This site is hosted for FREE by . Click here to get your own Free Website!

The following is my translation of an article called: Daseinkampf und gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwicklung II von Wilhelm Bölsche. It appeared in a German popular science magazine, Kosmos Handweiser für Naturfreunde 1909, Heft 2, Seiten 42-46. I'm not aware of any previous translation. Part I can be found at With a lot of help from my friends.
For an article written in 1909, many of the views expressed seem refreshingly neo-hippy! In part 1 the author respectfully chided Charles Darwin with the following: "A volume is missing from Darwin's works, one which deals with cooperation as a basic principle of biology." This isn't to say that he thought Darwin didn't appreciate the importance of cooperation, as the greatest naturalist of all time knew (and wrote about) symbiosis in great detail. In part 2, Bölsche nevertheless leaves me regretting that Darwin didn't put more emphasis on this aspect of the subject. It could've made for a heck of a good book. In fairness though, he had enough on his plate already.

A brief meander
Talking of hippies, one even coined the phrase 'organic happiness'. This flower power notion sees organisms as being engaged in the pursuit of happiness and, the further 'advanced' an organism is, then the more scope for this satisfying chase it has. In my own intentionally crude distortion, bacteria are perhaps capable of vague feelings of well-being, seaweeds manage modest contentment, fish may grin a bit, frogs smile, reptiles guffaw, and derived primates can break their necks when propelled out of trees by their facility for manic hysteria. This distortion isn't merely crude. It's outrageous. Charles Darwin was aware of this concept. 'Organic happiness' was discussed by his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, in the late eighteenth century. (With thanks to King-Hele D (1999 reprinted 2000), Erasmus Darwin, A life of unequalled achievement, Giles de la Mare Publishers, ISBN 1-900357-08-9.)
Trevor Dykes.

The struggle for survival and cooperation in evolution (part 2) by Wilhelm Bölsche
Should I momentarily glance up from my work and let my eyes wander out of the window and across the landscape, then my sight would be filled with countless life forms. My vision would glide across a mass of shrubs and trees in a garden around a uniform grassed centre. Birds are climbing in the branches and searching for insects. The lake behind is alive with wild ducks. People are going by in a boat. A bird of prey is circling in the blue. In the distance, across the water, the horizon is bordered by a brown of thirsty reeds and the blue silhouette of a forest. All of the organisms in the view are parts of living systems based upon cooperation. I do not in any way mean by this the methods and means in which the aquatic birds build themselves into troops, or even how the fishermen in the boat trade collectively, and belong to a human association. I mean it in the sense that grass as shrub, as tree, bird, insect as person, all are composed of vast bands of cells engaged in common work based upon cooperation, and engage in divisions of labour geared towards the good of the whole.

The body of every single person is the wondrous result of such an amalgamation of billions of living things in the form of single cells which, together, build a complete state based on the principle of mutual assistance, Nobody would try to intervene in this state under normal conditions, that is of health. Everything serves the whole, ahd this entirety guarantees the best prospects for the individuals. Never, in the fantasies of humans, has an ideal form of state for the absolute good of its citizens been thought up, which can stand comparison with that which a healthy human body provides in its reality as a cellular state. Precisely the same can be said for a bird. Its flight is the action of a state based on a marvellous division of labour. The shrub; the tree, there can be found again such common productions even in a double sense of meaning. Masses of multi-celled individuals as with a single person, and every element (each shoot of a plant is one) has grown together to again, a complete social entirity with a common household budget. Siphonophoren also grow in this way, as thousands of single jelly fish, and they form a 'state jelly fish'. And it is not only the labour of such objects which I regard as commonwealth work. The very fact that I can see them is due to the manner in which they are bound together in vast associations. If they broke up again into their microscopic components, then they would suddenly disappear as a mist for people, birds or trees, and would largely be rendered invisible.

However one looks at it: no step in the whole of organic evolution appears to be more significant, more fundamental, than the immense one from single- to multi-celled life. The single celled organism indeed seems to be the foundation of life. The forerunners of organs are represented within them. But the real development of these organs is first found in the labour division of the multi-celled. It is first there, in the products of common association, that a light sensitive fleck of pigment developed to a genuine eye. It is first there that a brain came about and, intimately associated with that, the possibility of human consciousness. The small green Volvor balls (of algae), which can still be seen today in puddles with our own eyes, show how primitively this great change first began; with a dozen or a couple of hundred simple, similar cells which, hand in hand, could row collectively through their element with hardly any division of labour. What a potential of great selective advantage, however, must have lain in this variation and its immediate advantages over the old solitary forms, that this advance could lead from algae to people. The reader will know of the strange small radiolarian, single-celled animal-like beings, highly fragile organisms which rise in thousands from gravel, whose weak cells can be found on all kinds of human ornaments, and which Haeckel described and made popularly known. In such soft slime, to all sides, are found flowing masses of protoplasma made of such microscopically tiny rotatorian and, if greatly enlarged, yellow bodies are often seen embedded in this which, originally, were held to be cell associations in the sense of a Volvor, but it was then noticed that each of these balls was an independent organism and, in contrast to the surrounding single-celled radiolarian, comprised a one-celled plant. The single-celled animals do not eat these single-celled plants, but the plant seeks out the animal for protection against its enemies. Both seek the company of each other in a social relationship, and mutual division of work nears a symbiotic assistance. Even in this primitive stage the principle is already established, in that even two heterogenic things have come together in a protective alliance, a plant and an animal. It is no wonder that the stage of multi-celled organisms developed such associations and, again, they were possible among entirely different species. Such cooperative alliances rule the entire natural picture of our planet, even today. The lichen of high, icy mountains, found where plant life meets the polar borders, owes its existence to such intimate cooperation and alliance between an alga and a fungus, vastly different organisms. The beauty of Spring, with its glorious adornment of blossoms, is largely founded on a peaceful interrelationship of common interests between higher plants and highly developed insects. These are the beginnings of so called symbiosis, and its potentials are boundless. Originally, as one learned of remarkable single cases such as anats and leaf lice, of crabs and sea lilies, it could have appeared to be merely a couple of natural curiosities. Today, we know that the extreme cases are repeated again and again. The entire realm of animals and plants is a vast confusion and body of widespread symbiosis. Examples are not the exceptions but the rules. The natural economy of life on our planet would break down as if dissolved in the Sun; should one dissolve this factor of association. The lives and deaths of we humans is dependant upon the symbiosis of plants, and that of plants upon those of bacteria.

All of that does not yet account for the scale of what has historically been attained by the principle of association in its full measure. The entire love life, in the sense of a union between two sexes, is built upon this, and only this foundation. Today, we know that the decisive factor is a union between a sperm cell and an egg cell. The objective of this union does not simply lie in triggering division for the further development of the fertilized egg cell. It is now known that there are egg cells that develop unfertilized, and the trigger in other cases can be provided by artificial means, following a crude chemical or mechanical intervention. What is actually occurring with the union is a mixing of sperm cell and egg cell bearing the characteristics of two different individuals. The potential of such a mixture is a basic element of all reproduction, and this is the great stimulus for the ignition and development of the entire Darwinian laws. In their mysterious power for inheritance, the chromosome from each living cell brings their part of a special character into play. The highest and decisive wonder of this, is that both cells do not struggle with one another at this meeting, one is not overpowered and destroyed by the stronger, rather that the most intimate form of symbiosis occurs. A symbiosis by which both chromosomes are peaceful and unite with one another, so that their future work will be a completely harmonious double construction to the degree that the product, the child, appears as another individual although every fibre has a double origin contributing to its appearance. All other forms of symbiosis are put in the shade by this mode of cooperation. It is the high point of peaceful coexistence; this mutual help of the paternal and maternal components to constructing a child. Rising among single-cellers, we see precisely this act spreading and becoming established in all subsequent branches of the tree of life until, finally, the entire reproduction would no longer function without it. In this sense too, there would be no person if it were not so. And again, we see here all the process, the whole magic which those have given rise to and rule and otherwise surround the higher love life of organisms. Reflected in the mysterious common work of both these cells and their chromosomes, we see again the development of multi-celled organisms, independent of all symbiotic or other social interaction, coming to a peaceful conclusion, to a common association bound by common regulation. We see a union of mother and child, parents and child. It grows from that which had led to marriage. It grows, starting already deep down in the animal kingdom, this associative behaviour of parents and children, it raises the family as a bastion of mutual assistance. On the other hand, the area of sexual selection is also important, as Darwin himself researched. If Darwin's views are correct, we see that love again has a particular influence in shaping the organism, we see an embodiment of selection going along a very peaceful route which is nevertheless part of the raw struggle for existence of eat or be eaten.

If one looks at the whole chain of facts, then one really cannot evade the conclusion that peaceful agreement, association, mutual cooperation and help provide the most successful variation of the whole selection process in organic evolution, as used in a Darwinian sense. This, to an overwhelming degree, has shown itself to be the strongest force, and when the cards of the great human game are finally shown and the game is continued with clear understanding, then it will not seem so wondrous, nor will it seem contradictory to the laws of natural existence, that along the whole line, humanity idealises the embodiment of holding together in united and peaceful cultural endeavours. As before, this is due to the overriding principle of utility, by which we are governed.

Undoubtedly, this principle of assistance has experienced an increase in application during the course of organic evolution. Why should it be otherwise? We can see this demonstrated in the tree of life. We can see that in the lower developmental branches the principle is already often of significant use for maintaining species, but only initially through a stark sacrifice of individuality. At higher stages, in contrast, we see that individuality becomes increasing more valuable and help becomes increasingly significant in accordance. If the demands of Christian ideals emerge in we people: every person is to care about their brother, this is nothing other than the highest expression of the fact that human individuality is already the highest expression of this great principle. A lower, older form of behaviour is shown if we look at, for example, our own behaviour of mutual help with our cultured plants. There is no doubt that a form of symbiosis exists between us and our crops. Humans absolutely need them. In this case, the plants gain splendidly from survival and extended ranges provided by thousands of years of human protection. This protection, however, is only gained at the sacrifice of a great measure of individuals or individual seeds in line with the needs of people. Humans decimate plants, replacing and revising the losses through systematic enclosures and planting, so that in the final balance some species are in the advantage. The same occurs for the domestic animals we slaughter, and the enclosed and selected wild populations, a certain percentage of which are shot in our cultured forests. The opposite can be found with other domestic animals, the horse and above all the dog, which provides protective and attentive services, but by which the worth of the individual can be deemed high. Paticular horses or hounds are priceless because of their individual traits. And this respect for individuality reaches its zenith with people themselves. Protection of the species and protection of the individual are here the same. What you do to one person, you do to them all. However, even this value of the highest humanity is only a simple extension of a line long laid down among at least the higher animals. The experienced observer of nature, who does not observe animals through theories but rather learns from observing them, must be astonished again and again about how strong the obvious differences in individual behaviour are between "clever" and "stupid" specimens, in the upper and middle reaches of the animal kingdom. Such values, however, cannot always simply remain, regardless of what is advantageous for the species. In the sense of Darwinian laws, there must eventually be a growing tendency for the greater advantages of mutual help above all to protect individuals. Every loss of individuals carries the danger that the best will be lost, and there will be no means of replacement.

This 'sacredness of the individual' is naturally not 'Darwinian' and precisely not what was intended. Absolute social protection for every human should eventually lead to weakening the race, in that it helps support and propagate the perpetual and unconditional sympathy and assistance for all cripples and negative variations. Neither Darwin nor some or other Hyper-Darwinian has succeeded in reintroducing ancient Spartan methods into our moral codex, in accordance with which crippled children would be immediately disposed of. The first thing to say against such a practical solution, would be that human individuality is far too complex to allow it to be fitted into a generalized scheme in the majority of cases. Goethe was an unusually weak child and appeared to be dead at birth, and he would certainly have fallen victim to a Spartan law. Tuberculosis would have required the rejection of Spinoza before having allowed him the possibility of bringing his excellent mind into action for humanity. Within our culture, 'individuality' can be of such important philosophical worth for some speciality or other, that being a physical 'cripple' can be an irrelevance. And where there really is an incurable negative variation, a born idiot with no hope, then it seems to me to be vastly more significant, that even the attempt of absolute mutual assistance serves and contributes to our cultural growth, rather than accepting the necessity of a retreat into depraved cultural barbarism. Concerning the decisive practical and eventual route of this, Alfred Plötze already observed years ago: it is namely the parallel challenge of our culture that, as well as pursuing the unconditional principle of help and sympathy, we attempt to carefully negate such totally negative variations through increasing care and vision, both economically and medically. If we see people everywhere as beings resulting from a blind natural selection in a shortened process in which attempts towards certain objectives have occurred, then logic states that we should not call a halt with one single principle or another, but rather we must leave all the possibilities open, leave all threads of this great work free to continue for themselves: that is, the principle of help should be protected from abuse by subsidiary principles of all kinds.

In this way, we solve such questions by looking at the historical development of things which, in the light of the present day, do not make we humans poorer. One could wish to think of an imaginary value of absolute truth in the old 'fiat justitia pereat mundus'*, should one want: what remains certain, however, is that precisely the Darwinian laws of utility will not allow people to indefinitely maintain a precept, which would somehow constantly disturb and lame the inner nerves of our culture. The principle of help is such a cultural nerve with which we will stand or fall. Although Darwin did not tell us this, we may nevertheless reassuringly tell him: his teaching is in harmony with the culture.

* 'Let justice be done, though the world be destroyed'.

An additional brief meander
Bölsche uses the phrase 'eat or be eaten', and this is indeed a Darwinian concept. Erasmus Darwin used it in 1800 with the publication of 'Phytologia; or the Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening'. Page 556 contains: "Such is the condition of organic nature! whose first law might be expressed in the words, 'Eat or be eaten!' and which would seem to be one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of rapacity and injustice!" However, he then placates the violence with the soothing balms of 'organic happiness'. (Further thanks are due to the above mentioned book by Desmond King-Hele. The quote comes directly from page 337.)

I suppose my mentions of Erasmus, the grandfather, might've confused a couple of people, as isn't Charles Darwin supposed to have been the first to propose evolution? Actually, no. What Charles Darwin explained was a viable mechanism called natural selection.

Note: This is the second instalment of a two part article. Go to: Part 1.

An index of more of my translations of old Kosmos articles can be found at:

Kosmos Translations Archive

A number of Mesozoic (and post-Mesozoic) location summaries can be found at Localities.