Symbiotic relationship based on mutual suffering - possible?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

In nature, the notion of a symbiotic relationship is usually understood in terms of the expression “I scratch your back, you scratch mine”; each member performs a beneficial function for the other. But what does ‘beneficial’ mean here? I would like to refrain from answering too quickly “bringing pleasure to” and focus on “helping to survive” to the exclusion of pleasure. Is such a scenario in principle possible?

Is it possible, in other words, that the mutual survival of two species depend on at least one inflicting pain on the other?

Here is what I have considered:

We know that there are an abundance of species in nature who depend on other species in terms of the latter’s typical manner of behaving (i.e. if the latter behaved differently, the former wouldn’t be able to handle them). It is conceivable, therefore, that one species depend on another’s behavior insofar as that behavior is the typical ‘avoidance’ behavior that results from experiences of pain/suffering. For the moment, let’s put aside questions of why such avoidance behavior would be advantage to the former, and just assume that it is (somehow). Then the former species would have an interest in bringing about such avoidance behavior in the latter, and what better way to do so by causing the latter pain and suffering? But of course, the very nature of pain and suffering is such that it signals a condition that warrants the evasion or terminating of that very condition. The ‘victom’ (we’ll call the species that suffers the ‘victom’) has an interest in either evading or terminating the source of the pain/suffering. Thus, the more the ‘assailant’ (we’ll call them that) continues to inflict pain and suffering onto the victon, the more likely the victom will seek out ways to escape the assailant’s assaults, or, to the detriment of the assailant, to eradicate them all together.

Furthermore, pain and suffering are also signals of risk - risk of the failure to survive - thus the warrant to evade the source of pain and suffering or to eliminate it. If, therefore, the assailant continues to inflict pain and suffering, he himself risk losing the victom to the hands of death, that is, losing that very thing on which he depends for his survival.

Such doesn’t look too promising for the assailant in that case - that is, because the infliction of pain/suffering would predictably lead to his own demise - but we are talking about a very complicated process here - that of biological evolution. Is it not conceivable (and conceivability is all we’re talking about here) that the assailant could be resourceful and inventive enough to find ways of keeping the victom alive and functional (so that he continues indefinitely to engage in avoidance behavior in response to pain and suffering) but at the same time readily subject to the frequent infliction of pain and suffering? It would be a very delicate balancing act to be sure, but I don’t see why it would be impossible (at least not in principle - and that is all I’m getting at, keep in mind).

Let’s suppose that this is indeed possible in principle. Would it not follow, therefore, that given enough time (on an evolutionary time scale) the victom would adapt and grow accustome to this way of life such that he may become biologically predisposed to depend on pain and suffering? Is it possible, in other words, that a species not only depend on pain and suffering in order to signal the presence of menacing conditions in his environment, but also to motivate behavior that is essential to his survival? In other words, it is conceivable that we could live a life devoid of pain and suffering, or at least that pain and suffering be minimized to an extremely low frequency and intensity, and still be able to survive (whether or not this is possible practically is another matter), but is it possible that this species we have been considering - the ‘victom’ - be such a species that he depends on a minimally frequent and minimally intense degree of pain/suffering in the way we (or any species) depends on food, air, water, etc. - that is to say, not just to signal the presence of contingent and occasional circumstances that are threatening, but that it is literally impossible to survive unless pain and suffering be experienced as requirements in and of themselves for survival.

To put this question another way - and indeed to return to our scenario of the symbiotic relation between victom and assailant - is it possible for there to be a species that depends for its survival on another species periodically hurting it? One can easily imagine rabbits thriving if there were no foxes, but can one imagine them dying away because of it?

I could understand if there were a whole multitude of exceptions to the scenarios I painted above - those involving victoms and assailants - so I’d prefer not to have to defend those scanerios particularly, but I would like more seriously for this question - is it possible in principle for a species to depend on pain and suffering for its survival - not merely to avoid threating conditions, but to “attract” a certain kind of behavior (avoidance behavior)? - to be addressed and for speculative answered to be suggested.

We have spent the better part of the last few centuries asking the question: can we eliminate the majority of ills mankind suffers from? - and apart from the consideration that we will always suffer ills to one degree or another, and apart from the consideration that we ought to avoid eliminating the feeling of pain by itself at the expense of eliminating its cause (i.e. numbing ourselves despite that the cause of our pain is still present - and so is the threat to our health/survival) - I want to add the consideration whether the very attempt to eliminate pain and suffering could itself be detrimental - that is, in the same vein as, for example, eliminating eating, drinking, breathing.

2

Like lions and gazelles etc perhaps, if the gazelle has no predator its species would overpopulate then suffer mass starvation and end. No foxes = no rabbits and the rabbits know it.
Animals could do a lot more in retribution if they did not have some sense of this?

Apart from that your post is way over my head as I don’t know the subject to well :blush: , perhaps explain what you are looking for here? …or perhaps I’ll just leave it to the experts on this one.

brilliant post though! :slight_smile:

edit;

Sadomasochists would agree lols, but seriously I agree pain and suffering are important elements of the whole experience, without them we would not learn [as much] nor feel [as much].

3

Possible, sure. I can’t think of an example where a painful parasite is necessary for a host’s survival, though, and can’t imagine a voluntary symbiosis with pain involved.

If you look at genes as competitive ‘organisms’, or rather agents, there is the case of the sickle cell gene, which harms some of its carriers to improve the survivability of the main pool of carriers. That’s the closest I can manage, although there are lots of ‘passenger’ genes, viruses and so on. And I have no idea how painful the assimilation of mitochondria was for the cells of the time :stuck_out_tongue:

Cycles of mass starvation and then population collapse, but not extinction. At least, there are many examples of the former (where species aren’t predated and have ideal food conditions for a short time) and as far as I know, no major examples of extinction caused by overpopulation.

4

Yea I suppose you would get the fittest survive, though I cant think of somewhere where you got no predators and the former prey surviving alone. The point though was that they know they have to be eaten so once one of them is caught you rarely get the rest of the herd take retribution, so I am presuming that they accept the fact of life. That though is not symbiosis unless we somehow think of evolution as one entity [something like gaia theory perhaps].

5

Yeah, but I think this misses the point in that at least the gazelles would have a period of accelerated growth. What I’m talking about is something that would have an immediate effect without any growth in the interim - the kind of effect that a lack of food, water, or air would have. In other words, the gazelle may perish over the long haul as a species but the question I’m asking is if we can conceive of individual members of a species perishing in their own life time (and more particularly over the course of a very short period - weeks, days?).

Well, my thoughts on this began with two prongs: 1) I was thinking of classes of people - social classes - and how in most societies the dominant class tends to be oppressive (to a greater or lesser extent) over the subordinate one, and I got to thinking how such a system could never be stable indefinitely, the reasoning being that the oppressed class, feeling oppressed (i.e. living in a state of pain and suffering), would be motivated by their angst and greivances to overthrow and eradicate the upper class. In other words, experiences of pain and suffering are always a force working against the source of pain and suffering - they are motivators for changing the state of affairs as they exist. 2) I was also thinking of the roles that experiences of pain and pleasure play in the greater biological arena of life on Earth (or anywhere), and I came to similar conclusions: pleasure is experienced when the present state of affairs are good (i.e. they are condusive to survival) and play the role of motivating actions that aim at conversing things as they are, whereas pain plays the opposite (but complimentary) role - changing and eradicating conditions that are bad (i.e. not condusive to survival).

Now I forget what my thoughts were in the interim (that is, between these beginings and the questions I’m posing in this thread), but one of them was questioning whether these roles I ascribe to pain and pleasure, to the inevitable consequences of oppressed social classes who are miserable over their present condition, could be put forward as a hard and fast rule, as something that was absolutely and always true unconditionally. Then I started trying to think of exceptions to it. It was sort of a scary exercise because my thoughts didn’t only ponder over such scenarios in the biological context, but the social/political one too - that is, I wondered if tyrannical, powerful, and extremely intelligent classes (or governing bodies) could ever ensare the people in such a social/political system such that we suffered but had to suffer because living a happy and fulfilling life was not only impossible but would lead inevitably to our demise (and I’ve often wondered if this is already the case - our elected official lie to us, they cause wars, they pocket tax dollars where it could be invested in better causes like health or world peace - but don’t we need them in order to run a country? Wouldn’t it be anarchy if no one did? Wouldn’t anyone eventually become corrupted, and learn that they had to become corrupt in order to play the political game at all? Do we have to submit to some higher governmental force in order to live within a functional society - that is, as an inherent part of the human condition? It makes me wonder whether capitalism just is such a condition - the government doesn’t want to hand out freebies to everyone - otherwise, as the soviet experiment proves, the economy eventually stagnates and we in turn suffer. On the other hand, we also have to suffer to a certain degree in order to have capitalism - we have to strive, to struggle, to compete painstakingly in order to make a living and earn a decent income - but without this struggle and strife, we wouldn’t have the comforts and functionality of a well oiled economic machine).

These were just my thoughts and as you can see I didn’t pose my original question precisely in this way (because they aren’t all together that persuasive or well thought out), but I still wonder whether the suffering of a given species can be said to perform the function of driving that species into a better state of living, one that would be good for it and indeed possible, or wether when (and if) it arrived at that state, it would find itself wanting for what it needed essentially to survive.

6

Very likely, Gib, good view.

Suffering in relation to change and change in relation to a quest for permanance.

Maybe instead of computers finally showing emotion, humans will feel less, suffer less, like a computer.

7

Perhaps,

So do you think it’s possible for there to be a species that depends on suffering in order to survive? (you do understand that I don’t mean suffering in order to signal the need to get away from menacing forces, right? - we all experience, and need, that.)

8

No I don’t think that suffering leads to long term survival. “On a long enough timeline our survival rate drops to zero”

The goal to elimate suffering is different and what propels us, but a species would not welcome it back once it was gone.

Now a masochistic god on the otherhand . . .

9

I doubt it. Think about it, pain causes stress. Stress reduces life expectancy, fertility, all sorts… so if a population has a variance in the stress associated with a host, the less-stressed will outbreed the more, and the ones that feel no pain will outperform the ones that suffer. Sound reasonable?

10

gib,
It is possible for a species to emerge which causes direct pain to another organism, but an eventual benefit to the recipient because of the recipient’s own reaction to the pain caused.

Let us say there exists a species A in which the mortality rate when infected by a virus X is very high, but once it is infected and survives the infection it doesn’t get infected again, the immunity lasting a lifetime. Now let us say a virus Y which when infects A causes the same immunity to be developed, but isn’t fatal. This is a generalisation from the case humans (A), smallpox (X) and cowpox (Y). In this instance the only direct action of Y on A was one of inflicting pain, but in the process helped A by reducing the mortality due to an infection by X.

But I suspect over evolutionary time it will evolve into a regular symbiotic relationship with Y acting just as indicator of the presence of X in the environment without inflicting pain. It is quite possible relationship between the hosts and several beneficial microorganisms to which large organisms like us play host to started off this way.

11

gib

nice post!

Ah I see at least aspects of it more clearly now and can give an example of how that worked in my life [if I got your first thoughts {1} right]; I had a group of five chaps working for me once [and the job/task was a one off], so I thought I would experiment. Each of us were self employed so were free to do as we wish either work on this job or our own etc, usually we work on each others jobs and the chap who got the contract gained the most from the profits, ~ the usual state of affairs in business one could say. So this time I formed a cooperative and everyone shared in the profits, or would have, however they all chose to leave and work for a boss!? Somehow the thought of a strict ruler - so to say, was more attractive, I presume they felt more sure of the bosses that he would be more likely to get things done and get paid the appropriate amount etc. this was a fallacy as I knew the client on my job so I was also sure of the end result.

I never understood why that would be the case, but the trust of a more oppressive and even less rewarding boss was to them more preferable, safer. Perhaps then such forces as you describe are generally at work in the world, such that we subconsciously and consciously work according to them. People like strong leaders hence hitler, and even now some germans are calling for a strong leader.

I don’t think it needs intelligent classes to be the oppressors more the opposite, intelligent people would try to make things fair and efficient in that context in my opinion.
You probably would get anarchy if there wasn’t some measure of oppression, as with my experiment people don’t feel comfortable ruling themselves. Perhaps after years of self determination then people would be more sure of running their own lives, for example in america people have been traditionally given more individual freedom esp in business [hence the tea party].

It is perhaps a learned thing, if we go by nature you get the cycles of oppression then rebellion and eventually the people running the rebellion become the oppressors, it would just keep going around in circles making history. Like many things humans need to ascend such duality and cyclic behaviourisms etc, though I cant see it happening over night. Perhaps you are right in thinking that such cycles never end, if I got you right.

In Victorian times I think the poor accepted their fate and knew that if everyone in the factories were paid more then the factory would be unsuccessful etc, even though this proved not to be the case when unions arose and wages did go up a bit. There are of course limits to that though.

I think there are alternatives to the centralisation of wealth [national debt etc], we tend to think in terms of either capitalism or communism but you can have many different capitalist models, a balance between centralised and decentralised wealth pools [industry banking etc] would I feel bring more balance. At present the centralising national debt strangles economies, this is because it works by growth; a given central bank lends all money to govt as a loan witch is then paid back at interest [that’s interest on the whole amount of money!] from income tax etc, this wealth created is then reinvested and everything works and grows, such is the way we centralise money in the main. However when economies slow or stop growing the debt cannot be so easily paid back and the interest and hence debt grows ever greater, also poorer nations pay a higher rate just like poorer households do.

It is only a well oiled machine when all the parts work properly, but even then I think as your posts imply ‘machines are inclined to break’, eventually any machine will cease to fit purpose and will fail even if it is working correctly. This will definitely be the case as mass recourses run out even if it is not the case now [which I am not sure about].

Yea I agree it is most likely that comparative suffering has to occur to create comparative ease.

good work! and its good to see people thinking in new directions. :slight_smile:

12

These are true but they are also only contingent facts. Is it not conceivable that a species could be biological designed not to be affected by pain or stress in these ways? Even if it were affected in these ways, it’s also conceivable that (somehow) the haulting of the kind of behavior that pain/suffering motivates would lead to the species death much sooner than any amount of stress or suffering would.

13

There is an overriding element in society called status quo. However it is that the current state of affairs came to be is probably due to a progression of revolutions: responses to intellectual or emotional discomfort. I don’t think there is an ultimate revolution revolving around spirituality or religion in this world. They are giving false comfort, and that is what people want. It gets to the point where the mainstream of population hears what they want to hear.

For example, to say that God is redundant, it is not a rebellion against anything: religious thinking is outdated and outmoded. But, to go one step further, I’d say all political ideologies are nothing but the warty outgrowth of the same religious thinking of man. It may be called a revolution, but revolution is only a revaluation of things. You will only end up creating another value system which may be slightly different from the value system that we want to destroy. But basically they are all the same. That is why when the revolution settles down, it calls for another revolution.

14

That’s the thing, isn’t it? The rule seems to be that if a species has to suffer, the suffering will only be temporary, and that in growing accustome to the conditions under which it suffers, it will gradually feel less like suffering. The scenario I painted in the OP, however, spins on one species keeping the other in such a state that it perpetually engages in “avoidance behavior” - that is, the kind of behavior you could only get while suffering. Avoidance behavior would be what the ‘assailant’ species needs out of the ‘victom’ species. It depends on it for its survival. It therefore has a vested interest in causing pain and suffering to the victom, for only in that way can it get the victom to engage in avoidance behavior. If it is successful in this persuit, the victom will find itself locked into this system of suffering and perpetual avoidance behavior. It is conceivable, therefore, that it would eventually become biological molded to survive only in such a system. This is what I’m wonder is possible.

15

Quetz,

I’ll get back to you later. Interesting points though.

16

gib,

Beneficial of course means what is good for the species’ survival. Bats, at least the ones with highly altruistic genes, will allow hungry or malnourished bats to suck on their blood to the point where they themselves may become malnourished or close to death (though I believe they recuperate) to ensure the survival of the species. That is a symbiotic relationship.

Even among the human species, you could say that a good healthy friendship/relationship where each helps the other to ‘grow’ is a symbiotic relationship though it is also an interdependent relationship, as is the bats’. #-o

A friend of mine had an adult cat named ‘Nicky’, a male, who allowed for quite some time a little foundling cat "Freckles’, another male, to suck on his teats, i suppose for emotional nourishment and support:lol:. He would just lay there patiently and allow this. Nicky’s teats always looked so terribly raw from this sucking yet he allowed this little cat to continue to do it. Something instinctively told him that this was what Freckles needed, I suppose, though perhaps not quite as the bat’s instinctive altruistic gesture toward the hungry or starving other bats. But i guess this could be seen as a symbiotic relationship, of sorts. :laughing: #-o

I’d have to say so. But both may inflict pain on each other. That would hone their fighting and survival skills. Sheep for example help their own survival by not allowing their predators to know when they are experiencing pain. So please, do not tell the neighborhood wolf, though you and i know how much i love the wolf.

Are we talking about animals here, gib, or human beings? An animal in order to stay alive and feed its young, would kill another animal and eat it and share it. What you seem to be describing here is a sociopath or a psychopath, a sadistic monster who preys on the weaknesses of other humans. Perhaps I am not understanding you here, gib.

Let’s say that a ‘menacing condition’ might be a drastic change or a loss of a habitat for, for example, a polar bear or a seal, whatever, experiencing exhaustion and hunger because of global warming (which will only get worse) and the melting of the ice at the Arctic which can also cause their deaths. At some point, they may evolve some kind of neural network and/or uncanny instinct, in a million years or so, when it will be too late, that will ‘tip them off’ by an automatic signal of pain/hunger and exhaustion. This will cause them to instinctly ‘move on’ to another habitat.

Humans are also capable of this but sometimes we lack the self-awareness or our survival instinct hasn’t kicked in enough to ensure our own survival. We are what we call masochists and choose to remain within the menacing conditions of our environment as the victim. Even though some of us have repeatedly felt the same ongoing pain and suffering in the past, we are not moved to do what is ‘essential’ to our survival. There are probably even those individuals in the animal kingdom who do this.

Pain and suffering is a symptom or a signal that something is not quite right – that something is really wrong and that some kind of change or growth is necessary, that something needs to be looked at, whether emotionally or physically. I don’t think it’s possible to ever eliminate pain and suffering. It’s a natural part of life, whether human or animal. I think if it could be eliminated, both humans and animals would die out. It isn’t just a part of the death instinct, it’s a part of the life affirming instinct. Could there even be evolution without it. I don’t think so.

17

Only_Humean,

I just thought of a leech that might have to suck away at the terribly burnt dead skin of a burn victim before any kind of new healing can happen. The burn victim could die without it, no? That might be considered a symbiotic relationship of sorts.

18

It is possible, theoretically, although there are no analogies to quote.

Let us take the case of hunger. Hunger causes pain and suffering and in order to avoid it, the organism eats. Of course, the sensation of hunger is caused by the organism’s own internal mechanism, but it is theoretically posible for it to be outsourced and triggered by an “assailant” organism, which derives its own nutrition when the “victim” eats. Then the pain the host experiences becomes necessary for the survival of the host. Again, it is only a theoretical possibility. A newly born “victim” organism will die soon if the necessary “assailant” is not present. So any such relationship is not evolutionarily stable even if it can arise. For it to be evolutionarily stable all the functions necessary for the survival of the organism must be internal to the genes of the organism.

19

I still don’t see it.

True survival would then require permenant saftey. Even if adapting to change eventually led to a stable form of permanance, there would no longer be a need for suffering. Suffering is change. In human terms, we forget this and expect the opposite absolute. Ignorance. Ignoring this fact.

I understand the neat idea about it. But the argument literally breaks down. I wish it wasn’t so, too.

The goal is to eliminate suffering, not relish in it.

20

I was answering it as a contingent question - I can’t think of any examples. And I can’t think of any reason that suffering should be beneficial to an organism such that its absence isn’t an improvement. You could go so far as to hypothesise that we’re all in the most awful torments compared to other animals, but we’re so used to them that we don’t notice.