Patagonia + The Altruistic Anomaly
Aka. How Altruistic Evolution is our Future.
The Theory of Evolution
If you look at Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in his book ‘On the Origins of Species’ - you’ll notice that Darwin avoids any mention of humankind. The theory of evolution (in order to not cause a massive outrage at the time) was based entirely on animals. A quick refresher, it states that organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits. These evolutionary changes allow an organism to better adapt to it’s environment and survive. Darwin then went on to publish ‘On the Descent of Man’, where he attempted to apply this theory to the complexity of humankind. There’s one gapping hole in the argument, which was found by many scientists, philosophers and writers that natural selection assumes that no animal or human can benefit from being altruistic. This is a fact the business world has lapped up and thrived on to the point of it being Dogma (I understand why it’s in support of the existing system which is capitalism).
In essence, evolutionary theory would assume that if an animal were to behave altruistically it would reduce their chances of breeding, and ultimately species survival. For years we've been told again and again human behaviour is selfish - that there is no such thing as true altruism. In the business world, we’ve absolutely bought that argument - hook, line and sinker. Adapting it to say, that if a business behaved altruistically it would reduce their chances of survival or being profitable. That’s often backed up by some obscure examples of sustainable products that haven’t worked out as support for our views, not looking at the hundreds of failures that lie next to them that have been totally self serving. On top of that, pick-up any business journal or magazine and they will say (I’m paraphrasing) that businesses that are sustainable do it for the financial outcomes it produces (just check out Fortune’s launch this week of their slightly disturbing ‘Change the World List’).
The Altruistic Anomalies
The one thing that is left out of this theory are altruistic anomalies like REI, Patagonia, Keep-Cup, Dr Bronner’s, Who Gives a Crap, All Birds...The list goes on. I want to stop here for just a minute and refresh you on Patagonia’s mission statement. It reads ‘We’re in business to save our home planet’. There’s no asterisk or additions saying only if it makes us money or makes us more profitable. This is a business that is altruistic and defying capitalist logic (and in turn the theory of evolution). Not only have they supported the planet (imposing an earth tax on themselves and encouraging it’s customers to 'not buy another jacket'); they have also sued the US government and Donald Trump over their stewardship of Bears Ears National Monument (park); donated the US$10 million in unexpected profit they made (on the back of Trumps Tax cuts) to grassroots organisations fighting for climate change and yet seen their profitability (the retail measurement of evolutionary success) quadruple between 2014-2018 (and been in business for nearly 50 years).
How can this be - is being altruistic actually an evolutionary advantage?
Is Altruism an Advantage?
I mean I haven’t seen one of these altruistic retailers miss a beat during this pandemic, talk about closing stores or enter Chapter 11/ administration (comment below if I’ve missed something here I’d love to know). It’s like all we heard from Evolutionary Theory was the misquoted Darwin saying ‘It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change’. Instead of what Darwin actually said which was "In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed."
R (relatedness) x B (benefit) > C (cost)
In the 1960s, the evolutionary biologist William Hamilton came up with a formula to answer the nagging issue of Evolutionary Altruism (it doesn’t just happen in retail, but in nature as well - just look at Bees). Hamilton hypothesised that altruism exists when the benefit is greater than the cost to that individual, group or business; times that by the relatedness between the two entities. Which is basically saying as long as that action isn’t suicidal. This concept gets really interesting when we reflect upon the times we’re living in, and the threats the the environment that surround us. We’re living in a time that isn’t about saving the planet, it’s actually about saving ourselves - so the related factor is 100%. The planet was here well before us, and will be here well after us too. So if we take Hamilton’s equation R (relatedness) x B (benefit) > C, it’s easy to see that the benefit of being altruistically sustainable and responsible is way higher than the cost - because the benefit is survival…something no cost could be greater than.
So it’s a question to all of us when we encounter dogmatic rhetoric that states that we are innately self-serving or that the only sustainability that matters is that which is profitable - is do we believe this? The cost of listening to this and accepting it unquestioningly is your own survival (maybe not in your lifetime but the you that exists through your genetic line not too far into the future). If you believe that profitability is more important than your own survival then let’s pray Altruistic Evolution wins out.