I haven't bothered to read the other 344373984! posts in this thread so forgive me if you've already covered what I'm about to write.
When Richard Dawkins gave a talk at UVA last semester, he chalked the sort of altruism No1 describes (where there is no expectation of reciprocation) to a "misfiring" in our genes, a trait that was selected for over thousands of years of human evolution and persists in us today even though it's original survival advantage no longer exists.
Originally posted by scottishinnzGee, why isn't it likely? You keep asserting non-testable explanations when simpler ones are available.
You really are a vengeful individual who relies pretty much solely on ad hom attacks, aren't you?
Small group. Let's say 3,000 years ago. Small village, small nomadic group, whichever you prefer. The conditions we've spent pretty much our entire evolutionary history under. Chances are, you would know that individuals parents. Probably, they'd be ...[text shortened]... care of each others children? Yep. Why? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Not likely.
There's no evidence that we evolved altruism in the last few thousand years; that is a mere bare assertion on some people's part. All available evidence is that human beings have engaged in altruistic behavior since they evolved as a separate species. That suggests that human altruism is a basic part of our nature and has been since the beginning. This only makes sense in an intelligent, empathic, social animal.
Originally posted by telerionBut how likely is that? It seems to me that what SS is calling "unconditional altruism" is a central part of human existence, not a mere vestige.
I haven't bothered to read the other 344373984! posts in this thread so forgive me if you've already covered what I'm about to write.
When Richard Dawkins gave a talk at UVA last semester, he chalked the sort of altruism No1 describes (where there is no expectation of reciprocation) to a "misfiring" in our genes, a trait that was selected for over thou ...[text shortened]... on and persists in us today even though it's original survival advantage no longer exists.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, but altruistic behaviour is found in a lot of other species - like bees - perhaps they are also "intelligent, empathetic social animals".
Gee, why isn't it likely? You keep asserting non-testable explanations when simpler ones are available.
There's no evidence that we evolved altruism in the last few thousand years; that is a mere bare assertion on some people's part. All available evidence is that human beings have engaged in altruistic behavior since they evolved as a separat ...[text shortened]... s been since the beginning. This only makes sense in an intelligent, empathic, social animal.
Originally posted by telerionI have discussed this already - especially in terms of things like international charity.
I haven't bothered to read the other 344373984! posts in this thread so forgive me if you've already covered what I'm about to write.
When Richard Dawkins gave a talk at UVA last semester, he chalked the sort of altruism No1 describes (where there is no expectation of reciprocation) to a "misfiring" in our genes, a trait that was selected for over thou ...[text shortened]... on and persists in us today even though it's original survival advantage no longer exists.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, what is the mechanism for your unconditional altruism, and how does it get around not being an evolutionary stable strategy. And why don't I feel compelled to give all my money to others, if you are right. Why don't I want to help everyone, all the time, irrespective of my own good?
But how likely is that? It seems to me that what SS is calling "unconditional altruism" is a central part of human existence, not a mere vestige.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI reject your assertion that it is not an "evolutionary stable strategy", something that you have failed to provide even a minimal amount of evidence for. If human altruism has been present since early in Man's existence (as evidence suggests) it is up to you to explain why your peculiar beliefs are incompatible with its existence.
So, what is the mechanism for your unconditional altruism, and how does it get around not being an evolutionary stable strategy. And why don't I feel compelled to give all my money to others, if you are right. Why don't I want to help everyone, all the time, irrespective of my own good?
Sorry that human behavior isn't sooooooooooooo simple and is affected by cultural and a myriad of other factors. Perhaps you should look at some scientific disciplines that study human behavior in more detail. My position is that humans are pre-disposed to altruistic behavior, not that it is present everywhere and at all times though it is pervasive.
Originally posted by no1marauderI've posted links to papers which demonstrate that "altruistic" behaviour is best described by selfish models, "altruist" models don't work. The fact that you don't read them isn't my problem,
I reject your assertion that it is not an "evolutionary stable strategy", something that you have failed to provide even a minimal amount of evidence for. If human altruism has been present since early in Man's existence (as evidence suggests) it is up to you to explain why your peculiar beliefs are incompatible with its existence.
Sorry that ...[text shortened]... ruistic behavior, not that it is present everywhere and at all times though it is pervasive.
You still haven't told me why we need things like money, or law, prisons, government and things like that - an altruistic society would need none of those things. Neither have you described why Communism doesn't work. In short, so far you've been full of abuse, but not answers.
Originally posted by scottishinnzDon't be an idiot, or even more of an idiot. I've read the abstracts and links you've given. Basically, they are simply circular arguments which take every instance of altruistic behavior and attribute a "selfish" motivation to it though there is no real world evidence to support such a conclusion. Here's a research project for ya; ask people if they help others for selfish or altruistic reasons. Of course, they're not as wise as a genius like you and are deluding themselves and have been deluding themselves for thousands of years!
I've posted links to papers which demonstrate that "altruistic" behaviour is best described by selfish models, "altruist" models don't work. The fact that you don't read them isn't my problem,
You still haven't told me why we need things like money, or law, prisons, government and things like that - an altruistic society would need none of those thi ...[text shortened]... Communism doesn't work. In short, so far you've been full of abuse, but not answers.
Talk about a Strawman! My argument is merely that humans have a predisposition towards altruistic behavior not that they exhibit it, AND ONLY IT, at all times. However, human beings did exist and thrive without any of the things you mention for tens of thousands of years. I can't imagine how, since we are all completely selfish according to you (and you have went beyond the "genetic selfishness" argument many times in this thread ignoring the warnings of your own articles).
BTW, who said communism didn't work? It took Russia and China from weak, feudal nations to superpowers. Of course, that was State Communism which was hardly purely altruistically motivated but still. Maybe you should crack open a history book.
Since you're having a bit of a problem figuring out how Man can be self-interested, without being selfish, and the relation of society to government, I give you Tom Paine:
CHAPTER I
Of Society and Civilisation
Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.
To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
If we examine with attention into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of his wants, and the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover, that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.
Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.
Rights of Man
Part II
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm just bored of you now. You've done nothing but whine "humans must be special". Well, I may take this up tomorrow, but it's clear to me that I'm never going to get through to you, you've got no inclination to think, or read, whatsoever.
Don't be an idiot, or even more of an idiot. I've read the abstracts and links you've given. Basically, they are simply circular arguments which take every instance of altruistic behavior and attribute a "selfish" motivation to it though there is no real world evidence to support such a conclusion. Here's a research project for ya; ask people if they hel ...[text shortened]... urely altruistically motivated but still. Maybe you should crack open a history book.
Originally posted by scottishinnzMurder is many steps away from altruism, please let us keep focused.
Not sure where you are going with "cultural differences". Is murder wrong only in selected cultures, or only ours? Most of the animal kingdom never fights to the death either. Is food sharing, for example, going out for a meal with friends merely something that happens in the West? No, not at all. Such a practice helps to cement the reciprocal ties ...[text shortened]... gation of genes in the gene pool, or getting a better mate with which to pair your genes.
My point regarding cultural differences is that you seem to be dismissing one of the greatest sources of diversity in human behaviour which is culture and reducing it all down to genetics.
Accumulated knowledge, culture and especially hisotry allow human beings to go far beyond genetic memory and predisposition. This is an extremely important point.
Note that I'm not saying that genes are unimportant, just that it is false to attempt to analyze everything through the looking glass of evolution, especially when it comes to social behaviours and it's absolutely false the claim that it all boils down to genetic selfishness.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThese intellectual flavors of the month come and go. SS reminds me of the Freshman who used to talk about "behaviorism" and "operant conditioning" as explaining all human behavior. Too bad human beings are a little too complicated to be pigeonholed as easily as BF Skinner and SS want them to be.
Genetic fundamentalism?