Most of us want the same thing: happiness. Interestingly, we have a lot of control over our happiness. Our sense of joy depends on the levels of neurotransmitters (or neuromodulators) like dopamine, endorphins, serotonin, and oxytocin. Our lives are structured to engage in activities which keep our minds immersed in these hormones. Literally, everything we do is geared towards this purpose. Eating, socializing, shopping, exercise, sex, work, hobbies, entertainment—all to elicit dopamine, endorphins, serotonin, and/or oxytocin.
It appears that the baseline levels of these hormones matter more than their spikes and probably are critical for our sense of overall happiness. Our baseline levels depend on our genetic disposition, past life experience, relationships, “stress level”, sleep patterns, diet, daily activities, and personal focus. Recent research suggests that overloading our minds with daily dopamine “hits” lowers our baseline level of dopamine, thus actually making us less motivated and overall less happy.1
Love holds an exceptional role in fostering happiness. Dopamine, oxytocin, and serotonin levels have been implicated in feeling happy while being in loving relationships—romantic and not romantic bonds alike. Contrary to the transient dopamine “hits” we experience with many activities, it appears that the increased levels associated with love are enduring. Caring for others is recognized by our brain’s internal reward system triggering the release of happiness hormones—likely an evolutionary advance to foster social bonds and to nurture other life.
While love is the not-so-secret sauce for happiness, stress is its poison. Stress induces the release of adrenaline and cortisol in response to a threat. These “threats” could be real, e.g., violence, injury, diseases, starvation, or they may be perceived as such in our minds. For example, missing a deadline, failing an exam, or animosity towards others, unlikely represents an existential threat yet it may be perceived as profound stress.
Adrenaline serves our survival and is geared towards defending ourselves or escaping a threat. In a state of stress and adrenaline surge, impulses for love may be suppressed. It is not surprising therefore, that we feel less compassionate in a state of stress, regardless of what the trigger of stress may be.
Economic hardship is a major source of stress. When we experience the threat of poverty, our thoughts are likely centered around how our financial situation can be improved—even at the cost of compromising our integrity. We may be less concerned about others, because we may feel we need to take care of ourselves first.
From an evolutionary viewpoint, exercising altruism in the setting of existential threats appears counterintuitive. After all, we are “programed” to survive and not to be concerned about anything else when our lives are on the line. In the situation of peril to more than one person, however, our individual survival instinct competes with that of the larger group, which represents our species.
Parents typically make sure their children are safe before they consider their own affairs. The case may be different with total strangers—although we strive to rescue women and children first in an emergency. When push comes to shove, our internal motivation system faces a dilemma whether to support the survival of the individual or a group, representing the species. The ultimate outcome, I submit, depends on the individual’s stage of evolutionary development.
Generating compassion in the situation of crisis or threat appears to be harder if the threat to others is not blatantly evident to the individual. In the 2024 US election, some folks voted for a candidate who they viewed morally corrupt and offensive. It was clear to them that this candidate would cause misery to others. They voted for the candidate anyway because they believed he would ease their economic hardship. They justified their choice with their need to provide for themselves and their family. It is hard to blame them for their motivation. Facing adversity, they found it hard to feel compassion for those outside their family.
Yet, others still voted against the same candidate following their moral objections despite their poverty and despite their belief he might better their finances. Such revelation of principles and integrity at times of stress and suffering is not only remarkable, it likely represents a practical example of a human evolutionary advance, i.e., the preferential consideration of the larger community over the individual. It is conceivable that much of humans’ evolutionary success is based on their ability to socialize and form enduring communities.2 These communities only work if individuals surrender some of their personal privileges for the sake of all members.
Wealthy folks, on the other hand, may find it easier to vote their conscience, to object to immorality, and to promote noble ideas, since they are less likely to be existentially threatened by policy changes. They still may be lauded for their choices—particularly, if they choose to support measures for the common good at their own expense. However, their “sacrifice” may be smaller compared to those who do so when their vote may indeed threaten their welfare.
Conversely, a vote against community interests but for personal gains in the setting of affluence might be viewed as disappointing—maybe even as evolutionarily backwards.
Evolution, of course, does not occur rapidly but slowly over generations. Looking back over the past centuries, we are witnessing major advances in love and compassion. Nobody is being burnt as a “witch” anymore for heresy. Most people with disabilities receive support now instead of being placed in institutions. Racism and misogyny are still very much present in many societies today, but they are being confronted more consistently than before.
At the same time, we also note a global backlash from those who resist progress in matters of acceptance and equality. Our world has recently seen tendencies to turn away from compassion and a sense of a global community towards individualism and isolation. Some well-meant policies over the past decades, aimed at forming a world community for exchange and trade of goods, led to wealth for many but also left millions in economic decline.
It is difficult to love when facing adversity. World leaders must understand that policies that leave large fractions behind will eventually threaten the very foundation of a society. It is much easier to promote empathy for our community if policies generate prosperity not just for a minority but for most, if not all.
The next decades and centuries will show if humans continue to evolve their sense for a wider and inclusive community, or if they regress towards ideas of individual dominance. Naturally, a wider community will always be better positioned to survive than smaller groups or persons, but a community has to stick together to function and defend itself.