BIOLOGY IN ITS WIDER ASPECTS 1309 



to contrast — competitive and co-operative — are not antithetic 

 alternatives. Both are successful, both have their rewards, and both 

 have their dangers. 



It must not be thought that the contrast between the solitary 

 and the social, the competitive and the co-operative, is the same 

 as that between egoistic and altruistic types, between the selfish 

 and the other-regarding. This is a common fallacy. The individual- 

 istic otter is just as careful a mother as the co-operative beaver. 

 The golden eagles in their lonely retreat are as devoted parents as 

 the gregarious rooks. The solitary bees provide for their progeny 

 as effectively as do those that live in colonies and hives. The contrast 

 between the competitive and the co-operative is primarily social, 

 not ethical. 



What is the contrast? The co-operative regime, which we may 

 also call gregarious, communal, social, and so forth, always implies 

 some measure of self-subordination on the part of the co-operators 

 and some alleviation of the individual's struggle for existence, for 

 society is always a shield. The danger is a loss of individual all- 

 roundness and independence, and a sheltering of weak types that 

 would be eliminated in individualistic conditions. Moreover, as in 

 ant-hill and bee-hive, the subordination of the individual may 

 become almost pathological. The self -sufficient, actively individual- 

 istic, each- for- himself way of living has the advantage of fostering 

 sturdy vigour and all-roundness of development. But it has the 

 disadvantages that it presents fewer opportunities for the cultiva- 

 tion of kin-sympathy, that it limits the mastery of the environment, 

 and that it may involve an intensification of the struggle for exist- 

 ence to the unendurable uttermost — which spells extinction. 



The open secret that Man may read in Animate Nature is that 

 there is much to be said for both the competitive and the co-opera- 

 tive ways of living. Man, though one species, must try both. Towards 

 given ends, at particular times, in certain circumstances, man 

 should learn from the eagle; towards other ends, at other times, 

 and in other circumstances, he should learn from the rook. Both 

 ways are best, whereas no good word can be said for parasitism. 



But when the one regime should be followed and when the other 

 is a difficult question, and from Natural History we get but a few 

 hints. Certain modes of life, such as fishing and hunting, favour the 

 "each for himself" policy; certain inhospitable and difficult environ- 

 ments operate against the possibility of a communal regime ; certain 

 constitutional and temperamental peculiarities give the animal a 

 bias against or in favour of co-operative self -subordination. Perhaps 

 there is some deep psychical difference between a crow and a rook: 

 the one solitary, the other social; both highly intelligent. 



A common fallacy to be guarded against is crediting the particular 

 way of living with engendering aU the virtues of those that follow it. 



