Subordinate to
physiological needs is the need for personal safety of the individual and, by
extension, the group that the individual is a part of. Obviously we can
envision situations in which safety and physiological perquisites are somewhat
interrelated. It is certainly one of the major characteristics of group
associations that a successful group can influence the individual’s assessment
of safety needs. For a group that truly commands the allegiance of its
individuals, the safety of the group can be made paramount, subordinating
personal safety as a result. The mechanisms used to elicit such desired
behavior from group adherents have evolved over time, much as individual
capabilities have evolved. They in fact form the basis of social orders.
The deficiency
needs of Maslow’s hierarchy are the most directly relevant to the individual as
an isolated being. While subsequent association with a group may impact these
needs, perhaps making them easier or harder to attain, they represent the
greatest testimony of humankind’s membership in the general animal kingdom. It
is upon these levels that the group can exert its greatest influence in order
to force the individual toward some forms of altruistic behavior that are
detrimental to self while beneficial to the group.
The remaining
six levels constitute the growth needs
of Maslow’s Hierarchy. It seems interesting to us that the higher level needs
seem to a priori consider stimuli for
the individual within a larger group context. A personal sense of belonging
implies the presence of a group to which the individual can belong. Self-esteem
is obviously an important driver of the individual, but the esteem held for an
individual by a group of peers is of significant importance as well. In this
light, we note that Michael Tomasello in The Cultural Origins of Human
Cognition raised the point that the compatibility of the needs hierarchy
among individuals can be a strong factor for driving a set of individuals to
seek out and become part of grouping mechanisms in order to cooperatively
satisfy their collective needs. The six higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy,
Belonging, Esteem, Cognitive, Aesthetic, Self-actualization and Transcendence
bring the individual person into a social environment. These levels may not
dictate a person’s membership in a group, but they are more likely to involve
interactions with other people in order to satisfy.
Assuming
sufficient impetus to foster an interaction, be it between people or between
computers or with things that go bump in the night, we are left to consider the
mechanics which facilitate the interaction itself. The problem of establishing
an environment for interaction is already difficult when two or more parties
agree in advance as to the efficacy of interactions and further agree upon
mechanisms through which interactions will occur. The problem faced by the
parties when no such agreed upon set of protocols exists becomes daunting
indeed. Of course, in the extreme, the parties simply revert to the mechanisms
of the physical ecosystem; essentially, the law of the jungle. It is
interesting to note how much of literature, particularly of the genre known as
science fiction, deals with just this issue. Consider four rather recent
classic works of science fiction that have been presented as movies: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Independence Day, Star Trek: First Contact and Contact.
These four movies present perhaps the broadest spectrum of potential protocols
for the initial establishment of an interaction environment between two
dissimilar yet sentient species.
The 1984 movie
entitled Close Encounters of the Third
Kind presents one of the more involved and protracted interaction protocols
for initial contact between intelligent species of greatly differing technological
capabilities. In this presentation, a species external to the earth is offered
as the more technologically advanced and the instigator of the interaction. The
protocol of first
|