1 edit
Any time SS you want to get around to presenting some evidence that humans "evolved" altruism recently (as Dawkins thinks - he's talking 12,000 years ago), let me know. I would say pretty much all the anthropological evidence is that humans existed in groups that valued altruistic acts since the Dawn of Man.
Why do hunter gatherers bury their dead BTW? Do they expect the dead guy to reciprocate by burying them? Why do our "selfish genes" care at all what is done to our remains - it's awfully hard to replicate yourself once you're dead.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhile this is absolutely true, there is no reason to believe that this
...But they also perform altruistic acts for strangers with no real possibility of those acts being reciprocated. And furthermore, such acts are considered morally praiseworthy across pretty much all cultures.
tendency isn't an evolved one, which would suggest that it was selected
for the good of the species and, thus, is intrinsically selfish.
A reason for believing this is in how such altruistic acts are generally
obtained. Hauser, in his book 'Moral Minds' discusses this by way of
example: If one is driving down the street and sees a single child with
a severely injured leg -- so injured, that denying immediate attention
would likely result in the loss of that leg -- I think most people would
find it morally compulsive to assist the child, even if the result would
be the ruining of the leather interior of the car to the tune of $250.
However, when faced with a $25 solicitation for money from UNICEF
(with its outstanding and unparalleled reputation in sending the vast
majority of its money to those in need rather than its own expenses),
where this $25 would give enough water to prevent ten children from
dying from dehydration for a month, most people would not view this
as morally compulsory.
Why? $250 to save a child's leg versus $25 to save 10 children's lives?
Why does one yield in us such a strong intuitive compulsion and the
other not?
Hauser argues (and I agree) that we evolved in groups and the very
seeing of another person with that kind of injury elicits in us a sense of
tribal responsibility that hearing about some children in a far-away place
does not. Obviously, any rational calculus would lead us to find the
second scenario as far more severe than the first, given the limited
burden (the time to write a check rather than driving to the hospital),
the smaller impact ($25 versus $250) and the benefit derived (ten
children live whereas one child likely keeps a leg).
#1 is correct in that this intuition is recognized across cultures and is
as damn near universal as far as we can tell. And it's pretty clear that
this evolved gradually as humankind became more advanced and more
explosively as tribal units evolved into chiefdoms. These tendencies
on both the tribal and chiefdom levels led to greater survival of the
species. Those human genes which discouraged altruism led to
weaker tribes/chiefdoms and were overcome/selected against over
the course of tens of thousands of years.
These tendencies aren't selfish in the sense that the person performing
the act benefits; they are selfish in the sense that they lead to a stronger
species.
In addition to 'Moral Minds' by Marc Hauser (mentioned above), one
might also read 'The Science of Good and Evil' by Michael Shermer.
Both give compelling (although not identical) arguments for the notion
that morality evolved by being selected as best for the species. Both,
by the by, are competetive colleagues of Dawkins and have a great
respect for his work and contributions to the field.
This doesn't invalidate that humans are special -- although we are
not the only species with altruistic tendencies, we are the only one who
contemplate it and expand on it. That some people give to
UNICEF when there is clearly no direct biological impetus to do so
certainly testifies to this.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderThey were set up as Communist societies, but they don't work as such - they are dictatorships. My point all along - Communism, which would work if humans, as you posit, are just "nice", doesn't. Another stunning failure to tackle the issue - again.
Maybe you should actually read someone's posts; you gave these as examples of Communism, not me. I see you refuse to respond to most of the points raised YET AGAIN.
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd I've explained why this should occur, within a system of selfish entities (indeed, I've even provided scientific studies of it, and in Selfish Gene Dawkins explains it in his chapter "survival of the nicest"😉.
You're completely myopic. For about the fifth time, no one is denying humas cooperate quite often for mutual benefit. But they also perform altruistic acts for strangers with no real possibility of those acts being reciprocated. And furthermore, such acts are considered morally praiseworthy across pretty much all cultures.
Originally posted by no1marauderCould altruism towards those who cannot in principle reciprocate be a spandrel of a generally adaptive tendency towards altruism?
Any time SS you want to get around to presenting some evidence that humans "evolved" altruism recently (as Dawkins thinks - he's talking 12,000 years ago), let me know. I would say pretty much all the anthropological evidence is that humans existed in groups that valued altruistic acts since the Dawn of Man.
Why do hunter gatherers bury their ...[text shortened]... l what is done to our remains - it's awfully hard to replicate yourself once you're dead.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI can't figure out if you're as stupid as one of the Fundies or not. Certainly your knowledge of history, anthropology, sociology and many other fields of human learning is virtually non-existent. ALL of those countries were set up as dictatorships first, not as "Communist" societies. And you continue to press on with your ridiculous Strawman characterizations of my arguments; is that because you can't understand them or are you just trying to score points by playing dumb?
They were set up as Communist societies, but they don't work as such - they are dictatorships. My point all along - Communism, which would work if humans, as you posit, are just "nice", doesn't. Another stunning failure to tackle the issue - again.
Originally posted by no1marauderEvolutionary benefits to burial? Well, carcasses in the open attract predators, and may be diseased. There is also probably a religious connotation - after all, not all societies bury their dead - some eat them, thereby "absorbing their soul" (of course, there is also a reason for this - the tribes which do this tend to live in small isolated islands etc, where dietary protein is hard to come by. Despite the disease risk, it's still better to have the protein than not to. Cannibals tend not to eat their own live family though, but may eat dead relatives). Religion, of course, developed under small village conditions, but has grown and spread. People have moral rules, generalisations of the way that they think they should live their lives - these come from evolution rather than God, or wherever it is YOU think they come from.
Any time SS you want to get around to presenting some evidence that humans "evolved" altruism recently (as Dawkins thinks - he's talking 12,000 years ago), let me know. I would say pretty much all the anthropological evidence is that humans existed in groups that valued altruistic acts since the Dawn of Man.
Why do hunter gatherers bury their ...[text shortened]... l what is done to our remains - it's awfully hard to replicate yourself once you're dead.
Originally posted by no1marauderAnother ad hom!
I can't figure out if you're as stupid as one of the Fundies or not. Certainly your knowledge of history, anthropology, sociology and many other fields of human learning is virtually non-existent. ALL of those countries were set up as dictatorships first, not as "Communist" societies. And you continue to press on with your ridiculous Strawman characteriz ...[text shortened]... t because you can't understand them or are you just trying to score points by playing dumb?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYes. Possibly. It would still represent a genetically selfish tendency though; since the selection pressure would be "niceness". In reality though, most niceness can be characterised as reciprocal altruism (both direct and indirect), reputation building (a form of sexual selection as well as a form of indirect altruism) or a misfiring of those signals, since we generally live in environments recently very different to those we evolved under.
Could altruism towards those who cannot in principle reciprocate be a spandrel of a generally adaptive tendency towards altruism?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThat's Dawkin's claim.
Could altruism towards those who cannot in principle reciprocate be a spandrel of a generally adaptive tendency towards altruism?
I prefer to think that altruism is a feature of human nature that was also reinforced by group behavior. When exactly was altruism lacking in Man so that it had to evolve in the last 12,000 years? And the simple biological determinant model that SS is using really ignores group dynamics while paying lip service to them.
Groups with higher levels of cohesion and willingness to cooperate would have had a survival advantage over those that did not. And unlike molds or whatever SS was talking about, human behavior is taught and reinforced by the other members of the primary group. Thus, a tendency toward altruistic behavior would have been rewarded and passed on both genetically and culturally.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzSaying something over and over and over again is not an argument. And you continue to confuse "genetic selfishness" with actual selfish behavior and equivocate with the word "selfish" using it in a non-standard manner.
Yes. Possibly. It would still represent a genetically selfish tendency though; since the selection pressure would be "niceness". In reality though, most niceness can be characterised as reciprocal altruism (both direct and indirect), reputation building (a form of sexual selection as well as a form of indirect altruism) or a misfiring of those signals, since we generally live in environments recently very different to those we evolved under.