Mutual Service – Chapter 2

 

THE BEGINNING OF MUTUAL SERVICE IN THE LOWER FORMS OF LIFE

If “self-preservation was the first law of life,” mutual preservation was the second law of

life, and is just as necessary as the first law, for without it the first law would not have

produced or preserved the social forms, without which the higher forms of life could not

have appeared.

In the struggle for existence, self-preservation was essential, but the preservation of

others was equally essential, if the individual was to continue as a species. So the second

law of life, mutual service, is as essential as the first law of life. In fact, a law that

may come first is of no more importance than a third or a fourth. It is similar to the relative

importance of the first and second brick laid in a wall. What is of importance to us is

the relative worth of these instincts to us, and it is evident that the mutual service instinct

is of equal importance with the self-regarding instinct, and gives us a social impulse

that would not and could not exist without it.

This regard for others goes back further than animal or insect life. It is found in the very

cell structure of life itself. The biologists give us the facts relating to the development of

life from the cell. The first act is to absorb nutrition; the second act is one of reproduction.

The first act a protoplasmic cell performs when immersed in a suitable solution is to

absorb food. This is called “the first law of life, self-preservation.” The second act it performs

is to divide itself into two parts or individuals. Thus its second act is for the life of

another.

At the very dawn of life, the cell was a receiver and a giver. It struggled for its own life,

but in doing so it struggled for the life of another. This was the first mutual service act. It

concerned another individual’s welfare. Some writers have contended that this act

showed self-sacrifice and they trace altruism back to this point in life. It was not a selfsacrificing

act, but one of self-preservation. It was compelled to divide with another or

perish. There was no sentiment in it. It was a case of necessity.

In his book, “The Ascent of Man,” Henry Drummond says: “Watch one of the humblest

unicellular organisms at the time of reproduction. The cell, when it grows to be a certain

size, divides itself into two, and each part sets up an independent life. Why it does so is

now known. The protoplasm inside the cell-the body, as it were-needs continually to

draw in fresh food. ‘I’his is secured by a process of imbibition or osmosis through the

surrounding wall. But as the cell grows large, there is not wall enough to pass in all the

food the far interior needs, for while the bulk increases as the cube of the diameter, the

surface increases only as the square. The bulk ,of the cell, in short, has outrun the absorbing

surface; its hunger has outgrown its satisfaction; and unless the cell can devise

some way of gaining more surface it must starve. Hence the splitting into two smaller

cells. There is more absorbing surface than the two had when combined. When the two

smaller cells have grown as large as the original parent, income and expenditure will

once more balance. As growth continues, the waste begins to exceed the power of repair

and the life of the cell is again threatened. The alternatives are obvious. It must divide,

or die.”

Instead of this act of division being a self sacrifice, as Drummond contends elsewhere in

the above-mentioned volume, it is clearly a self-saving act. This struggle for the life of

others, as well as itself. was purely a mechanical process in the beginning, and it has

nothing to do with love or sex. Those instincts developed later in the process of evolution.

Life in the beginning is self-centered and is confined in a single cell, and biological

reproduction begins as rupture.

I will quote one other authority on this point to show that adding or aiding another life is

a life-saving process for the individual. In their book, “The Evolution of Sex,” Geddes

and Thomson say: “Reproduction begins as rupture. Large cells, beginning to die, save

their lives by division. Reproduction is literally a life-saving against the approach of

death. Whether it be the almost random rupture of one of the more primitive forms such

as Schizoges, or the overflow and separation of multiple buds as in Arcella, or the dissolution

of a few of the Infusorians, an organism which is becoming exhausted saves itself

and multiplies in reproducing,”

The first sex act is the reverse of this process. It is a uniting instead of a dividing action.

Conjugation in the beginning is a fusion instead of a diffusion. I will quote just one more

paragraph from Geddes’ and Thompson’s other book on “Sex.” They state: “It used to

be believed that the simplest organisms showed no sexual reproduction, but subsequent

research has shown that this is very far from being the case. Many single-celled

organisms unite in pairs and two become one; a total conjugation in which there is obviously

so far a decrease, not an increase in numbers.”

Still later on in different and higher forms cr cell life, there is the conjugation without the

loss of identity. Sometimes the two are united into one and afterwards separate. But

when this primitive cell life is started on its career, if it does not practice mutual service,

or cooperation, with other cells it makes no advancement. It must aid others in doing

something and then aid in defending what is done or no progress is made. Cooperation

was necessary at the lowest stage of life. It is necessary at the highest stage of life.

One more quotation from Drummond will make plain the beginning of mutual effort. He

says: “For illustrations of the principle in general we may begin with the very dawn of

life. Every life at first was a single cell. Cooperation was unknown. Each cell was selfcontained

and self-sufficient, and as new cells budded from the parent they moved

away and set up life for themselves. This self-sufficiency leads to nothing in evolution.

Unicellular organisms may be multiplied to infinity, but the vegetable kingdom can never

rise in height, or symmetry, or productiveness without some radical change. But soon

we find the co-operative principle beginning its mysterious integrating work.

Two, three, four, eight, ten cells club together and form a small mat, or cylinder, or

ribbon-the humblest forms of corporate plant life in which each individual cell divides the

responsibilities and the gains of living with the rest. The colony succeeds; grows larger;

its cooperations become more close and varied. Division of labor in new directions

arises for the common good; leaves are organized for nutrition, and special cells for reproduction.

All the organs increase in specialization; and the time arrives when from

cryptogams the plant-world bursts into flowers. A flower is organized for cooperation. It

is not an individual entity, but a commune, a most complex social system. Sepal, petal,

stamen, anther, each has its separate role in the economy, each necessary to the other

and to the life of the species as a whole. Mutual service having reached this stage can

never be arrested short of the extinction of plant-life itself.”

The advantage gained by mutual service in both plant and animal life is it makes them

the fittest to survive. Flowering plants that cooperate with other plants are more numerous

than those that will not cooperate, and those that cooperate with bees also are still

more numerous.

Prof. J. H. Moore, in speaking of the beginning of mutual service. says: “The earliest

forms of society on the earth were societies of protozoa, societies of unicellular forms

which were evolved in the struggle for existence as the types of life best fitted to survive.

The creatures formed themselves into societies. They found it better to cooperate

than to contend, and because they could, by the mutualization of interests and efforts.

encounter more successfully the exigencies of their environment. It was in line of least

arrest.”

We have heard much about the fierce struggle for life in the animal world; how nature is

red in tooth and claw; how only the fittest survive; how the weak or helpless periBh; but

we don’t hear much about mutual service and peaceful pursuits of animals. The evolutionary

writers are largely to blame for this when setting forth the principle of natural selection.

They reveled in the evidence of contests between different forms of life until the

reader got the impression that there was nothing but fighting in the animal kingdom.

Such is not the case, from the lowest to the highest.

The fierce struggle for existence among all animal life is a false doctrine. Darwin and his

theory is partly responsible for this, but he did what many of his followers failed to do.

He pointed out the mutual service instinct and called attention to its value in the preservation

of the fittest. While he devotes many chapters to the fierce struggle, he devotes

one to mutual assistance among animals. This is the fourth chapter of his “Descent of

Man.” I will quote a page from it, which will show that he recognized mutual service as a

necessary part of evolution. I hope the reader will study the whole chapter. Darwin says:

“We will confine our attention to the higher social animals; and pass over insects, although

Borne of these are social, and aid one another in many important ways. The

most common mutual service in the higher animals is to warn one another of danger by

means of the united senses of all. Every sportsman knows, as Dr. Jaeger remarks,

how difficult it is to approach animals in a herd or troop. Wild horses and cattle do not, I

believe, make any danger-signal ; but the attitude of anyone of them who first discovers

an enemy, warns the others. Rabbits stamp loudly on the ground with their hind-feet as

a signal; sheep and chamois do the same with their fore-feet, uttering likewise a whistle.

Many birds, and some mammals, post sentinels, which in the case of seals are said

generally to be the females. The leader of a troop of monkeys acts as a sentinel, and

utters cries expressive both of danger and of safety. Social animals perform many little

services for each other: horses nibble, and cows lick each other, on any spot which

itches; monkeys search each other for external parasites; and Brehm states that after a

troop of the Cercopithecus griscoviridis has rushed through a thorny brake, each monkey

stretches itself on a branch, and another monkey, sitting by, ‘conscientiously’ examines

its fur, and extracts every thorn or burr.

“Animals also render more important services to one another …. Pelicans fish in concert.

The Hamadryas baboons turn over stones to find insects, etc. j and when they

come to a large one, as many as can stand around, turn it over together and share the

booty. Social animals mutually defend each other. Bull bisons in North America, when

there is danger, drive the cows and calves into the middle of the herd, whilst they defend

the outside.

“In Abyssinia, Brehm encountered a great troop of baboons who were crossing a valley:

some had already ascended the opposite mountain, and some were still in the valley:

the latter were attacked by the dogs, but the old males immediately hurried down from

the rocks, and with mouths widely opened, roared so fearfully that the dogs quickly drew

back. They were again encouraged to the attack; but by this time all the baboons had

reascended the heights, excepting a young one, about six months old, who, loudly calling

for aid, climbed on a block of rock, and was surrounded. Now one of the largest

males, a true hero, came down again from the mountain; slowly went to the young one,

coaxed him, end triumphantly led him away-the dogs being too much astonished to

make an attack. I cannot resist giving another scene which was witnessed by this same

naturalist: an eagle seized a young Cercopithecus, which, by clinging to a branch, was

not at once carried off; it cried loudly for assistance, upon which the other members of

the troop, with much uproar, rushed to the rescue, surrounded the eagle, and pulled out

so many feathers that he no longer thought of his prey, but only how to escape. This

eagle, as Brehm remarks, assuredly would never again attack a single monkey of a

troop.”

The mutual service instinct holds good through insect life. The ant is a fair example of

mutual service and cooperation. Ants act together in foraging for food and building

homes. An ant will share his food with another ant of his species if he meets one that

has been unsuccessful in search for food.

The bee is a fine example of mutual service and its beneficial results. Bees manage

their work in a very successful manner, dividing it according to capacity and permitting

consumption according to need.

Mutual service among ducks and geese is very pronounced. While there are some individualistic

ones that will not aid others in distress, most of them exhibit the greatest concern

for the lives of others. When a mother has been killed, another female adopts the

young, giving them the same care their mother did. This mutual protection increased

their species to unnumbered millions. notwithstanding the many enemies among the

carnivora. It was only man with his slaughtering guns that reduced their numbers to the

few there are today.

In his masterly work, “Mutual Aid,” .Peter Kropotkin has cited hundreds of cases of

mutual aid among animals and men. No student can afford to miss carefully studying

this store-house of information on this subject. I will quote here one paragraph on the

subject of bird migrations to illustrate the mutual unity which exists in bird life. Kropotkin

says: “And, finally, we have that immense display of mutual aid among birds-their migrations

-which I dare not even enter upon in this place. Sufficient to say that birds which

have lived for months in small bands scattered over a wide territory gather in thousands

j they come together at a given place, for several days in succession, before they start,

and they evidently discuss the particulars of the journey. Some species will indulge

every afternoon in flights preparatory to the long passage. All wait for their tardy congeners,

and finally they start in a certain well-chosen direction-a fruit of accumulated collective

experience-the strongest flying at the head of the band, and relieving one another

in that difficult task. They cross the seas in large bands consisting of both big and

small birds, and when they return next spring they repair to the same spot, and, in most

cases, each of them takes possession of the very same nest which it had built or repaired

the previous year.”

On the cooperative method used by pelicans, Kropotkin says: “It would be quite impossible

to enumerate here the various hunting associations of birds j but the fishing associations

of the pelicans are certainly worthy of notice for the remarkable order and intelligence

displayed by these clumsy birds. They always go fishing in numerous bands,

and after having chosen an appropriate bay, they form a wide half-circle in face of the

shore, and narrow it by paddling towards the shore, catching all fish that happen to be

enclosed in the circle. On narrow rivers and canals they even divide into two parties,

each of which draws up on a half-circle, and both paddle to meet each other, just as if

two parties of men dragging two long nets should advance W capture all fish taken between

the nets when both parties come to meet. As the night comes they fly to their

resting places always the same for each flock-and no one has ever seen them fighting

for the possession of either the bay or the resting-place. In South America they gather in

flocks of from forty to fifty thousand individuals, part of which enjoy sleep while the others

keep watch, and others again go fishing.”

Property Rights Among Insects, Birds and Animals

Some insects and birds are communists, owning and sharing everything in common;

others are individualistic, with separate property rights. The bee is an excellent illustration

of communistic ownership and the protective instinct. It stores up honey that thousands

of other creatures are fond of, but unitedly the bees succeed in protecting it.

A writer on the bee says: “The sentries which guard the entrance to the hive pitilessly

put to death the robbing bees which attempt entering the hive, but these stranger bees

which come to the hive by mistake are left unmolested, especially if they come laden

with pollen, or are young individuals which can easily go astray. There is no more warfare

than is strictly required.” They are courageous fighters against invasion, but

Mutual Service in Lower Forms of Life 33 they do no useless fighting. Other insects like

ants, wasps, hornets, put to flight the largest invaders of their accumulated store or

home.

Personal Property Rights Recognized

Individual rights are recognized by most birds. In bird-life, a pair will build a nest and it

becomes their nest and is generally so recognized by other birds, and other birds will

aid in defending them in that right to their nest.

The mutual protective instinct is in most of bird life. All are familiar with bird and chicken

hawks. They are fond of flesh, and when an unprotected bird is discovered they have a

meal. But the mutual service instinct works their defeat in most cases. One small bird

stands little show with a hawk, but when they cooperate for protection, the hawk is put

to rout. Almost everyone has seen a bunch of small birds repelling a large hawk. It is

very common. The house-sparrow not only protects his own family and species, but the

farmer’s chickens as well. A bunch of sparrows will drive a hawk to frantic efforts of escape,

often emitting a scream of rage and disappointment as he retreats.

Even the timid little swallows combine and drive away birds of prey, like the prairie falcon

that lives on bird life. The social little swallow practices resistance to the invader,

but is friendly to all others. It is a common sight in Southern California to see mockingbirds

driving cats away from their young. I have seen many times a single bird make a

cat run for cover. This is a very courageous act on the part of a small bird, but he is

fighting for the life of his species, and personal danger does not daunt him.

Much of animal life recognizes the rights of other animals to their homes and districts. A

small animal will fight a large one in defense of his food or home. Animals not only respect

the rights of property in others, but some of them will defend the property of others

against invasion and theft. Take the dog as an instance:

He will guard his master’s gloves that the latter has dropped, or his automobile, without

any special training to do so.

Right to Freedom

All animals struggle to free themselves when trapped or imprisoned, and the mutual

service instinct is exhibited by the attempt to release the imprisoned one by others of its

kind. The right to unhindered movement or locomotion is exercised by all animals.

They will resist restraint on movements. They will break down barriers erected across

their natural paths to customary haunts.

The reader will see by this that part of animal life is not “red in tooth and claw,” but mutual

in character. In fact, most of the animal world lives a gregarious life, that is, social,

not war-like. The carnivorous animals resort to the method of the social group when it is

necessary for their preservation. The wolves hunt only individually when they can find

small game which they can kill singly. but when the deep snows cover up the small

game. the wolves hunt in packs so they can take down large game. This cooperative

method is used, but they have no mutual service impulse. It is dire necessity that drives

them to cooperate, not attachment to each other.

In the struggle for existence, life seeks to maintain itself by any and all means that are

effective. Sacrificing the lives of others is successful with the carnivorous. The preservation

of the lives of others has been instinctive with most of the herbivorous animals.

Mutual service is the most powerful weapon in the struggle of life. It enables the smallest

and feeblest to resist the onslaught of a larger and fiercer enemy. This social power

enables the species using it to rear its young in comparative safety and with the least

waste of energy. Those species which know best how to combine for cooperative purposes

have a much better chance of surviving in the struggle of life. Those who will not

combine have lost in the contest with weaker species that practiced mutual helpfulness.

It must be borne in mind that the greatest enemy of all life on the globe is not other life,

but sudden and severe changes of weather. Frosts and blizzards, prairie and forest

fires, deep and long-lasting snows, with the glacial periods blotting out practically all life

over large continents. Much of the life that survives vigorous extremes of weather is

stunted and weakened by the awful contest with nature.

Among those animals possessing the mutual service impulse largely developed were

the species which have survived in large numbers, although they did not possess much,

if any, of the “tooth and claw” qualities. In the history of Western America, we find herds

of deer, elk, antelope and bison in such numbers that they overran large sections of the

west. They outnumbered the unfriendly carnivorous animals thousands to one. In the

mountain region are still found wild sheep and wild goats.

After centuries of slaughter of the gregarious animals by man, there are still in Asia

great herds of wild camels, wild asses and wild horses, that have survived through the

ages of contest with carnivorous species that would have destroyed them but for the

mutual service or protective spirit among them.

In Africa, there are still large bands of elephants and giraffes, as well as large societies

of monkeys and apes. The unmutual, that is, the unsocial, carnivora, with all of their

fighting ability, are small in comparison with the social animals to be found almost everywhere.

The mutual service tendency in those groups of animals was the thing which preserved

them and developed them into the higher and more peaceful kind of animals. The fittest

did survive. Those that were social were the fittest.

Those animals possessing the mutual service impulse to a greater degree than other

kinds had an advantage in the struggle of life. Mutual service is a multiplication of

power. Numbers can acquire easier and defend better than he who stands alone.

We have seen how the animal world resorts to combined action when the herd is endangered.

They were just as patriotic as the highest statesman of today, and possibly

felt it much more keenly than our dollar-a-year patriots. The thing that works so beneficially

among animals, works a greater benefit when aided by human intelligence.

Mutual service and gregariousness were sufficient to produce that primitive solidarity of

both animal and man which we admire so much, and which has been so valuable in the

preservation of peaceful life. It still can be depended upon as a basis for solidarity in a

still higher form than has been heretofore known.