We often hear people say, human nature is self-interested. But what does self-interest really mean?
In my view, self-interest means doing what's best for one's survival. Evolutionary theory approaches this from a similar lens: those most fit for their environment survive the longest.
In the modern world, however, we seem to experience a growing dissonance between our environment and our sense of happiness. Happiness, I believe, is also part of survival. Survival doesn't just happen in the physical form; it also involves psychological and spiritual survival. We can refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs here (though I think the hierarchy should be more fluid rather than strictly structural; see the end of my piece for my opinion on this). This dissonance arises because what is truly optimal for survival in today's world differs from what we think is optimal.
The Evolutionary Context of Competition
We tend to assume that survival still depends on zero-sum competition. This is a mindset that worked in the past, when scarce resources meant survival required securing limited food, territory, and protection. Under those conditions, competition was indeed the most adaptive strategy. Cooperation existed, but mainly within small groups, where mutual benefits were immediate and clear. In scarcity-driven societies, group-level cooperation, rather than universal collaboration, ensured that we maximised access to limited resources.
The Shift to Abundance
However, many modern societies now live in contexts of relative abundance. A large portion of people have secured physical stability for themselves and their families. As a result, we have shifted from focusing on physical survival to psychological and spiritual survival. In Maslow's terms, we've largely moved past the first two stages of the hierarchy, and while many have achieved aspects of esteem (stage 4), we often lack fulfilment in love and belonging (stage 3) and self-actualisation (stage 5).
Thus, optimal survival today no longer depends on hoarding food or defending territory, but on building systems that nurture belonging, purpose, and meaning. In this context, trust and collaboration become the best means of ensuring survival. The strategies that once sustained us, which involved aggression, territorialism, zero-sum thinking, are no longer the most effective. Instead, collaboration, empathy, and collective flourishing have become the most adaptive forms of self-interest.
Adaptability Over Competition
As our environment changes, so too does the behaviour that best supports survival and well-being. Evolution doesn't inherently favour aggression or competition; it favours adaptability. And in a world of relative abundance, what's most adaptive is precisely collaboration and empathy.
Perhaps altruism, too, is instrumental: people help others because it improves their own chances of survival. Yet the fact that we feel good when we act altruistically, whether by donating blood, volunteering, or supporting others in need, suggests we are not inherently competitive. Rather, we are wired to do what best helps us adapt to our social environment, whatever ensures our optimal survival.
Evolution of Self-Interest
Maybe humans are indeed self-interested, but the form of self-interest evolves. In the past, we gained more physically through zero-sum competition; now, we gain more psychologically and spiritually through collective collaboration.
In this light, human nature is not fixed in zero-sum competition; it is fluid and shaped by context. As conditions evolve, so do our instincts. The future of human evolution, both biological and cultural, may well depend on our ability to transcend the scarcity mindset and embrace harmony as the new form of survival.
A Note on Maslow's Hierarchy
I also think Maslow's hierarchy should be more fluid โ for instance, many people reach esteem before they find belonging. The model should reflect this flexibility rather than a rigid pyramid structure.