Experts baffled as Trump asks why they can't just use flu vaccines to prevent coronavirus

by Sirena Bergman in news
Donald Trump appears to be even more confused than ever bout coronavirus.

In a series of videos actually released by the White House, Trump can be seen getting increasingly more confused by the experts in the room, who are patiently trying to explain very very basic concepts to the president.

During one segment, he seems incapable of understanding how long it actually takes to formulate a vaccine, repeatedly suggesting "a couple months" should be the timeframe, because he "likes that better" than the actual realistic year-and-a-half estimate he's given.


He keeps going on and on about this among awkward laughter from people who understand that science doesn't actually bow to Trump's whims. It only stops when an advisor explains:

Vaccines have to be tested because there's precedent for vaccines actually making diseases worse.

You don't want to rush and treat a million people and find out you're making 900,000 of them worse.

Trump's response? A baffling "that's a good idea". (Good idea to rush and screw it up? Good idea to mention this? WHAT??)

But perhaps the weirdest of all was when he thought that he – a mediocre business person – may have come up with the solution to a complex global pandemic which no medical professional could ever have thought of:

You take a solid flu vaccine, you don't think that would have an impact? Or much of an impact? On corona?

Let's recap. A "solid" (whatever that means) flu vaccine. For the flu.

To stop "corona", as he calls it. Which is... a completely different type of virus. Otherwise it would be called flu. That's how words (and science) work.

So what impact would a flu shot have? "Probably none," Trump is told. For obvious reasons. The president responds:

Probably none? That simple?

Well no, not simple at all really, despite him seeming to think that coronavirus can be cured either by a vaccine for a different virus or by way of actual miracles. For context, researchers have been trying to develop a vaccine against HIV since the 1980s. Does that sound simple to you? Us neither. Maybe they should just use the flu one instead and see if that works.

Trump’s ignorance was on public display during coronavirus meeting with pharmaceutical execs

The president is pushing to get a Covid-19 vaccine before the election. It doesn’t work like that.

By Aaron Rupar@atrupar Mar 3, 2020, 11:30am EST

Trump during a meeting with the White House Coronavirus Task Force and pharmaceutical executives on Monday. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

It’s understandable that during a White House meeting on Monday with pharmaceutical executives and public health officials, President Donald Trump pressed them to develop and deploy a vaccine to Covid-19 (the disease caused by the novel coronavirus) as quickly as possible. Beyond the obvious public health benefits, a vaccine could help allay fears, stabilize markets, and quell criticisms that his administration was unprepared for or mismanaged the response to the outbreak.

What is harder to wrap one’s brain around, however, is the level of ignorance Trump displayed about how vaccines work.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has already said it will take up to 18 months to develop a vaccine for Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus — a time frame much shorter than the usual two- to five-year window. There are straightforward reasons it’s impossible to roll out new vaccines for public consumption overnight: They need to be developed, tested for effectiveness and safety during trials, approved by regulators, manufactured, and then distributed. Each of those steps takes time.

At one point during the meeting, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tried to explain to the president that it would be at least a year and probably closer to 18 months before a coronavirus vaccine could be available to the public. But Trump didn’t want to hear it, and kept pressing the executives to come up with something before November’s election.

“I mean, I like the sound of a couple months better, if I must be honest,” Trump said, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the “couple months” time frame execs mentioned merely referred to a vaccine being ready for trials.

Trump on it taking up to a year to develop a coronavirus vaccine: "I mean, I like the sound of a couple months better, if I must be honest." pic.twitter.com/zvvrE9JnPS— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 2, 2020

Later, Trump pressed the pharmaceutical leaders on why they can’t just release the coronavirus drugs their companies are working on tomorrow — in the process revealing that he doesn’t understand the concept of clinical trials.

“So you have a medicine that’s already involved with the coronaviruses, and now you have to see if it’s specifically for this. You can know that tomorrow, can’t you?” he said.

“Now the critical thing is to do clinical trials,” explained Daniel O’Day, CEO of Gilead Sciences, which has two phase-three clinical trials going for remdesivir, a potential treatment for the coronavirus. “We have two clinical trials going on in China that were started several weeks ago ... we expect to get that information in April.”

"So you have a medicine that's already involved with the coronaviruses, and now you have to see if it's specifically for this. You can know that tomorrow, can't you?" -- Trump has no idea what a clinical trial is pic.twitter.com/PoA2usKZ9Z— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 2, 2020

Trump also wondered aloud why the flu vaccine can’t just be used for coronavirus, asking, “You take a solid flu vaccine, you don’t think that could have an impact, or much of an impact, on corona?”

“No,” one of the experts at the table replied.

Following the meeting, an unnamed administration source told CNN that they thought the scientists and experts were able to convince Trump that a vaccine would not be available for a year or longer.

“I think he’s got it now,” the source told CNN.

But if Trump does get it now, that wasn’t apparent during a political rally in Charlotte hours later, during which the president claimed pharmaceutical companies “are going to have vaccines I think relatively soon.”

"We had a great meeting today with a lot of the great companies, and they're going to have vaccines I think relatively soon. And they're going to have something that makes you better, and that's going to actually take place we think even sooner" -- Trump on the coronavirus pic.twitter.com/oujTse5Lnp— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 3, 2020

Trump went on to portray the coronavirus problem in ethnonationalist terms: “There are fringe globalists that would rather keep our borders open than keep our infection — think of it — keep all of the infection, let it come in,” he said, before expressing surprise that tens of thousands of Americans die from the flu each year.

“When you lose 27,000 people [from the flu] a year — nobody knew that — I didn’t know that. Three, four weeks ago, I was sitting down, I said, ‘What do we lose with the regular flu?’ They said, ‘About 27,000 minimum. It goes up to 70, sometimes even 80, one year it went up to 100,000 people.’” (According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have not been more than 51,000 flu-related deaths in the US over the past decade.)

“I said, ‘Nobody told me that. Nobody knows that.’ So I actually told the pharmaceutical companies, ‘You have to do a little bit better job on that vaccine,’” Trump continued.

"I told the pharmaceutical companies that they have to do a better job on that vaccine" -- Trump admits he just learned that the flu can be deadly and says he wants the pharmaceutical companies to do something about it pic.twitter.com/7jPDsi7WAX— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 3, 2020

Then, following the rally, the White House released a statement not detailing new federal initiatives to help stop the spread of Covid-19, but highlighting tweets from Republicans praising the administration’s response.

This is bonkers. Press release just released by the White House with tweets praising Trump's management of Coronavirus outbreak. "Top Tweets". pic.twitter.com/8lPGAsfN2h— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) March 3, 2020

On Tuesday, Trump gave a speech to the National Association of Counties Legislative Conference in which he brought up the coronavirus but then expressed confusion about the difference between cures, which eliminate diseases, and therapies, which treat them.

“Therapies are sort of another word for cure,” he said, conflating the two.

"Therapies are sort of another word for cure" -- Trump still hasn't figured out what a vaccine is pic.twitter.com/QSAk6cyDlW— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 3, 2020

While Trump may be confused about what’s going on, Vice President Mike Pence — head of the administration’s coronavirus task force — did claim during a news conference on Monday that treatments for Covid-19 could be available within the next couple of months. He did not provide details, however.
It’s going to take a lot longer to make a COVID-19 vaccine than a treatment
Scientists have a head start on treatments

By Nicole Wetsman Feb 28, 2020
   

Photo by Sylvain Lefevre / Getty Images

Scientists and drug companies are racing to develop and test treatments and vaccines that address COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. Work on both is progressing at an unprecedented speed — but researchers are starting essentially from scratch on vaccine development, so the process is going to take a long time. Treatments, on the other hand, were further along when the outbreak started and might be available sooner.

“They’re in vastly different situations right now,” says Florian Krammer, a professor and vaccine development expert at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Both treatments and vaccines are important for a robust and effective response to the outbreak. Treatments help people after they already have a disease; in the case of COVID-19, researchers hope to treat the around 15 percent of COVID-19 patients who have non-mild symptoms. Vaccines, on the other hand, help prevent people from getting sick in the first place.

Scientists started work on drugs to treat coronaviruses during the SARS and MERS outbreaks, but because the outbreaks died down, the job was never completed. Now, they’re able to dust off that old research and start building on it. The leading candidate is a drug called remdesivir, which was developed by the pharmaceutical company Gilead. Research showed that it could block SARS and MERS in cells and in mice. In addition, remdesivir was used in a clinical trial looking for treatments for Ebola — and therefore, it had already gone through safety testing to make sure it doesn’t cause any harm.

That’s why teams in China and the US were able to start clinical trials testing remdesivir in COVID-19 patients so quickly. There should be data available showing if it helps them get better as soon as April. If it proves effective, Gilead would presumably be able to ramp up production and get the drug in the hands of doctors fairly quickly, Krammer says.

The vaccine development process will take much longer. Experts say that it will be between a year and 18 months, or maybe longer, before they’re available to the public. One of the strategies for creating a vaccine involves making copies of one part of the virus (in this case, the bit that the novel coronavirus uses to infiltrate cells). Then, the immune system of the person who receives the vaccine makes antibodies that neutralize that particular bit. If they were exposed to the virus, those antibodies would be able to stop the virus from functioning.


The pharmaceutical company Moderna is the furthest along in the process; it already has that type of vaccine ready for testing. A trial in 45 healthy people to make sure that it’s safe will start in March or April and will take around three months to complete. After that, it’ll have to be tested in an even larger group to check if it actually immunizes people against the novel coronavirus. That will take six to eight months. And then, it’ll have to be manufactured at a huge scale, which poses an additional challenge.

Making vaccines is always challenging. Developing this one is made more difficult because there has never been a vaccine for any type of coronavirus. “We don’t have a production platform, we have no experience in safety, we don’t know if there will be complications. We have to start from scratch, basically,” Krammer says.

It was much easier to make a vaccine for H1N1, known as swine flu, which emerged as a never-before-seen virus in 2009. “There are large vaccine producers in the US and globally for flu,” Krammer says. Manufacturers were able to stop making the vaccine against the seasonal flu and start making a vaccine for this new strain of flu. “They didn’t need clinical trials, they just had to make the vaccine and distribute it,” he says.

There won’t be a vaccine done in time to hold off any approaching outbreak of COVID-19 in the US or in other countries where it’s still not widespread. That’s why treatments are so important: along with good public health practices, they can help blunt the impact of the disease and make it less of an unstoppable threat. The best experts can hope for is that a vaccine can help prevent other outbreaks in the future if the novel coronavirus sticks around.

---30---

THE GRENFELL MASSACRE



Grenfell architect did not check fire safety guidance for tall buildings, inquiry hears

Asked whether he read government guidelines on building and fire regulations, Bruce Sounes said he referred to it but 'certainly didn't read it from start to finish'

Caitlin Doherty

The lead architect on the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower “can’t recall” whether he knew there were different fire regulations for high-rise buildings, an inquiry has heard.

Bruce Sounes was in charge of the day-to-day management of the redesign of the 24-storey North Kensington block.

Giving evidence to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry on Tuesday, the associate at Studio E architects was shown a diagram of different building classifications relating to blocks over 18m tall.

Mr Sounes was asked by Kate Grange QC, counsel to the inquiry: “Were you aware that there might be different rules that applied to buildings over 18m ...”

He replied: “No, I was aware that they may exist, but I did not refer to [the document] at the time.”
Watch more

Firms in Grenfell Tower inquiry given immunity from prosecution
DAMN SHAME

He added: “I can’t recall if I was aware of that.”

When asked whether he read the government guidelines on building and fire regulations – also known as approved document B – during the Grenfell project, Mr Sounes said: “I referred to it on occasion but I certainly didn’t read it from start to finish.

“Because it’s so wide ranging, an architect will find themselves referring to specific sections to try and understand whether they are meeting their requirements.”

Mr Sounes was also shown a diagram of how fire can spread up the external cladding of a building.

When asked whether he saw anything like this during the Grenfell project, he said “no”.
Read more

Grenfell firms ‘killed residents as if they’d pulled a trigger’

Grenfell Tower firms ‘knew planned cladding would fail in fire’

Grenfell firefighter who revoked ‘stay put’ policy made LFB chief

Earlier on Tuesday, the inquiry heard that Studio E has “no record” of ever signing a contract for the Grenfell project with the local property management company.

In his written statement to the inquiry, Mr Sounes, said: “From the documents within Studio E’s possession I do not know whether the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation (KCTMO) appointment was ever actually signed by Studio E and KCTMO.

“I cannot specifically recall Studio E signing the documents and nor do we have a completed copy on file.”

Giving evidence, the architect added: “I have no recollection of it being signed and we couldn’t locate a copy, but that’s not to say it wasn’t signed. I cannot remember.

“I guess I thought maybe it was, but I don’t know.”

The evidence comes after Studio E boss Andrzej Kuszell told the hearings that Mr Sounes had no experience of over cladding residential blocks.

However, he had faith that his firm could complete the Grenfell job.

Grenfell fire remembered two years on: In pictures
Show all 12

The Grenfell Tower is illuminated green to mark the 
second anniversary of the fire

Campaign group Grenfell United project a message on to the side of a tower block in Newcastle ahead of the second anniversary of the Grenfell fire to highlight the number of blocks that are still covered in flammable cladding, despite the role that it played in the fire

PA

People release balloons in front of the Grenfell Tower during a vigil to mark the second anniversary of the fire (Peter Summers/Getty Images)

Tower ahead of the second anniversary of the fire to highlight the number of blocks that are still covered in flammable cladding, despite the role that it played in the fire 

PA

Cards bearing names of victims of the Grenfell fire are attached to a railing nearby to the tower

People observe a memorial during a vigil to mark the second anniversary of the Grenfell fire

Mr Kuszell said on Monday: “I believed we had the processes and experience of complex buildings to be able to undertake this commission. It wasn’t just my belief, it was clearly the belief of all senior members.

“We put the project in the hands of one of our most senior and experienced people.

“I had no reason to believe we wouldn’t be able to do it.”

Mr Kuszell also apologised to survivors of the 2017 fire that killed 72 people, and told them: “It really shouldn’t have happened.

“Hindsight now comes into play – we’ve lived two and a half years since the tragedy and doubtless absolutely every one of us would wish to turn the clock back.

“It really shouldn’t have happened, and I’m really, really sorry for all of you and everybody else who was involved in the project.”

The hearings continue.

Press Association

MORE ABOUT
GRENFELL TOWER | KENSINGTON

Campaign group Grenfell United project a message on to the side of a tower block in Salford ahead of the second anniversary of the Grenfell fire to highlight the number of blocks that are still covered in flammable cladding, despite the role that it played in the fire

PA

UK 

One in three Tory (PARTY)members believe human activity not responsible for climate change, survey finds

THOUGH I SUSPECT IT APPLIES TO CONSERVATIVES IN CANADA TOO

Boris Johnson to chair first meeting of ministerial committee ahead of global warming summit in Glasgow

Andrew Woodcock

Political Editor @andywoodcock

Fewer than half of Conservative party members believe that human activity is responsible for climate change, according to a new survey.

The poll of more than 1,100 Tories found that almost one in three (32.9 per cent) think that “global warming is happening but human activity isn’t driving it”, while nearly a tenth (9.7 per cent) said they did not believe that climate change was happening at all.

Just 48.5 per cent of those taking part in the survey for the ConservativeHome website agreed with the consensus among climate scientists that the planet is getting warmer and that human activities are driving the change. Some 8.9 per cent said they did not know.

ConservativeHome editor, the former Tory MP Paul Goodman, said: “Our sense is that Conservative MPs will be very roughly where our panel is – although we have to admit that we’ve no evidence for that.

“But if roughly a third, say, believe that human activity doesn’t drive global warming we can add that much less than a third are vocal about it.”

The results were released a day before Boris Johnson is due to chair the first meeting of a new cabinet committee on climate change.

Read more

]\UK climate science denial group sees membership income triple

Children are having nightmares about climate change, study finds

Manmade climate change effect on weather now as powerful as El Nino

If the UK is serious about the climate, we must invest in new fuels

The prime minister has come under fire for failing to convene the committee sooner, including by former MP Claire Perry O’Neill, who hit out at Mr Johnson’s inactivity after she was sacked as president of the United Nations COP26 climate change summit to be hosted by the UK in Glasgow in November.

In a letter in February, just days after being fired, she told Mr Johnson the government was “miles off track” in its preparations and said promises of resources and leadership from the prime minister “are not close to being met”.

In particular, she said: “The cabinet sub-committee on climate that you promised to chair, and which I was to attend, has not met once”.

Preparations for the COP26 summit will be on the agenda of Mr Johnson’s committee when it meets on Wednesday afternoon.

Ministers will be asked to set out what their departments are doing to assist the battle against global warming and their priorities for the year of climate action declared by the prime minister last month, said Downing Street.

Regular meetings of the committee will provide an opportunity to hold government departments to account for their actions to tackle climate change, said Mr Johnson’s spokesman.

But Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Aaron Kiely said: “They certainly have a lot of work to do, and a lot of ground to make up. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that convening such an important meeting with only months to go until the crunch UN climate talks shows a government not putting this front and centre, where it should be.

“Show-piece meetings won’t combat environmental and ecological breakdown. It’s policy that counts, not pledges, so let’s see some decisive action starting with big commitments in next week’s budget.”

Full members of the new committee include Mr Johnson, Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove, business secretary - and Ms O’Neill’s successor as COP26 president - Alok Sharma, chancellor Rishi Sunak, foreign secretary Dominic Raab, environment secretary George Eustice and environment minister Zak Goldsmith.

Also attending Wednesday’s meeting will be chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance, housing secretary Robert Jenrick, international development secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, transport secretary Grant Shapps, international trade secretary Liz Truss and energy minister Kwasi Kwarteng.

ConservativeHome questioned a panel of 1,136 party members.

He stole Hitler's favourite painting!' – the naked genius of my friend Ulay

Performance art

From his nude stunts with Marina Abramović to swiping an artwork adored by the Führer, Ulay was a performance art trailblazer. Our writer recalls his finest aktions – and the countless hours they spent chatting and smoking
Noah Charney

Tue 3 Mar 2020 

‘You are an artist even when you are asleep’ … Ulay. Photograph: Primoz Korosec

Ifirst met Ulay at a dinner party thrown by Slovenia’s most famous rock star. The musician’s wife prepared salt-baked fish and, as she cracked open the crust, I felt the gush of a groupie as I looked through the steam at Ulay, a man I had studied in art history class, now sitting across the table from me.

Ulay, as the man born Frank Uwe Laysiepen was known, was an exceptionally influential photographer and performance artist. He will be mourned by the art world as one of the greats of the postmodern era. But I will miss him as a wonderful, kind friend who happened to be an ingenious artist as well.


Like me, Ulay married a Slovenian woman and settled down in Ljubljana, on the sunny side of the Alps. He was one of a handful of living artists enshrined in most Introduction to Art History textbooks. You can find him in the last chapter, after you’ve combed over Lysippus and Giotto, Donatello and Michelangelo, Ingres and Picasso. There he is, usually in conjunction with his one-time, long-term romantic and artistic partner, Marina Abramović.

In the late 1970s and 80s, their work as a duo was seminal to the course of performance art (though Ulay always preferred the German word aktion). Yet they were also great artists in their separate careers. Ulay began as a photographer, one of the few official representatives of Polaroid in the 60s, even though he did go on to become more famous for his performance art – most memorably 1976’s There Is a Criminal Touch to Art, when he successfully stole Hitler’s favourite painting from a Berlin museum and brought it to hang on the wall of an impoverished Turkish immigrant family. He then called the authorities to come and retrieve it. This was art theft as artwork.

Tight squeeze … a visitor walks between performers in a re-creation of Abramović and Ulay’s Imponderabilia. Photograph: Christian Hartmann/Reuters

His independent career touched on shifting genders decades before this was fashionable. He invented a hybrid-gendered alter ego, Renais Sense, making up one side of his face like a woman’s and the other like a man’s. He was a pioneer in body art, considering the body to be the artistic medium par excellence, and he was also a believer in shock as an artistic tactic.

In Imponderabilia, one of the most famous performance artworks of all time, he and Abramović stood naked in a narrow gallery doorway, forcing visitors to shimmy past them, sidling sideways, confronting either his nakedness or hers. Other works included a performance in which they took turns slapping each other, interested in the sound this made. In another, they repeatedly ran naked smashing into columns in a car park with their shoulders. The columns were unattached and had been placed on sleds, so they would slide slightly backwards with each strike. But they were heavy and caused bruising nonetheless.

Later works examined the physical capabilities of the human body. Nightsea Crossing was a series of 22 performances over 90 days in which the two would sit opposite each other, completely still, for many hours at a time. Both practised ayurvedic meditation and trained extensively for these performances, which required incredible concentration and mental strength. In interviews with Ulay, he explained to me how they trained themselves to “scratch itches with our minds”. Buzzing flies, not to mention audience members who made a game of trying to distract them, were among the many obstacles.

Ulay and Abramović will always be intertwined, even though they eventually had a falling out. Afterwards, the two met by chance, or fate, at an ayurvedic retreat in rural India. Ulay was there with his talented wife, designer Lena Pislak, who has been his constant companion, support and driving force for years now. But what could have been very awkward was not. The two artists decided to put the issue aside, and became friendly again, against all odds. Years later, they even discussed writing a joint memoir.
Hands free … Ulay stands next to Self-Portrait, from 1990. 
Photograph: Dpa Picture Alliance/Alamy Stock Photo

There was a fatherly guru vibe about Ulay. When he emailed or texted me, he would call me “Dear”. He took up activist causes, calling himself an “artivist” for clean water. He spoke poetically, eloquently, with the sort of phrases you want to jot down, or carve in stone, even in casual conversation. “One can learn many things in life,” he once said, “but not art. The madness you need – the must which is shaking you all the time. You are an artist even when you are asleep. Because of the must.” He was an artist to the bone.

His legacy will be kept alive by the Ulay Foundation, which opened last year in Ljubljana. Ulay was, above all, a man of enormous warmth and kindness. I spent countless hours at his kitchen table in his sunny Ljubljana apartment, sharing his Marlboros and drinking a special healthy brew, which he liked to call his magic potion, prepared for him by Lena.

We had planned to write a book together, but never found the time to finish it. He had beaten cancer twice already (once documented in the film Project Cancer). Each time, he had gone on an ayurvedic retreat and that, combined with the help of the oncology clinic in Ljubljana, had sent his cancer into remission. Against all odds, with the loving support of those closest to him, he remained remarkably active, even in sickness. “Death is the ultimate answer,” he said. “But life is absolute.”

At one point, he had considered his illness and the documentation of it as a type of performance. It would be his ultimate aktion.

Mutual Aid: An Indirect Evolution Analysis
Tarik Tazdaït, Alejandro Caparros, Jean-Chrsitophe Péreau

To cite this version:
Tarik Tazdaït, Alejandro Caparros, Jean-Chrsitophe Péreau. Mutual Aid: An Indirect Evolution
Analysis. 2008. ffhalshs-00275386ff

Alejandro CAPARRÓS
Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), Institute for Public Goods and Policies (IPP).Albasanz 26, 3E4. 28037 Madrid.

Jean-Christophe PEREAU
University of Marne-la-Vallée - O.E.P, Cité Descartes, 5 boulevard Descartes, Champs Sur
Marne, 77454 Marne-la-Vallée cedex 2, France. E-mail: pereau@univ-mlv.fr. Tel:
+3360957058. Fax: +33160957050. And C.N.R.S- E.H.E.S.S - CIRED

Tarik TAZDAÏT
C.N.R.S - E.H.E.S.S - CIRED, Jardin Tropical - 45 bis, avenue de la Belle Gabrielle, 94736
Nogent Sur Marne cedex, France.

Abstract.
This paper studies the concept of “mutual aid” developed by Kropotkin, which implies
cooperation as a strategic choice. We study this concept in a Sequential Prisoners’ Dilemma
in a non-cooperative framework and in an indirect evolution framework (with complete and
incomplete information). We systematically compare this game with one that models Kant’s
moral. In the non-cooperative framework both moral concepts imply multiple equilibria. In
the indirect evolution framework with complete information Kropotkin´s moral concept leads
to generalized cooperation, while Kant’s rules lead towards general defection. In the indirect
evolution framework with incomplete information both moral approaches favor selfishness.
However, if some agents have an imperfect detection technology cooperative behavior will
not disappear in Kropotkin’s case, while it will vanish with Kant’s morality

Cover art for Peter Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, designed by Nancy Brigham for Extending Horizons Books/Porter Sargent edition, c. 1976.

Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, by Peter Kropotkin, 1902 CE.

In his Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, the Russian anarchist and naturalist Peter Kropotkin uses examples from both non-human animals and human society to show that cooperation, not competition, is the most important factor promoting the survival of organisms and therefore the evolution of species. Kropotkin is writing in response to an essay by Thomas Huxley (“The Struggle for Existence”) rather than to Darwin’s own work. How does Kropotkin’s insistence on cooperation as an evolved trait compare with Darwin’s remarks on sympathy and ‘moral consciousness’ in Chapters 2 and 3 of The Descent of Man?
Source/Citation:
Image via justseeds.org, full text of Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902) at Project Gutenberg at www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341

MUTUAL AID: A FACTOR OF EVOLUTION MONTREAL REVIEW

MUTUAL AID: A FACTOR OF EVOLUTION

***

By Pëtr Kropotkin

***

The Montréal Review, May 2018http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/Mutual-Aid-A-Factor-of-Evolution.php
***



MUTUAL AID: A FACTOR OF EVOLUTION
By Pëtr Kropotkin
230 pp. Forgotten Books.

***

Introduction

Two aspects of animal life impressed me most during the journeys which I made in my youth in Eastern Siberia and Northern Manchuria. One of them was the extreme severity of the struggle for existence which most species of animals have to carry on against an inclement Nature; the enormous destruction of life which periodically results from natural agencies; and the consequent paucity of life over the vast territory which fell under my observation. And the other was, that even in those few spots where animal life teemed in abundance, I failed to find — although I was eagerly looking for it — that bitter struggle for the means of existence, among animals belonging to the same species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the dominant characteristic of struggle for life, and the main factor of evolution.

The terrible snow-storms which sweep over the northern portion of Eurasia in the later part of the winter, and the glazed frost that often follows them; the frosts and the snow-storms which return every year in the second half of May, when the trees are already in full blossom and insect life swarms everywhere; the early frosts and, occasionally, the heavy snowfalls in July and August, which suddenly destroy myriads of insects, as well as the second broods of the birds in the prairies; the torrential rains, due to the monsoons, which fall in more temperate regions in August and September — resulting in inundations on a scale which is only known in America and in Eastern Asia, and swamping, on the plateaus, areas as wide as European States; and finally, the heavy snowfalls, early in October, which eventually render a territory as large as France and Germany, absolutely impracticable for ruminants, and destroy them by the thousand — these were the conditions under which I saw animal life struggling in Northern Asia. They made me realize at an early date the overwhelming importance in Nature of what Darwin described as “the natural checks to over-multiplication,” in comparison to the struggle between individuals of the same species for the means of subsistence, which may go on here and there, to some limited extent, but never attains the importance of the former. Paucity of life, under-population — not over-population — being the distinctive feature of that immense part of the globe which we name Northern Asia, I conceived since then serious doubts — which subsequent study has only confirmed — as to the reality of that fearful competition for food and life within each species, which was an article of faith with most Darwinists, and, consequently, as to the dominant part which this sort of competition was supposed to play in the evolution of new species.

On the other hand, wherever I saw animal life in abundance, as, for instance, on the lakes where scores of species and millions of individuals came together to rear their progeny; in the colonies of rodents; in the migrations of birds which took place at that time on a truly American scale along the Usuri; and especially in a migration of fallow-deer which I witnessed on the Amur, and during which scores of thousands of these intelligent animals came together from an immense territory, flying before the coming deep snow, in order to cross the Amur where it is narrowest — in all these scenes of animal life which passed before my eyes, I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which made me suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution.

And finally, I saw among the semi-wild cattle and horses in Transbaikalia, among the wild ruminants everywhere, the squirrels, and so on, that when animals have to struggle against scarcity of food, in consequence of one of the above-mentioned causes, the whole of that portion of the species which is affected by the calamity, comes out of the ordeal so much impoverished in vigour and health, that no progressive evolution of the species can be based upon such periods of keen competition.

Consequently, when my attention was drawn, later on, to the relations between Darwinism and Sociology, I could agree with none of the works and pamphlets that had been written upon this important subject. They all endeavoured to prove that Man, owing to his higher intelligence and knowledge, may mitigate the harshness of the struggle for life between men; but they all recognized at the same time that the struggle for the means of existence, of every animal against all its congeners, and of every man against all other men, was “a law of Nature.” This view, however, I could not accept, because I was persuaded that to admit a pitiless inner war for life within each species, and to see in that war a condition of progress, was to admit something which not only had not yet been proved, but also lacked confirmation from direct observation.

On the contrary, a lecture “On the Law of Mutual Aid,” which was delivered at a Russian Congress of Naturalists, in January 1880, by the well-known zoologist, Professor Kessler, the then Dean of the St. Petersburg University, struck me as throwing a new light on the whole subject. Kessler’s idea was, that besides the law of Mutual Struggle there is in Nature the law of Mutual Aid, which, for the success of the struggle for life, and especially for the progressive evolution of the species, is far more important than the law of mutual contest. This suggestion — which was, in reality, nothing but a further development of the ideas expressed by Darwin himself in The Descent of Man — seemed to me so correct and of so great an importance, that since I became acquainted with it (in 1883) I began to collect materials for further developing the idea, which Kessler had only cursorily sketched in his lecture, but had not lived to develop. He died in 1881.

In one point only I could not entirely endorse Kessler’s views. Kessler alluded to “parental feeling” and care for progeny as to the source of mutual inclinations in animals. However, to determine how far these two feelings have really been at work in the evolution of sociable instincts, and how far other instincts have been at work in the same direction, seems to me a quite distinct and a very wide question, which we hardly can discuss yet. It will be only after we have well established the facts of mutual aid in different classes of animals, and their importance for evolution, that we shall be able to study what belongs in the evolution of sociable feelings, to parental feelings, and what to sociability proper — the latter having evidently its origin at the earliest stages of the evolution of the animal world, perhaps even at the “colony-stages.” I consequently directed my chief attention to establishing first of all, the importance of the Mutual Aid factor of evolution, leaving to ulterior research the task of discovering the origin of the Mutual Aid instinct in Nature.

The importance of the Mutual Aid factor — “if its generality could only be demonstrated” — did not escape the naturalist’s genius so manifest in Goethe. When Eckermann told once to Goethe — it was in 1827 — that two little wren-fledglings, which had run away from him, were found by him next day in the nest of robin redbreasts (Rothkehlchen), which fed the little ones, together with their own youngsters, Goethe grew quite excited about this fact. He saw in it a confirmation of his pantheistic views, and said: — “If it be true that this feeding of a stranger goes through all Nature as something having the character of a general law — then many an enigma would be solved. “He returned to this matter on the next day, and most earnestly entreated Eckermann (who was, as is known, a zoologist) to make a special study of the subject, adding that he would surely come “to quite invaluable treasuries of results” (Gespräche, edition of 1848, vol. iii. pp. 219, 221). Unfortunately, this study was never made, although it is very possible that Brehm, who has accumulated in his works such rich materials relative to mutual aid among animals, might have been inspired by Goethe’s remark.

Several works of importance were published in the years 1872–1886, dealing with the intelligence and the mental life of animals, and three of them dealt more especially with the subject under consideration; namely, Les Sociétés animales, by Espinas (Paris, 1877); La Lutte pour l’existence et l’association pout la lutte, a lecture by J.L. Lanessan (April 1881); and Louis Böchner’s book, Liebe und Liebes-Leben in der Thierwelt, of which the first edition appeared in 1882 or 1883, and a second, much enlarged, in 1885. But excellent though each of these works is, they leave ample room for a work in which Mutual Aid would be considered, not only as an argument in favour of a pre-human origin of moral instincts, but also as a law of Nature and a factor of evolution. Espinas devoted his main attention to such animal societies (ants, bees) as are established upon a physiological division of labour, and though his work is full of admirable hints in all possible directions, it was written at a time when the evolution of human societies could not yet be treated with the knowledge we now possess. Lanessan’s lecture has more the character of a brilliantly laid-out general plan of a work, in which mutual support would be dealt with, beginning with rocks in the sea, and then passing in review the world of plants, of animals and men. As to Büchner’s work, suggestive though it is and rich in facts, I could not agree with its leading idea. The book begins with a hymn to Love, and nearly all its illustrations are intended to prove the existence of love and sympathy among animals. However, to reduce animal sociability to love and sympathy means to reduce its generality and its importance, just as human ethics based upon love and personal sympathy only have contributed to narrow the comprehension of the moral feeling as a whole. It is not love to my neighbour — whom I often do not know at all — which induces me to seize a pail of water and to rush towards his house when I see it on fire; it is a far wider, even though more vague feeling or instinct of human solidarity and sociability which moves me. So it is also with animals. It is not love, and not even sympathy (understood in its proper sense) which induces a herd of ruminants or of horses to form a ring in order to resist an attack of wolves; not love which induces wolves to form a pack for hunting; not love which induces kittens or lambs to play, or a dozen of species of young birds to spend their days together in the autumn; and it is neither love nor personal sympathy which induces many thousand fallow-deer scattered over a territory as large as France to form into a score of separate herds, all marching towards a given spot, in order to cross there a river. It is a feeling infinitely wider than love or personal sympathy — an instinct that has been slowly developed among animals and men in the course of an extremely long evolution, and which has taught animals and men alike the force they can borrow from the practice of mutual aid and support, and the joys they can find in social life.

The importance of this distinction will be easily appreciated by the student of animal psychology, and the more so by the student of human ethics. Love, sympathy and self-sacrifice certainly play an immense part in the progressive development of our moral feelings. But it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience — be it only at the stage of an instinct — of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one’s happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his own. Upon this broad and necessary foundation the still higher moral feelings are developed. But this subject lies outside the scope of the present work, and I shall only indicate here a lecture, “Justice and Morality” which I delivered in reply to Huxley’s Ethics, and in which the subject has been treated at some length.

Consequently I thought that a book, written on Mutual Aid as a Law of Nature and a factor of evolution, might fill an important gap. When Huxley issued, in 1888, his “Struggle-for-life” manifesto (Struggle for Existence and its Bearing upon Man), which to my appreciation was a very incorrect representation of the facts of Nature, as one sees them in the bush and in the forest, I communicated with the editor of the Nineteenth Century, asking him whether he would give the hospitality of his review to an elaborate reply to the views of one of the most prominent Darwinists; and Mr. James Knowles received the proposal with fullest sympathy. I also spoke of it to W. Bates. “Yes, certainly; that is true Darwinism,” was his reply. “It is horrible what ‘they’ have made of Darwin. Write these articles, and when they are printed, I will write to you a letter which you may publish. “Unfortunately, it took me nearly seven years to write these articles, and when the last was published, Bates was no longer living.

After having discussed the importance of mutual aid in various classes of animals, I was evidently bound to discuss the importance of the same factor in the evolution of Man. This was the more necessary as there are a number of evolutionists who may not refuse to admit the importance of mutual aid among animals, but who, like Herbert Spencer, will refuse to admit it for Man. For primitive Man — they maintain — war of each against all was the law of life. In how far this assertion, which has been too willingly repeated, without sufficient criticism, since the times of Hobbes, is supported by what we know about the early phases of human development, is discussed in the chapters given to the Savages and the Barbarians.

The number and importance of mutual-aid institutions which were developed by the creative genius of the savage and half-savage masses, during the earliest clan-period of mankind and still more during the next village-community period, and the immense influence which these early institutions have exercised upon the subsequent development of mankind, down to the present times, induced me to extend my researches to the later, historical periods as well; especially, to study that most interesting period — the free medieval city republics, of which the universality and influence upon our modern civilization have not yet been duly appreciated. And finally, I have tried to indicate in brief the immense importance which the mutual-support instincts, inherited by mankind from its extremely long evolution, play even now in our modern society, which is supposed to rest upon the principle: “every one for himself, and the State for all,” but which it never has succeeded, nor will succeed in realizing.

It may be objected to this book that both animals and men are represented in it under too favourable an aspect; that their sociable qualities are insisted upon, while their anti-social and self-asserting instincts are hardly touched upon. This was, however, unavoidable. We have heard so much lately of the “harsh, pitiless struggle for life,” which was said to be carried on by every animal against all other animals, every “savage” against all other “savages,” and every civilized man against all his co-citizens — and these assertions have so much become an article of faith — that it was necessary, first of all, to oppose to them a wide series of facts showing animal and human life under a quite different aspect. It was necessary to indicate the overwhelming importance which sociable habits play in Nature and in the progressive evolution of both the animal species and human beings: to prove that they secure to animals a better protection from their enemies, very often facilities for getting food and (winter provisions, migrations, etc.), longevity, therefore a greater facility for the development of intellectual faculties; and that they have given to men, in addition to the same advantages, the possibility of working out those institutions which have enabled mankind to survive in its hard struggle against Nature, and to progress, notwithstanding all the vicissitudes of its history. It is a book on the law of Mutual Aid, viewed at as one of the chief factors of evolution — not on all factors of evolution and their respective values; and this first book had to be written, before the latter could become possible.

I should certainly be the last to underrate the part which the self-assertion of the individual has played in the evolution of mankind. However, this subject requires, I believe, a much deeper treatment than the one it has hitherto received. In the history of mankind, individual self-assertion has often been, and continually is, something quite different from, and far larger and deeper than, the petty, unintelligent narrow-mindedness, which, with a large class of writers, goes for “individualism” and “self-assertion.” Nor have history-making individuals been limited to those whom historians have represented as heroes. My intention, consequently, is, if circumstances permit it, to discuss separately the part taken by the self-assertion of the individual in the progressive evolution of mankind. I can only make in this place the following general remark: — When the Mutual Aid institutions — the tribe, the village community, the guilds, the medieval city — began, in the course of history, to lose their primitive character, to be invaded by parasitic growths, and thus to become hindrances to progress, the revolt of individuals against these institutions took always two different aspects. Part of those who rose up strove to purify the old institutions, or to work out a higher form of commonwealth, based upon the same Mutual Aid principles; they tried, for instance, to introduce the principle of “compensation,” instead of the lex talionis, and later on, the pardon of offences, or a still higher ideal of equality before the human conscience, in lieu of “compensation,” according to class-value. But at the very same time, another portion of the same individual rebels endeavoured to break down the protective institutions of mutual support, with no other intention but to increase their own wealth and their own powers. In this three-cornered contest, between the two classes of revolted individuals and the supporters of what existed, lies the real tragedy of history. But to delineate that contest, and honestly to study the part played in the evolution of mankind by each one of these three forces, would require at least as many years as it took me to write this book.

Of works dealing with nearly the same subject, which have been published since the publication of my articles on Mutual Aid among Animals, I must mention The Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man, by Henry Drummond (London, 1894), and The Origin and Growth of the Moral Instinct, by A. Sutherland (London, 1898). Both are constructed chiefly on the lines taken in Büchner’s Love, and in the second work the parental and familial feeling as the sole influence at work in the development of the moral feelings has been dealt with at some length. A third work dealing with man and written on similar lines is The Principles of Sociology, by Prof. F.A. Giddings, the first edition of which was published in 1896 at New York and London, and the leading ideas of which were sketched by the author in a pamphlet in 1894. I must leave, however, to literary critics the task of discussing the points of contact, resemblance, or divergence between these works and mine. [...]

[...]
Chapter 9: Conclusion

If we take now the teachings which can be borrowed from the analysis of modern society, in connection with the body of evidence relative to the importance of mutual aid in the evolution of the animal world and of mankind, we may sum up our inquiry as follows.

In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense — not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.

Going next over to man, we found him living in clans and tribes at the very dawn of the stone age; we saw a wide series of social institutions developed already in the lower savage stage, in the clan and the tribe; and we found that the earliest tribal customs and habits gave to mankind the embryo of all the institutions which made later on the leading aspects of further progress. Out of the savage tribe grew up the barbarian village community; and a new, still wider, circle of social customs, habits, and institutions, numbers of which are still alive among ourselves, was developed under the principles of common possession of a given territory and common defence of it, under the jurisdiction of the village folkmote, and in the federation of villages belonging, or supposed to belong, to one stem. And when new requirements induced men to make a new start, they made it in the city, which represented a double network of territorial units (village communities), connected with guilds these latter arising out ofthe common prosecution of a given art or craft, or for mutual support and defence.

And finally, in the last two chapters facts were produced to show that although the growth of the State on the pattern of Imperial Rome had put a violent end to all medieval institutions for mutual support, this new aspect of civilization could not last. The State, based upon loose aggregations of individuals and undertaking to be their only bond of union, did not answer its purpose. The mutual-aid tendency finally broke down its iron rules; it reappeared and reasserted itself in an infinity of associations which now tend to embrace all aspects of life and to take possession of all that is required by man for life and for reproducing the waste occasioned by life.

It will probably be remarked that mutual aid, even though it may represent one of the factors of evolution, covers nevertheless one aspect only of human relations; that by the side of this current, powerful though it may be, there is, and always has been, the other current — the self-assertion of the individual, not only in its efforts to attain personal or caste superiority, economical, political, and spiritual, but also in its much more important although less evident function of breaking through the bonds, always prone to become crystallized, which the tribe, the village community, the city, and the State impose upon the individual. In other words, there is the self-assertion of the individual taken as a progressive element.

It is evident that no review of evolution can be complete, unless these two dominant currents are analyzed. However, the self-assertion of the individual or of groups of individuals, their struggles for superiority, and the conflicts which resulted therefrom, have already been analyzed, described, and glorified from time immemorial. In fact, up to the present time, this current alone has received attention from the epical poet, the annalist, the historian, and the sociologist. History, such as it has hitherto been written, is almost entirely a description of the ways and means by which theocracy, military power, autocracy, and, later on, the richer classes’ rule have been promoted, established, and maintained. The struggles between these forces make, in fact, the substance of history. We may thus take the knowledge of the individual factor in human history as granted — even though there is full room for a new study of the subject on the lines just alluded to; while, on the other side, the mutual-aid factor has been hitherto totally lost sight of; it was simply denied, or even scoffed at, by the writers of the present and past generation. It was therefore necessary to show, first of all, the immense part which this factor plays in the evolution of both the animal world and human societies. Only after this has been fully recognized will it be possible to proceed to a comparison between the two factors.

To make even a rough estimate of their relative importance by any method more or less statistical, is evidently impossible. One single war — we all know — may be productive of more evil, immediate and subsequent, than hundreds of years of the unchecked action of the mutual-aid principle may be productive of good. But when we see that in the animal world, progressive development and mutual aid go hand in hand, while the inner struggle within the species is concomitant with retrogressive development; when we notice that with man, even success in struggle and war is proportionate to the development of mutual aid in each of the two conflicting nations, cities, parties, or tribes, and that in the process of evolution war itself (so far as it can go this way) has been made subservient to the ends of progress in mutual aid within the nation, the city or the clan — we already obtain a perception of the dominating influence of the mutual-aid factor as an element of progress. But we see also that the practice of mutual aid and its successive developments have created the very conditions of society life in which man was enabled to develop his arts, knowledge, and intelligence; and that the periods when institutions based on the mutual-aid tendency took their greatest development were also the periods of the greatest progress in arts, industry, and science. In fact, the study of the inner life of the medieval city and of the ancient Greek cities reveals the fact that the combination of mutual aid, as it was practised within the guild and the Greek clan, with a large initiative which was left to the individual and the group by means of the federative principle, gave to mankind the two greatest periods of its history — the ancient Greek city and the medieval city periods; while the ruin of the above institutions during the State periods of history, which followed, corresponded in both cases to a rapid decay.

As to the sudden industrial progress which has been achieved during our own century, and which is usually ascribed to the triumph of individualism and competition, it certainly has a much deeper origin than that. Once the great discoveries of the fifteenth century were made, especially that of the pressure of the atmosphere, supported by a series of advances in natural philosophy — and they were made under the medieval city organization, — once these discoveries were made, the invention of the steam-motor, and all the revolution which the conquest of a new power implied, had necessarily to follow. If the medieval cities had lived to bring their discoveries to that point, the ethical consequences of the revolution effected by steam might have been different; but the same revolution in technics and science would have inevitably taken place. It remains, indeed, an open question whether the general decay of industries which followed the ruin of the free cities, and was especially noticeable in the first part of the eighteenth century, did not considerably retard the appearance of the steam-engine as well as the consequent revolution in arts. When we consider the astounding rapidity of industrial progress from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries — in weaving, working of metals, architecture and navigation, and ponder over the scientific discoveries which that industrial progress led to at the end of the fifteenth century — we must ask ourselves whether mankind was not delayed in its taking full advantage of these conquests when a general depression of arts and industries took place in Europe after the decay of medieval civilization. Surely it was not the disappearance of the artist-artisan, nor the ruin of large cities and the extinction of intercourse between them, which could favour the industrial revolution; and we know indeed that James Watt spent twenty or more years of his life in order to render his invention serviceable, because he could not find in the last century what he would have readily found n medieval Florence or Brügge, that is, the artisans capable of realizing his devices in metal, and of giving them the artistic finish and precision which the steam-engine requires.

To attribute, therefore, the industrial progress of our century to the war of each against all which it has proclaimed, is to reason like the man who, knowing not the causes of rain, attributes it to the victim he has immolated before his clay idol. For industrial progress, as for each other conquest over nature, mutual aid and close intercourse certainly are, as they have been, much more advantageous than mutual struggle.

However, it is especially in the domain of ethics that. the dominating importance of the mutual-aid principle appears in full. That mutual aid is the real foundation of our ethical conceptions seems evident enough. But whatever the opinions as to the first origin of the mutual-aid feeling or instinct may be whether a biological or a supernatural cause is ascribed to it —we must trace its existence as far back as to the lowest stages of the animal world; and from these stages we can follow its uninterrupted evolution, in opposition to a number of contrary agencies, through all degrees of human development, up to the present times. Even the new religions which were born from time to time — always at epochs when the mutual-aid principle was falling into decay in the theocracies and despotic States of the East, or at the decline of the Roman Empire — even the new religions have only reaffirmed that same principle. They found their first supporters among the humble, in the lowest, downtrodden layers of society, where the mutual-aid principle is the necessary foundation of every-day life; and the new forms of union which were introduced in the earliest Buddhist and Christian communities, in the Moravian brotherhoods and so on, took the character of a return to the best aspects of mutual aid in early tribal life.

Each time, however, that an attempt to return to this old principle was made, its fundamental idea itself was widened. From the clan it was extended to the stem, to the federation of stems, to the nation, and finally — in ideal, at least — to the whole of mankind. It was also refined at the same time. In primitive Buddhism, in primitive Christianity, in the writings of some of the Mussulman teachers, in the early movements of the Reform, and especially in the ethical and philosophical movements of the last century and of our own times, the total abandonment of the idea of revenge, or of “due reward” — of good for good and evil for evil — is affirmed more and more vigorously. The higher conception of “no revenge for wrongs,” and of freely giving more than one expects to receive from his neighbours, is proclaimed as being the real principle of morality — a principle superior to mere equivalence, equity, or justice, and more conducive to happiness. And man is appealed to to be guided in his acts, not merely by love, which is always personal, or at the best tribal, but by the perception of his oneness with each human being. In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support not mutual struggle — has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race.


***




Pyotr Alexeevich Kropotkin (December 9, 1842 – February 8, 1921) was a Russian activist, revolutionary, scientist and philosopher who advocated anarcho-communism.

Born into an aristocratic land-owning family, he attended a military school and later served as an officer in Siberia, where he participated in several geological expeditions. He was imprisoned for his activism in 1874 and managed to escape two years later. He spent the next 41 years in exile in Switzerland, France (where he was imprisoned for almost four years) and in England. He returned to Russia after the Russian Revolution in 1917, but was disappointed by the Bolshevik form of state socialism.

Kropotkin was a proponent of a decentralised communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations of self-governing communities and worker-run enterprises. He wrote many books, pamphlets and articles, the most prominent being The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops; and his principal scientific offering, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. He also contributed the article on anarchism to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition[11] and left unfinished a work on anarchist ethical philosophy.


***

Ecovillages: Why They Rise Above Just Being “Eco” 
by Gabriela Andreevska, 
GEN Europe Secretariat
 Introduction
 “Far from being a primitive form of organization, the family is a very late product of human evolution. As far as we can go back in the paleo-ethnology of mankind, we find men living in societies - in tribes similar to those of the highest mammals; and an extremely slow and long evolution was required to bring these societies to the gentile, or clan organization, which, in its turn, had to undergo another, also very long evolution, before the first germs of family, polygamous or monogamous, could appear. Societies, bands, or tribes -- not families -- were thus the primitive form of organization of mankind and its earliest ancestors…none of the higher mammals, save a few carnivores and a few undoubtedly-decaying species of apes (orangutans and gorillas), live in small families, isolately struggling in the woods. All others live in societies. And Darwin so well understood that isolately-living apes never could have developed into manlike beings, that he was inclined to consider man as descended from some comparatively weak but social species, like the chimpanzee, rather than from some stronger but unsociable species, like the gorilla.” (Kropotkin, 1972).