Societies And Individuals Are Fractal
Societies are emegent aggregations of individuals. Is the "optimum" individual to be in that society, then, that which is closest to the idea of an "average" individual? If so, are societies self-regulatory, naturally imposing forces upon individuals to keep to that average? Furthermore, is this a generic rule for any system made up of "individuals" or nodes? Are there "forces" placed on, say, neural nodes that naturally weed out nodes that are inherently different? If so, are all these systems "survival seeking" by nature? (Stability isn't just an evolutionary advantage - it's required for something to exist in the first place, and non-stability (aka normalisation) = non-existence.) If so, are humans and animals just one (tiny?) system that naturally - i.e. by it's nature of existing - have a want/need/pre-requirement to maintain themselves, but which only we call "survival" for some reason?
If above is true, does this place altruism vs self-interest in a different realm of understaning? If everything is a fractal series of "survival system" layers, then self-interest could be considered of necessity to any particular "lower layer" (i.e. the individual in a group, a node in a brain, etc) and altruism could be considered of necessity to the upper layer (i.e. a pull towards the larger "entity/system").
How, then, do groups evolve? And if individuals are groups, can we scale up the factors that evolve individuals to apply to groups too? This would weigh, it seems, on the idea of how we can create "larger", more stable groups, e.g. on a global scale (but also on a local scale too). Understanding the factors that lead to evolution of any system mean that our actions are morely likely to take effect. Practically speaking, this means we should stop trying to come up with ideas for "progress" merely on the ideas merits, and instead come up with ideas based on how well they'll work. Become an "effectiveness-oriented" thinker.