Human Cooperation

Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /home/rmhu6fn7r820/public_html/wp-content/themes/opskill-123help/functions.php on line 75

Notice: Trying to get property 'status' of non-object in /home/rmhu6fn7r820/public_html/wp-content/themes/opskill-123help/functions.php on line 75

Essay > Words: 5002 > Rating: Excellent > Buy full access at $1


Considering Darwin’s theory of evolution, human existence from the very start has been highly dependent on cooperation. The ape-man relied on their cooperation ability to fend off enemies, win new habitats, and most situations gather and hunt for food. Human survival was oft under threat in circumstances when they were not in their mobs. Moreover, that is a characteristic that still defines the existence of other apes. Reason being, there were more sizeable and ferocious animals in the jungle and only communal effort cold protect the entire community. A mother would not protect her children from the beast from instance a lion, nor would a single hunter subdue a witty antelope to supplement the family diet. The communal effort that was projected by man during his evolution that partially propelled into dominance still marks human characteristics today.
Cooperation is the compliance of providing assistance to the realization of a goal. In a sense, it is the will to work at either end of the team to pull out a task. Individuals who want take it all but offer no pay back undermine the whole concept[1]. Human cooperation is the most significant on the planet and has elevated them to the positions of the most dominant creations on the planet[2]. Not only do humans work together, they also think together and provide eminent solutions to dilemmas and challenges. Their ability to gather and transmit social information way much better than the rest of animals on the globe catapults the harmony and teamwork[3].
The factor of human cooperation is very significant especially because there are no two beings of the same ability in all aspects. One must most of the times exhibit superiority over another, however slight, in a particular field[4]. For instance, making reference to the ape-man, one ape could be skilled at running, another at setting traps and another could be a marksman and superb with arrows and spears. If the three went out hunting together, there would be the highest likelihood of a kill for the day and healthy meals for their families[5].
Mechanisms have been fronted to define the essence of human cooperation. They include pseudo-reciprocity and interdependence, reciprocal behavior, and social dilemmas. Reciprocal behavior is a form of investment that involves the reversal of roles and positions from provider to the recipient. Individuals who provide assistance in one aspect would, therefore, get the help in other situations. It thus is emanated as a payback.
Pseudo-reciprocity and interdependence revolves around the fact that survival is more eminent in groups[6]. Factors that are challenging to others in one aspect can be filled in for by other individuals. As such, an individual always has a role to play in assisting the continued survival of others. No individual is over-reliant on one. Consider, for instance, a hospital setup where a doctor plays his or her roles, leaves the testing procedurals for the individuals at the lab and the caring of the patient to the nurses.
Social dilemmas are more challenges than direct cooperation[7]. In such scenarios, some members of the team are always reluctant in directly cooperating and are coerced into cooperation with either incentives or threats. Reason being; they drag a team by taking from them and offering nothing in compensation. Solutions to the dilemmas have always led to more cooperation and team success.
Human cooperation is all about the ability to set aside the elements of competition and weigh the possibilities of individual success[8]. However, many a times it comes so instinctively and calls for no mental reflection. For instance, in situations that require assistance or rescue from the jaws of death. A case for which, firefighters and rescuers rushed to the bombing scene of the world trade center in the U.S in 2001. They had little consideration of their safety. The result was an experienced team of rescuers buried in the rubble, waiting for another team to perform their duty for them. As such cooperation can drive mankind to his destruction.
Usually, there are two factors that determine the cooperation that kind that could be disastrous. The first, the one discussed above, is an instinctive drive that pushes individuals to dangerous situations with little consideration given to thought.
The second is the nature of attachment that the human species have towards each other[9]. They share the pain and suffering of other individuals and hence the drive and the urge to ease their suffering. That is a factor dependent on the desire to be assisted in any case one gets mired in such a situation. That is the kind of cooperation always witnessed in battlefields as soldiers take to rescuing others from dangerous war zones risking their lives in the process.
In as much as human cooperation has been a driving force for their survival and existence, it could be detrimental to human survival[10]. Instincts and hormones drive the blind rush to commit to certain activities always. As has been observed in primates, instinctive reactions always lead to more death. The latest case that mark such dangerous cooperation is the Ebola pandemic in West Africa that has called for the response of doctors all over the globe. Giving little consideration to the very dangerous nature of the epidemic, some of the medics have also lost their lives in the process.

In some other instances, entire human existence has been threatened by cooperation especially during wars[11]. Armies conspire and cooperate with others and carry out operations that can lead to the extinction of an entire nation, like the German extermination of Jews or the Rwanda genocide. Both instances had the ruling powers instilled a belief of superiority and confidence in soldiers, followers and citizens. As such, any race or tribe that did not exhibit the same kind of complex were not fit to exist and were to be wiped out. The Nazi blamed their economic troubles on Jews and cooperated in exterminating them. The Hutu in Rwanda conspired in an act that amounts to the same by conducting mass Tutsi murders. In the German case for instance, citizens were aware of the activities that went on behind the walls of extermination camps but kept their secret a secret.
In some situations, however, the same cooperation has always led man to the understanding that instinctive cooperation is dangerous. As such, man practices self restrain so as not to succumb to the desire to assist/cooperate. That derives basis from the ability to comprehend that more danger or casualties are likely to be suffered in some cases, rather the heroic salvation.
However, humans owe to their cooperation, way much more than their intelligence, their survival and dominance of the universe[12]. Human intelligence only played a role in his ability to comprehend the situations and create more diversified means to improve life and increase survival. Moreover, the ability to cooperate is also driven by factors of intelligence just as much as instincts.
Maintenance of the cooperative interactions is possible because they have benefits both for the present and the future. Intelligence has evolved the cooperation to include mechanisms that are meant to reinforce it, for instance, punishments and rewards. That is because man understands the benefits and that need to participate in communal activities[13]. On the average, such behaviors always sire the actor’s indirect and direct fitness.

The Eminent Mariwal Tribal War

Tribal wars bear repercussions and sometimes unbearable casualties. Such disputes and conflicts derive basis from the desire to exhibit dominance over other communities or could be driven by the urge of self-protection or even vengeance. Always grumbling and fighting over matters of little significance, the fighting could be misinformed and is many a times misinformed. Other times, information is just misinterpreted[14].
The Mariwal situation is barely different and bears the emblem of a misinformed course. It is a dispute that revolves around allegations that the Mialis are planning an armed attack on their neighbors, the Mariwals. Significantly, it would grow into a conflict if the Mariwal proceed with their plans of invasion on the Mialis as they seek to stop the planned attack that targets them. The situation is further complicated by the Chinabels tribe who are considering a cooperation with the Mialis to repel the Mariwals. To note is the fact that the Chinabels have superior weapons. Moreover, they are ready to use them, unlike the Mariwals. As such, there are three tribes mired in the dispute but at this early stage, solutions can be presented and the situation nipped in the bud.

The advance of the situation throws the Mariwal tribe into dilemma on how to handle the situation. That is because an advanced attack on the Mialis would jeopardize the security of their people as a result of an attack by the Chinabels. The Mariwal leader should hence send two contingents, one to the Chinabel tribe and another to the tribal chiefs of the Mialis. The first would have the duty of informing the Chinabel tribe that their intention is not start a war, but to stop a possibly cooking war. Moreover, if they intended any serious war, they could have carried their rifles to use in the process. That would persuade the Chinabels to observe the situation and examine the rationale of the situation and arbitrate to avoid a possible war/conflict[15].
The other contingent would purposely meet with the Mialis tribal chiefs to inquire into the credibility of the allegation that has resulted to the situation. Considering that they have taken positions, the Mialis chiefs will be compliant to verify if anything to the information is accurate or refuse to do so. Either way, an insight into the credibility of the information will be provided.

Considering that disputes are caused by imperfect knowledge and reasoning and human emotions, I would first indulge in unearthing the underlining factors that led to the buildup in an attempt to solve the matter. For instance, when the new leader was informed of the planned invasion, she failed to analyze the reliability of the information on one hand. On the other hand, she failed to launch an investigation to determine the reality in the allegation. Not only could she be misinformed in this case, but could also be acting under the guidance of emotions that fail to assist her digest and comprehend the factors in the situation. Moreover, the warning/persuasion that has been presented by the Chinabels is a pointer that the decision that has been made by the Mariwal leader is probably based on untruth/false allegations.

Her actions are driven by the will to protect her people as the leader, and she has made the decision to raid the Mialis before they can possibly attack. Her tribe has by consensus launched an early attack on the Mialis and as such have the advantage of a reduced likelihood of resistance from the Mialis. However, their compliance with the Paramount Chief’s views on the early raid has sided the very basics that they should have employed like a primary investigation into the allegation. On the other hand, it also risks their lives as they remain positioned around the Mialis who can surprisingly attack them as they yet wait for orders from the Chief.

However, presenting solutions at this stage would curtail the dispute and stop its progression into a conflict.
The Chinabels will only get involved in the situation if it progresses to conflict. As such much of the solution presented for the dispute would less involve them. In resolving the dispute, I would first consider the possible barriers. The Mariwal would be possibly affected by the feeling of insecurity and on the other hand, the Mialis would opt to adamantly stand by their fixed position of attacking their rivals so to gain superiority. My second step would hence involve reframing the dispute and remolding the matters at hand so that I can reach my desired solution.

Communicating with the two parties to present an amicable solution would involve mediation and negotiation. That would involve having the two parties present their grievances and presenting them with solutions that guarantee peace. [16] To ensure that either parties are guaranteed satisfaction in the mediation process, resolving the dispute would involve open introductory remarks from both parties in a round table talk. As such, no party will feel either insecure or threatened[17]. Both parties would then be presented the time to air their grievances and explain their actions. That is centered around presenting solutions to the problem and hardly around unearthing the truth[18].

To identify the problem, I would then present questions that are open to both parties. The questions will also assist in configuring the key matters that should be settled first[19]. With all that done, the last procedural would be to bargain and generate options and agreement terms. To ensure that the last and very vital mediation step is successful, I would create hypothetical scenarios aimed at instilling sense into the negotiating parties. That would involve convincing the two parties that letting the dispute grow into a conflict would only bear tremendous repercussions on them and not present them with the results they so desire[20]. For instance, I would inform the Mialis that the Mariwals also have in their possesion riffles that they intend to use if the situation gets out of hand. On the other hand, I would gravitate the impact of fighting on two fronts against the Chinabels and Mialis combined to the Mariwals.

The mediation process will not only present the two tribes with facts about the eminent war, but will scare them out of it[21]. The main reason for that is that neither parties had anticipated the ability of their rival, or the twists and turns of the buildup. The result would be a peace pact with the understanding of the tremendous repercussions that will be borne if either parties violate the terms of the agreement[22].

Analysis of the Two Cases

Human cooperation stems from a desire to succeed. It has the drive of fulfilling instinctive thirsts and needs and can turn a man to survival or death and casualties. It turns humans to war or make them surrender their interests[23].
The nature of endeavoring in such activities of cooperation demands rewards and positive assurances[24]. In the first part, this essay indulged into explaining the factors that lead to human cooperation. It projected them majorly as the desires and responses to threats to human security or the needs of survival. Furthermore, it elaborated that some reactions are instinctive and.............

Type: Essay || Words: 5002 Rating || Excellent

Subscribe at $1 to view the full document.

Buy access at $1