The idea behind stressing the importance of energy for all living organisms in the 1st Premise was to take the spotlight off the material structures that propagate this immense process. Life is motion. Organisms use their organs to put this energy to a range of good uses. Capturing and harnessing energy typically involves numerous conversions, with energy being lost at every step. This explains why each organism must extract and exploit considerably more “raw energy” from its environment than the total “useful energy” its individual capabilities and functions require. On the bottom line the energy balance must be highly positive.

Sunlight is the energy source for plants, and plant shapes show clear adaptations to this. The same holds true for animals: their strategy is to consume organisms in whole or in part and to release the chemical energy – converted solar energy – contained in the food’s molecular structure. This energy then fuels the animals’ functions. One necessary adaptation for predation is to have nerve structures that control prey acquisition. They issue commands that enable the animal to recognize its prey – its energy source – based on key stimuli. They then trigger the correct sequence of body movements to overpower and devour the prey.

For over 3600 million years, life existed only in the sea and other waters. Some life forms then conquered dry land. Capabilities increased in leaps and bounds and, ultimately, only 2 million years ago, gave rise to an organism with a particularly highly developed nervous system – humans. Up until that time all plants and animals had to form the organs they needed from cells. We, on the other hand, were able to form additional organs directly from raw materials, considerably boosting capability on all fronts. Moreover, our brain capacity enabled us to pass the instructions on how to produce these additional organs on to our descendants. The organs were detachable, boosting our versatility to new heights.

Initially, our innate instincts and the acquired control mechanisms (which we could communicate to others) complemented each other quite well. All of our key drives – for food acquisition, protection from predators, reproduction and social cohesion – were better met using these additional organs and new control mechanisms. We became far superior to all other organisms and specialized in ever new fields of activity. This gave rise to a new – third – form of energy gain. Whereas plants capture the sun’s energy and animals use predatory means to “fuel up”, humans began to satisfy their energy needs using transactional strategies within sedentary communities. The difference between these transactions and predation was just as significant as animal versus plant life strategies. Our adaptation proved to be only partially successful. As so often in the course of evolution, new features that significantly boosted capability also created new problems. Today, a once reliable mechanism – conditioning – activates mechanisms that are appropriate for predatory behavior but not when dealing with our “transactional partner”. All of a sudden, human intelligence, which so efficiently promoted technological progress (i.e. the production of additional organs) and so decisively improved our predatory strategies, was confounded with a new challenge. Our outdated internal directives often directly contradicted or derailed useful and profitable business strategies: paralysis and confusion were the result. Our business transactions proceeded according to obsolete predatory strategies. Profits were earned and advances made, but far below optimum levels.

This conflicting internal control mechanism, the “psychosplit”, bogged down human development, impacting not only business but human co-existence as a whole. This put sand in the gears of “cultural evolution”, hampering our efforts to make life more pleasant and actively shape our lives. Why? Because we automatically degraded every “transactional” partner to “prey”. The social drives and mores that regulated human co-existence were insufficient to counteract the strongest of all animal drives, namely the feeding instinct. Money, the extraordinarily useful universal mediator behind all of our transactions, merely amplified the problem. Conditioning was once again at fault. This, in summary, is the brunt of my argumentation, which automatically raises the question: if this is all true, what can be done? Can we eliminate this inherent blockade and, if yes, how? Evolution essentially multiplies energy via suitable structures and expresses it in range of capabilities. Following the development of uni- and multicellular organisms, humans have ushered in a third, explosively expanding evolutionary era. The new mode of energy gain that fuels this era, however, has caused the evolutionary process to hit a wall. The internal “psychosplit” is a cancer that, combined with our current level of technical achievement, makes the impending self-destruction of the human race and of life of our planet a distinct possibility.

Can the psychosplit be influenced? Can this psychological defect be somehow reduced, neutralized or eradicated?

Analyzing the process in small cities and towns in the market-oriented “free” world reveals clear constraints on the “semi-predator”. In this sense, our transparent societies do exert a corrective function. The greengrocer who sells us second-class vegetables or overcharges for high-quality produce will soon be out of business. The customer influences this by switching to competitors who provide a better deal. If the grocer has a monopoly, others will invariably attempt to establish a new, better enterprise. The inept supplier disappears from the screen. This process fully conforms with the “survival of the fittest”, originally applied to those animal and plant species that are either better at acquiring energy or otherwise better adapted to their environment.

Early human societies that became sedentary were still relatively small and transparent. This by no means neutralized the budding psychosplit. As indicated earlier, the priorities back then were security against outside groups, followed by land ownership. This hindered “free enterprise” in the modern sense. The ruler or the ruling class controlled supply and demand and reaped most of the profits made by and within the community. Even then, much like in smaller market economies today, the more unpleasant effects of the psychosplit could be overcome by firmly clamping down on obsolete behavior mechanisms. Still, only few such suppressed people actually behaved in a “customer-friendly” manner, and the advantages of addressing the concerns of others (not one’s own) went largely unrecognized. Our predatory instincts were simply too deeply ingrained. Nonetheless, this perspective shows that the psychosplit is not an incurable scourge: its repercussions can be held in check.

I will skip the full, muddled history of human economics because the focus here is more on today’s situation and how we can overcome it. This brings us to a point in the recent past when our transportation had vastly improved, our industrial and technological progress had begun to take off, and when business and trade began to sell their ever more numerous and powerful tools, weapons and other useful products on expanding markets. This was the golden age of the semi-predator, who very successfully applied predatory strategies in many business sectors. The severe shortage of “goods” and the great need for capital to erect larger production facilities meant major profits for production and trade. Well-organized “full predators” set their sights on this scene and made a killing. The huge profit margins of that era elicited few howls of anguish because the system provided necessary goods, new and useful items. And much of the accumulated capital was plowed into other very useful investments. Customer satisfaction was a chance by-product, although de facto it did promote progress.

The next major leap in time lands us squarely in our highly industrialized era in which telephones, email, radio, TV and ever-faster means of transportation have reduced the world into Marshall McLuhan’s so aptly coined “global village”. We are better informed than ever – some would say over-informed – about events around the globe: we are all inundated with information, a flood that is often particularly hard for scientists to keep up with. Are the economic sectors becoming increasingly intransparent, and does this simplify the semi-predator’s game, much like the fisherman who might expect to more easily outwit the trout in murky waters? The opposite is the case! This very development prompted global suppliers to focus on ever narrower target groups. Although the global picture may be getting murkier for the individual, for business transactions in the modern world it has become increasingly transparent. Technical journals, personal communication, market research and computer technology have given businesses an increasingly clearer picture about international supply and demand. Like in a small village, the corrective influence of the community kicks in. Thus, internationally operating companies have begun to focus more on quality and “customer-friendly” service, and on being the “optimal problem-solvers” for their target groups. Interestingly, this process is not fueled solely by outside pressure, i.e. by a natural selection that weeds out miscreants, but by the growing awareness that boosting the profits of others is the best way to optimize your own profits.

We can clearly overcome the psychosplit that afflicts virtually everyone conducting business today. Insight into the underlying genetic causalities can reduce the “inner friction” in many sectors and to make overall human progress more efficient. As opposed to other economic doctrines, the underlying business strategy or life philosophy is based on specific, testable scientific hypotheses and not on mere opinion or isolated studies and experience. This is the appropriate tactic to counter the psychosplit and its effects. In science, simply asking the right question is often half the solution to the problem. This may apply here as well, even if the problem is by no means simple.

The difficulties begin with our understanding of the word “predator” as it pertains to animals and humans. Here, we restrict the interpretation to its meaning in animals, not the strong negative connotations associated with illegal, “evil” activities such as theft. When a goat eats a blade of grass, we hardly feel sorry for that blade even though, energetically, the process is clearly predatory: one organism is partially or entirely consumed by another, and its energetic and structural makeup is, quite simply, “robbed”. When a lion kills a gazelle, and the gazelle struggles and bleats plaintively, we cannot label the lion as being good or bad, even though it destroys life exactly like the goat. The control mechanisms behind both predatory acts, like the goat itself or the lion itself, are also neither good nor evil. The animals’ behavior is part of nature and is accepted by all moral teachings, even though we may feel pity for the prey. Can the fact that our early ancestors used their intelligence to improve these control mechanisms be evaluated negatively? Are agriculture and animal husbandry immoral? The answer from our own, egocentric perspective is a resounding “no”.

The transition from predatory principles to transactional practices was an innovation of cosmic dimensions. For over 3 billion years, with minor exceptions, energy was either gained by harnessing sunlight or by eating other organisms. This was now topped by a widespread third form of energy acquisition – transactional exchange. Again, good or evil are inappropriate terms to describe when our innate programs impede such exchanges. And these criteria are equally inapplicable to the “semi-predator” who emerged from this inner conflict. “Semi-predator” is an apt description because we gain energy through transactions but our behavior is influenced by the predatory instincts of ancient ancestors. This clearly transcends any notion of good or evil. The prefix “semi” is a simplification and therefore entirely imprecise. The activities of some may be 90% predatory, those of others only 10%. All, however, are affected by the psychosplit: all are influenced by innate maxims that block us from optimally exploiting our new line of business.

It all boils down to one thing: we must recognize that obsolete programs hinder business success. The losses incurred, whether they be 10% or 90%, are beyond dispute. They are the topic of this book. Simply being “ashamed” of these losses would be counterproductive. Rather, this book advocates promoting human development by soberly examining and then eliminating them. This is our only hope of ridding the world of a problem that has caused immense suffering and waste over the course of history. Today, the situation is exacerbated by our high birthrates and technological advances.

One might belittle the term “psychosplit” by saying that this split – this parallel set of controls – arose at the dawn of human intellect, i.e. at a much earlier date then I have indicated. All of us are confronted daily with the conflict between innate desires and reason. At the same time, this book has already argued that the two worked together very harmoniously during the entire 2 million years that our ancestors lives as hunters and gatherers. In the last century, however, our technological advances – nuclear power plants, supersonic aircraft, environmental degradation, throw-away society, etc. – may fail to represent meaningful progress. In my opinion, no other conflict has had a greater negative global impact than what I have termed the psychosplit, affecting virtually every new generation of human beings. Again, neither the term “semi-predator” nor “psychosplit” are a priori negative: they merely describe a hurdle to human development.

I term the suitable strategy to overcome this hurdle “OBS”, as an abbreviation for “optimal bartering strategy” and “optimal business strategy”, which melds the  theoretical with the practical³¹. This is not a close-and-shut economic school of thought, but an approach dedicated to promoting human development. The second part of this book outlines the key steps in this direction. Overcoming the psychosplit requires taking a much closer look at the innate predatory instincts of animals. The more we know about the incorrect advice they give us, the better we can shortcircuit them.

One of the difficulties in my presentation is semantic: how to unequivocally and vividly define the energy source we tap in the transactional process. In the animal world, the terms “prey” or “food” are valid.  The terms applied when goods or services change hands are often quite restrictive. The purchasing process refers to “customers”, “target groups”, or “markets”. On the job market, the energy source is the “employer”, whereas services rendered for a company or for a state are stimulated by that company or that state. Need first becomes an energy source when some value – typically monetary – can be attached to it and when both partners seek the transaction. In the present context, money is the mediator that can tap some energy source.

Sigmund Freud showed that shocking experiences in early adolescence can induce traumas that are shifted into the subconscious and that can subsequently trigger neuroses. He also successfully demonstrated that the resulting psychological disorders can be healed by exposing the cause of the permanent psychological conflict. The psychosplit is a bit different but has underlying similarities. Rather than involving an individual history that has damaged some control mechanism, the psychosplit describes an many-thousand-year-old, fundamental conflict between our innate instincts and the new way we put food on the table – a new activity for which those instincts were not developed. The psychosplit is not innate, but conditioning automatically triggers it in every business transaction. It can only be reduced or eliminated by consciously recognizing our disruptive instincts and replacing them with more promising ones.
The second section of this book is devoted to this task.
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "1^st Consequence: If you seek profits, focus on the advantage of others"