Originally posted by scottishinnzEvolution, my arrogant friend, does not require that this statement of yours is true:
Ever heard of evolution?
ss: I would say that the "international charity problem" is merely a (unconscious in most people) misfiring of a genetically selfish rule.
Perhaps charity (i.e. altruism) is firing just right and you don't know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by no1marauderFine. "Hero" is just one evolutionary role that an individual can choose to play. Hero is a dangerous role, heros tend to do dangerous things that may result in their death. In a small society, such as those that we evolved in, the hero is probably the leader (why do you think the leaders in action disaster movies are always firemen, policemen, etc), probably has first go at the food, and first choice of females. The hero is a risk taker, but in a largely monogamous population this may be an optimal strategy. Peacocks are heros. They don't fight, but they do have a large burdensome tail - which evolved through sexual selection. The tail acts to weight them down, a bit of a "if I can survive with this burden my genes must be good". Some people are genetically pre-disposed to be heros, the same way that some people are genetically pre-disposed to be more likely to commit crime. Some people do not have the mental processes in place to allow them to prevent themselves from becoming violent, and some people just crave testosterone. These testosterone junkies tend to be found in high pressure, dangerous jobs, such as firemen. So, a fireman may run into a building to rescue a baby, and in the society in which we evolved that would have had a huge amount of prestige linked to it - it would have probably made you village chief, and not only the parents, but also the child would owe you forever. Nowadays, we live in a society with many more people, but even if we live in a city of 10 million, we probably only inhabit a small part of that city, and interact with probably no more than a hundred people or so. Those are the group conditions we evolved to deal with, and we still retain those urges. And we are still much, much more likely to do a favour (indirect reciprocal altruism) for someone we know than someone we don't.
Your snotnose attitude aside, I'd like you to revisit the firemen example.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy not learn some manners?
Evolution, my arrogant friend, does not require that this statement of yours is true:
ss: I would say that the "international charity problem" is merely a (unconscious in most people) misfiring of a genetically selfish rule.
Perhaps charity (i.e. altruism) is firing just right and you don't know what you're talking about.
And whilst evolution does not require that statement to be true, unconditional altruism, such as you describe, cannot evolve.
Perhaps you think "goddunnit"
Originally posted by scottishinnzLMAO! "Village chief"???? Take an anthropology course - this post borders on retarded.
Fine. "Hero" is just one evolutionary role that an individual can choose to play. Hero is a dangerous role, heros tend to do dangerous things that may result in their death. In a small society, such as those that we evolved in, the hero is probably the leader (why do you think the leaders in action disaster movies are always firemen, policemen, etc), ...[text shortened]... y to do a favour (indirect reciprocal altruism) for someone we know than someone we don't.
Tell me, expert, why is acting to help people considered sooooooooooo prestigious?
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzDid you bother to read your own post?
Why not learn some manners?
And whilst evolution does not require that statement to be true, unconditional altruism, such as you describe, cannot evolve.
Perhaps you think "goddunnit"
So evolution will produce organisms who are sincerely moral and who wear their hearts on their sleeves; in short, evolution will give rise to the phenomenon of conscience.
This theory, combined with ideas of kin selection and the one-to-one sharing of benefits, may explain how a blind and fundamentally selfish process can produce a genuinely non-cynical form of altruism that gives rise to the human conscience.
Critics of such technical game theory analysis point out that it appears to forget that human beings are rational and emotional. To presume an analysis of human behaviour without including human rationale or emotion is necessarily unrealistically narrow, and treats human beings as if they are mere machines, sometimes called Homo economicus. Another objection is that often people donate anonymously, so that it is impossible to determine if they really did the altruistic act.
Beginning with an understanding that rational human beings benefit from living in a benign universe, logically it follows that particular human beings may gain substantial emotional satisfaction from acts which they perceive to make the world a better place."
Doesn't sound "impossible" to me.
EDIT: Since we observe unconditional altruism on a daily basis, if it really couldn't evolve that would be a refutation of evolution. But that is absurd.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt can. For example, many organisms such as the South African Bower bird have large tail feathers. These are a burden for the bird, but they prove to the females that the individual is fit and healthy. Chimpanzees and other social primates have been documented to punish cheats.
Did you bother to read your own post?
So evolution will produce organisms who are sincerely moral and who wear their hearts on their sleeves; in short, evolution will give rise to the phenomenon of conscience.
This theory, combined with ideas of kin selection and the one-to-one sharing of benefits, may explain how a blind and fundamentally selfish ...[text shortened]... erceive to make the world a better place."
Doesn't sound "impossible" to me.
Conscience? Well, isn't that just having the foresight to know whether a given action will be construed as a negative or positive things by your peers, thus increasing or decreasing you social standing?
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, it ain't. Besides if we're all innately selfish pricks, why should acting in an altruistic fashion increase our social standing?
It can. For example, many organisms such as the South African Bower bird have large tail feathers. These are a burden for the bird, but they prove to the females that the individual is fit and healthy. Chimpanzees and other social primates have been documented to punish cheats.
Conscience? Well, isn't that just having the foresight to know whet ...[text shortened]... a negative or positive things by your peers, thus increasing or decreasing you social standing?
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI have no intention of disproving evolutionary theory. If you mean your explanation of altruistic behavior, however, I repeat what I've already said: More to the point, coming up with an explanation of some sort is not evidence supporting the explanation
You still haven't shown a single case of "altruism" that can't be explained by evolutionary theory.
Quite often on these pages, a Fundie will come up with contrived "explanations" and stick to them no matter how implausible they are. You are doing the same thing. Your "there is no such thing as altruism" is about as plausible as the Four Thiefs on the Crosses.