46. Intolerance and altruism are instinctive

My hypothesis is that there is an inclination towards intolerance, xenophobia and discrimination in our genes, and that it goes together with an instinct for altruism only within the group.

In evolution a striving for self-interest favours survival, so that is what evolution leaves in our genes. That egotism is tempered in case of family, since our genes can also be transmitted through them. A step further is that if people resemble us that may be an indication of genetic similarity. People who do not look like us, in appearance and conduct, are suspect.

Damasio reported that revulsion from the foreign is anchored in the brain centre where smell and taste are located. Originally, in evolution, that was a mechanism against ingesting poison. With this, the aversion to the foreign is accompanied not only by emotions of threat but also with feelings of contamination and poisoning.

One might think that loyalty and altruism are good for survival of the group and for that reason could be an outcome of evolution. Charles Darwin thought that. It has long been thought in evolutionary theory that this cannot be so, since potential properties lie in the genes of individuals, and groups have no genes. People with altruistic genes would be vulnerable to an invasion of egotists that prey on them, so that in time the altruists would be pushed out.

However, altruism can survive if in the group deviant, excessively egotistic conduct is identified and punished because a sufficient number of group members commit themselves to it, even if for it they need to bring sacrifices that go beyond their self-interest. Such victory over self-interest requires a strong emotional loading.

That can be derived from religion. From fear of death and human fragility people have an urge towards belief in a myth of immortality. That transcends the limitations of mortal, vulnerable existence, and causes the self to rise above itself. The emotional force of it is strong enough to make sacrifices for a higher cause. If, next, the only true God is that of the own group, then outgroup discrimination is supported by religion, and altruism within the group becomes viable at the price of mistrust of outsiders. There is internal cohesion at the price of external intolerance.

It can be different, with a constitutional state with the rule of law in which misuse of dependence and good faith is punished, and whose cost one is willing to share. Thus divine order can be replaced by the order of law as a source of solidarity.

But even then the instinct towards trust within and distrust outside the group still slumbers, and can be roused when the uncertainty of existence increases due to a crisis or trust in the constitutional state is undermined, with suspicions of failing integrity and abuse of power of police, judiciary or politics. That awakening of the instinct for intolerance and distrust can be fired with an appeal to religion, ideology and nationalism.