fundamental phenomena such as gravity, the laws of evolution, and the complex feedback loops at all levels of the universe, would be named differently from various perspectives: Religious people would call God the creator, atheists would call it the expression of the universe’s evolution, and spiritual seekers would call it the Higher Self.