This article is a preview from the Summer 2020 edition of New Humanist
Tom Oliver is a professor at the University of Reading, leading their ecology and evolution research group. He is a prominent systems thinker, advising both the UK government and the European Environment Agency. “The Self Delusion” is his first book.
Why do you believe the idea of an autonomous individual self is an illusion?
Having a self identity is an illusion that first evolved in prehistoric times because it was beneficial for us as a species: it allowed us to have a coherent memory, to find food and track social interactions in a group. Back then, groups would have typically been between 10 and 50 people. Which meant being too individualistic was problematic. This could have resulted in being excluded from the group. It could even threaten [individual] survival. So there were checks and balances for collective cooperation.
What has changed in the modern world?
We now have a self-serving individualism where our economies have become globalised, but our moral and legal frameworks haven’t kept pace. Our culture prides itself on individualistic behaviour. That selfishness is leading to environmental degradation, climate change and a whole host of other social and environmental problems.
Isn’t it bleak to say the individual doesn’t exist?
Actually I find it enormously empowering: especially the idea that you are not this lonely entity in a small fortress. You can look at that from a multitude of perspectives. Firstly, from the religious perspective: where we are part of something much greater than ourselves. This is the idea of oneness and pantheism. Then there is the psychological view: where our culture is shared amongst everyone and we are building on a huge mass of shared knowledge accumulated over centuries. And finally, the materialist idea: cells built from material scavenged from the environment. Our DNA has instruction to build our bodies, for example, but that DNA is borrowed from our ancestors.
You discuss evolutionary descent, questioning the linear Darwinian understanding.
We have this term “the tree of life”. It’s a very powerful analogy – but the tips of the trees are separate, [indicating] different species. But there is a lot of evidence that there are horizontal links across these branches as well as vertical. That creates interlinkages between the tips. The idea of a species of bacteria, for example, doesn’t
really make sense because they share their genes all the time in different ways. So wherever you are in the tree of life, these linkages become a network rather than a tree.
You also argue that ego is an illusion.
Many religions have been saying this through the ages. But what I’m bringing to the table is an evidence-based approach. Neuroscience shows our neural networks are hugely dynamic: always changing to the physical and social context we are surrounded by. Every time we speak to someone, every word and touch we receive is changing the neural networks in our brains. Neuroscience can now tell how many synaptic connections are being gained or lost every minute and how our brain is changing to [adapt to] the environment. As we interact with each other, we are literally changing each other’s minds. This goes against the view that the self is a discreet autonomous entity. A lot of these influences are subconscious. So becoming aware of your own surroundings is a helpful way to influence your thinking.
What about the use of psychedelic drugs (such as LSD or mescaline) to dissolve ideas of the self?
The mind can get stuck in patterns. And it can be very difficult to get out of a mindset because it’s physically encoded in pathways. Those drugs can help throw things up in the air temporarily and improve our ability to change mindsets. There are different ways of thinking about a self. And when you come back to that state you realise the way you think [is] a choice. It’s not imposed on you. When you use a drug it’s temporary – but you can see there is another way to think and you can change it.
Where does consciousness fit into your theory?
I’m not denying that consciousness exists. The subjective feelings we have exist in physical patterns in the brain. They are not an illusion. There is a physical basis for them and they have value. I’m not arguing that all of the thoughts in our head don’t exist. But the idea that we are separate and independent from other things in the world is an illusion. When we start to acknowledge that connectedness, we see that our minds are porous and that our bodies are physically connected. This reveals a oneness to everything in the planet and the universe. Dispelling that illusion can unlock creativity. When we feel that we are isolated, we close ourselves off to that source of inspiration.
What about free will: do you believe it exists?
Free will is a tricky one. The most logical argument is that we don’t have free will. But we feel like we do. I don’t find the philosophical arguments all that useful. You can often just go round in circles.
Let’s take an extreme example: someone shoots into a crowd of people. Do they have free will?
Well the initial reaction by most would be to stick them in jail. But when you deconstruct that violent behaviour, you might see a physical cause. Tumors in the brain can cause violent behaviour. Or it could be they were abused as a child – this can lead to physical changes in the brain. You must then ask: how culpable is that person? If you believe that person is autonomous then it is very easy to blame the individual. But when you realise they are part of a dense web of connections, you see their acts have multiple causes. Understanding the full [complexity] of that causality takes away the question of blame.
Your book looks at the relationship between the individual and the collective in society.
Look at the huge global problems we are facing, like biodiversity and climate change. Their root causes are driven by choices and identity: what we choose to buy or how we choose to travel. But people feel a strong sense of identity when it’s connected to something bigger than themselves. So institutions, the economy, the justice system are really made up of our collective world view. To change them we need to change those mindsets. This suggests the solutions lie within us and social change can happen very quickly.
After the Covid-19 pandemic will people turn to the collective, or towards their own self interest?
We are at a crossroads in Britain and as a global society. The crisis is not affecting all of us equally. On the one hand, we could become more cooperative and collectivist, because people have seen that individualism has gone too far when societies don’t look after the weakest. But there is also a worrying trend that this [pandemic] could potentially push us down an individualistic path with more authoritarian governments.
When societies are hit by environmental or social shocks they tend to retract and become tighter in their in-groups. It’s problematic when everyone says: “We are going to look after ourselves.” That won’t work because we are inherently linked to our environment. We are already seeing this with refugees from climate change, which is just the beginning of a much bigger trend: we may see millions moving across the planet. We cannot simply shut our borders. This would be an ethical time bomb.
We can look at the pandemic as a creative destruction. And we have the opportunity to stir the recovery in a way which points out how interconnected we are physically and socially, and to build a more progressive society overall.
