Originally posted by no1marauderIndeed. That's whole point. If you live in a small group, the person who help is probably a relative. You are, in fact, helping your own genes inside your relative! Also, there can be greater benefits (note the word) through co-operation than by "going it alone". For example, two hunters can probably bring down larger prey than one. But here is the important bit. They both benefit more than they would by not co-operating. They may be helping someone else, but the benefit of doing so (increased food) is greater than the cost (of sharing). Altruism is selfish by nature.
Man's natural state is existing in small groups
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom wiki.
You're just being dumb. Man's natural state is existing in small groups - that how he existed for the vast majority of his time on earth. Your snobbery aside, you've offered no justification for your view - you're only doing what the fundies do and using the Fallacy of Equivocation to argue that something doesn't exist (altruism) which obviously does.
Altruism in ethology and evolutionary biology
In the science of ethology (the study of behavior), and more generally in the study of social evolution, altruism refers to behavior by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor. Recent developments in game theory (look into ultimatum game) have provided some explanations for apparent altruism, as have traditional evolutionary analyses. Among the proposed mechanisms are:
* Behavioral manipulation (for example, by certain parasites that can alter the behavior of the host)
* Bounded rationality (for example, Herbert Simon)
* Conscience
* Kin selection including eusociality (see also "selfish gene"😉
* Memes (by influencing behavior to favour their own spread, for example, religion)
* Reciprocal altruism, mutual aid
* Sexual selection
* Reciprocity (social psychology)
o Indirect reciprocity (for example, reputation)
o Strong reciprocity
* Pseudo-reciprocity
The study of altruism was the initial impetus behind George R. Price's development of the Price equation which is a mathematical equation used to study genetic evolution. An interesting example of altruism is found in the cellular slime moulds, such as Dictyostelium mucoroides. These protists live as individual amoebae until starved, at which point they aggregate and form a multicellular fruiting body in which some cells sacrifice themselves to promote the survival of other cells in the fruiting body. Social behavior and altruism share many similarities to the interactions between the many parts (cells, genes) of an organism, but are distinguished by the ability of each individual to reproduce indefinitely without an absolute requirement for its neighbors.
You'll note that all of these things are ultimately selfish in nature. Argue with me if you will.
Originally posted by scottishinnzLet's see: firemen running into burning building to save kids. Explain how that is ultimately "selfish" in reality.🙄
From wiki.
Altruism in ethology and evolutionary biology
In the science of ethology (the study of behavior), and more generally in the study of social evolution, altruism refers to behavior by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor. Recent developments in game theory (look into ulti note that all of these things are ultimately selfish in nature. Argue with me if you will.
And note that virtually all cultures would find such an act of the highest moral caliber even though it is a very poor way of reproducing your genes. Explain that.
EDIT: You are again pretending there is a scientific consensus when, in fact, the issue is highly debated in scientific circles. You've done this before, but I don't bluff that easily.
Originally posted by scottishinnzss: Altruism is selfish by nature.
Indeed. That's whole point. If you live in a small group, the person who help is probably a relative. You are, in fact, helping your own genes inside your relative! Also, there can be greater benefits (note the word) through co-operation than by "going it alone". For example, two hunters can probably bring down larger prey than one. But here is th ...[text shortened]... ng so (increased food) is greater than the cost (of sharing). Altruism is selfish by nature.
Fallacy of Equivocation.
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause they are paid to do it. The risks are minimised due to training and equipment. Also, well, some people get a kick off danger. It is absolutely possible that a set of genes for thrill seeking could proliferate, after all, what girl doesn't like a daredevil. And, come on, show me a woman who doesn't love firefighters!?
Let's see: firemen running into burning building to save kids. Explain how that is ultimately "selfish" in reality.🙄
And note that virtually all cultures would find such an act of the highest moral caliber even though it is a very poor way of reproducing your genes. Explain that.
EDIT: You are again pretending there is a scientific consensu ...[text shortened]... ghly debated in scientific circles. You've done this before, but I don't bluff that easily.
Ah marauder, trying to invoke a controversy where none exists. Why not actually trust the trained professional biologist rather than your own opinion about some book that you didn't bother to read?
From wiki entry about "The Selfish Gene"
Genes and selection
Dawkins proposes that genes that help the organism, which they happen to be in, to survive and reproduce tend to also improve their own chances of being passed on, so – most of the time – "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism. An example of this might be a gene that protects the organism against a disease, which helps the gene spread and also helps the organism. There are other times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female. Another good example is the existence of segregation distortion genes that are detrimental to their host but nonetheless propagate themselves at its expense. Likewise, the existence of junk DNA that provides no benefit to its host, once a puzzle, can be more easily explained. A more controversial example is aging, in which an old organism's death makes room for its offspring, benefiting its genes at the cost of the organism.
These examples might suggest that there is a power-struggle between genes and their host. In fact, the claim is that there isn't much of a struggle because the genes usually win without a fight. Only if the organism becomes intelligent enough to understand its own interests, as distinct from those of its genes, can there be true conflict. An example of this would be a person deciding not to breed because they'd be miserable raising children, even though their genes lose out due to this decision.
When looked at from the point of view of gene selection, many biological phenomena that, in prior models, were difficult to explain become easier to understand. In particular, phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as genes helping copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. Interestingly, the "selfish" actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms.
Prior to the 1960s, it was common for such behaviour to be explained in terms of group selection, where the benefits to the organism or even population were supposed to account for the popularity of the genes responsible for the tendency towards that behaviour. This was shown not to be an evolutionarily stable strategy, in that it would only take a single individual with a tendency towards more selfish behaviour to undermine a population otherwise filled only with the gene for altruism towards non-kin.
I would disagree about the brain-gene conflict though. Mainly because brains are built by genes. I persons personality definitely has a genetic component, and it would not surprise me to learn that there was a gene associated with a differential probability to have more or less kids.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou conveniently ignored the fact that across cultures such an act would be found to be morally praiseworthy and for reasons that have nothing to do with "thrill seeking". The shallowness of your response is truly stunning.
Because they are paid to do it. The risks are minimised due to training and equipment. Also, well, some people get a kick off danger. It is absolutely possible that a set of genes for thrill seeking could proliferate, after all, what girl doesn't like a daredevil. And, come on, show me a woman who doesn't love firefighters!?
Ah marauder, trying t ...[text shortened]... sional biologist rather than your own opinion about some book that you didn't bother to read?
No, I don't do "trust me" esp. when you are pretending (AGAIN) that there is no scientific dispute when Bowles' article clearly indicates there is. And this isn't the first time I've looked at this issue; your snotnose attitude is approaching Lucifershammer's and the intellectual vapidity of your posts (esp. this one) shows you have nothing to be particulary smug about.
EDIT: I quote an article from New Scientist and you keep posting wiki. Real "professional".
It's not wiki, but here's an abstract of an article from Current Opinion in Neurobiology:
Human cooperation represents a spectacular outlier in the animal world. Unlike other creatures, humans frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. Experimental evidence and evolutionary models suggest that strong reciprocity, the behavioral propensity for altruistic punishment and altruistic rewarding, is of key importance for human cooperation. Here, we review both evidence documenting altruistic punishment and altruistic cooperation and recent brain imaging studies that combine the powerful tools of behavioral game theory with neuroimaging techniques. These studies show that mutual cooperation and the punishment of defectors activate reward related neural circuits, suggesting that evolution has endowed humans with proximate mechanisms that render altruistic behavior psychologically rewarding.
http://www.citeulike.org/user/mauricelee/article/941995
Nope there's no scientific debate at all regarding this issue. This is a direct refutation of the statement quoted above: "This was shown not to be an evolutionarily stable strategy, in that it would only take a single individual with a tendency towards more selfish behaviour to undermine a population otherwise filled only with the gene for altruism towards non-kin." Whatever the merits of this argument for non-humans (and I suspect that it's dubious even there), it falls apart when looking at human behavior.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not sure why this is such a burr under your saddle, but the Scot is right on this one.
You conveniently ignored the fact that across cultures such an act would be found to be morally praiseworthy and for reasons that have nothing to do with "thrill seeking". The shallowness of your response is truly stunning.
No, I don't do "trust me" esp. when you are pretending (AGAIN) that there is no scientific dispute when Bowles' article ...[text shortened]... I quote an article from New Scientist and you keep posting wiki. Real "professional".
Altruistic behavior clearly exists in the animal kingdom (honeybees, chipmunks, etc.) which your "higher moral sense" cannot explain.
Dawkins has offered a reasonably good theory that helping close relatives is selfish at the genetic level, and that more general altruism -- like your firefighters -- is an evolutionary relic of the time when humans lived in small, closely related groups. This behavior is found across cultures because ALL humans used to live in such groups.
Your argument so far is, "That can't possibly be true, you dummies," which is a nice retort, but doesn't win the argument.
Originally posted by spruce112358You misunderstand both my and Scot's argument and say he is right!
I'm not sure why this is such a burr under your saddle, but the Scot is right on this one.
Altruistic behavior clearly exists in the animal kingdom (honeybees, chipmunks, etc.) which your "higher moral sense" cannot explain.
Dawkins has offered a reasonably good theory that helping close relatives is selfish at the genetic level, and that more gen n't possibly be true, you dummies," which is a nice retort, but doesn't win the argument.
I am perfectly willing to concede that human altruism is a product of evolution. Scot is saying altruism doesn't exist at all; that Man in intrinsically selfish. The research busts him on every level. And if you actually bothered to look at the source materials I've cited, you'd know that human altruism and cooperation is far more pervasive than in any other species. That needs a unique human explanation.
Scot doesn't even seem to understand Dawkin's position. Dawkins says this in The God Delusion:
We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, if Zahavi is right, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising.
Through most of our prehistory, humans lived under conditions that would have strongly favoured the evolution of all four kinds of altruism. We lived in villages, or earlier in discrete roving bands like baboons, partially isolated from neighbouring bands or villages. Most of your fellow band members would have been kin, more closely related to you than members of other bands - plenty of opportunities for kin altruism to evolve. And, whether kin or not, you would tend to meet the same individuals again and again throughout your life - ideal conditions for the evolution of reciprocal altruism. Those are also the ideal conditions for building a reputation for altruism, and the very same ideal conditions for advertising conspicuous generosity. By any or all of the four routes, genetic tendencies towards altruism would have been favoured in early humans.”
"The God Delusion" by Prof. Richard Dawkins, p218-220
EDIT: Compare that with some of Scot's statements:
Yes, but an altruistic group would quickly be overrun by "selfish" mutants - it does tend towards a balance between the two though.
It is not altruism at all, in fact, it's actually genetic selfishness. The genes, as modelled by Bowles, are merely acting to maximise the number of their own copies in the population - thus it is genetic selfishness.
Selfishness is at the very base of being human - the need to manipulate others is the very basis for the evolution of our large brain.
Originally posted by no1marauderTell you what, here are the citations to the original works on the subject
You conveniently ignored the fact that across cultures such an act would be found to be morally praiseworthy and for reasons that have nothing to do with "thrill seeking". The shallowness of your response is truly stunning.
No, I don't do "trust me" esp. when you are pretending (AGAIN) that there is no scientific dispute when Bowles' article ...[text shortened]... I quote an article from New Scientist and you keep posting wiki. Real "professional".
The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior
WD Hamilton - The American Naturalist, 1963
Hamilton explains altruism from an evolutionary (selfish gene) perspective.
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
RL Trivers - Quarterly Review of Biology, 1971
Trivers explains reciprocal altruism from an evolutionary (selfish gene) perspective.
The evolution of reciprocity in sizable groups.
Boyd R, Richerson PJ.
J Theor Biol. 1988 Jun 7;132(3):337-56. Links
Strangely enough, Boyd and Richardson show that "altruistic" acts evolve in small, closely related groups, such as mankind for most of humanity. Thus, the altruism is actually "reciprocal altruism" and therefore, you've guessed it, selfish in nature.
Here's a recent one from Nature;
Title: The efficient interaction of indirect reciprocity and costly punishment
Author(s): Rockenbach B (Rockenbach, Bettina), Milinski M (Milinski, Manfred)
Source: NATURE 444 (7120): 718-723 DEC 7 2006
Abstract: Human cooperation in social dilemmas challenges researchers from various disciplines. Here we combine advances in experimental economics and evolutionary biology that separately have shown that costly punishment and reputation formation, respectively, induce cooperation in social dilemmas. The mechanisms of punishment and reputation, however, substantially differ in their means for 'disciplining' non-cooperators. Direct punishment incurs salient costs for both the punisher and the punished, whereas reputation mechanisms discipline by withholding action, immediately saving costs for the 'punisher'. Consequently, costly punishment may become extinct in environments in which effective reputation building - for example, through indirect reciprocity - provides a cheaper and powerful way to sustain cooperation. Unexpectedly, as we show here, punishment is maintained when a combination with reputation building is available, however, at a low level. Costly punishment acts are markedly reduced although not simply substituted by appreciating reputation. Indeed, the remaining punishment acts are concentrated on free-riders, who are most severely punished in the combination. When given a choice, subjects even prefer a combination of reputation building with costly punishment. The interaction between punishment and reputation building boosts cooperative efficiency. Because punishment and reputation building are omnipresent interacting forces in human societies, costly punishing should appear less destructive without losing its deterring force.
Reputation Building = reciprocal altruism = selfish geneism
Here's a good one
Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis
Hardy CL (Hardy, Charlie L.), Van Vugt M (Van Vugt, Mark)
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN 32 (10): 1402-1413 OCT 2006
Abstract: Three experimental studies examined the relationship between altruistic behavior and the emergence of status hierarchies within groups. In each study, group members were confronted with a social dilemma in which they could either benefit themselves or their group. Study I revealed that in a reputation environment when contributions were public, people were more altruistic. In both Studies I and 2, the most altruistic members gained the highest status in their g-roup and were most frequently preferred as cooperative interaction partners. Study 3 showed that as the costs of altruism increase, the status rewards also increase. These results support the premise at the heart Of competitive altruism: Individuals may behave altruistically for reputation reasons because selective benefits (associated with status) accrue to the generous.
And another;
Unifying the theories of inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism
Fletcher JA (Fletcher, Jeffrey A.), Zwick M (Zwick, Martin)
AMERICAN NATURALIST 168 (2): 252-262 AUG 2006
Inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism are widely thought to be distinct explanations for how altruism evolves. Here we show that they rely on the same underlying mechanism. We demonstrate this commonality by applying Hamilton's rule, normally associated with inclusive fitness, to two simple models of reciprocal altruism: one, an iterated prisoner's dilemma model with conditional behavior; the other, a mutualistic symbiosis model where two interacting species differ in conditional behaviors, fitness benefits, and costs. We employ Queller's generalization of Hamilton's rule because the traditional version of this rule does not apply when genotype and phenotype frequencies differ or when fitness effects are nonadditive, both of which are true in classic models of reciprocal altruism. Queller's equation is more general in that it applies to all situations covered by earlier versions of Hamilton's rule but also handles nonadditivity, conditional behavior, and lack of genetic similarity between altruists and recipients. Our results suggest changes to standard interpretations of Hamilton's rule that focus on kinship and indirect fitness. Despite being more than 20 years old, Queller's generalization of Hamilton's rule is not sufficiently appreciated, especially its implications for the unification of the theories of inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism.
You'll note the important word - "conditional". Any cost to an individual must be offset by at least a potential benefit. An unconditional altruist, as you seem to wish occurs, is not an Evolutionary Stable Strategy. It's just that simple - a population of unconditional altruists will always be driven to extinction.
Originally posted by no1marauderyes, Dawkins is talking about Reciprocal Altruism, which is a genetically selfish behaviour.
You misunderstand both my and Scot's argument and say he is right!
I am perfectly willing to concede that human altruism is a product of evolution. Scot is saying altruism doesn't exist at all; that Man in intrinsically selfish. The research busts him on every level. And if you actually bothered to look at the source materials I've cited, yo ...[text shortened]... to manipulate others is the very basis for the evolution of our large brain.[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzI see you'd added the word "unconditional" to "altruist". This is intellectually dishonest and goal post shifting. All that is required for an act to be "altruist" is that it benefit someone else at some detriment to you. Long term, speculative gain is insufficient to render an act "selfish" according to any standard meaning of that word.
Tell you what, here are the citations to the original works on the subject
The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior
WD Hamilton - The American Naturalist, 1963
Hamilton explains altruism from an evolutionary (selfish gene) perspective.
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
RL Trivers - Quarterly Review of Biology, 1971
Trivers explains rec ...[text shortened]... pulation of unconditional altruists will always be driven to extinction.
I could do dueling citations, too; the point is that contrary to your assertion there is a lively debate across and inside various scientific disciplines as to the source of human altruism. Your claim otherwise is just plain false.