Originally posted by Nemesio1) There are observable behaviors in modern humans which have no biological precedent or analogue which are demonstrably altruistic
Well, I'm not in this camp of thought (and I realize that there are several camps). I do not believe
that genes fully constrict behavior, but merely influence the degree of behavior. A 'gene' for
'meanness' (of course, I'm sure you recognize that it's probably not just one gene) would only
influence an individual to be merely more likely to be me ...[text shortened]... avior which give me
reason to be in the 'gene-as-influencers' camp.
Nemesio
Such as? Pretty much all behaviours can be explained in terms of either direct or indirect reciprocal altruism (including cooperation) or sexual selection. Even if they can't be explained in these terms, if they have selective advantage, and are genetically controlled (or influenced) then they are by definition genetically selfish behaviours, since they increase the frequency of that allele with relation to others in the gene pool.
2) a person can, through conscious work and discipline, transcend their natural urges to behave in a way which is demonstrably non-biological.
Well, you could commit suicide for example or choose not to reproduce, but it's an evolutionary dead end, and such a behaviour can't persist in the gene pool (except, of course, if you didn't develop suicidal tendencies until after reproduction, although suicide could hardly be called altruistic!).
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioWHAT?????? I'm flipflopping on the term "selfish"??? No, you and SS are equivocating on it and using it in a non-standard way.
The genes are much older than the pleistocene era, and we have evidence of so-called altruistic
behavior going back hundreds of thousands of years. 14,000 years isn't all that much time for
large-scale behavioral changes to evolve anyway (although it's not an insignificant time, of course).
You keep flip-flopping on the term selfish. An [i/]individual ...[text shortened]... and,
genetically speaking, are selfish even while they would be morally selfless.
Nemesio
EDIT: From page 24: Selfish - Arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others.
Altruistic behavior is by definition not selfish.
EDIT2: According to Merriam-Webster:
Altruism - Unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.
Originally posted by NemesioI doubt it. He's using it as one school of thought does but then he isn't restricting it's meaning to genetics as his posts about Communism and other topics show.
He is using the word 'selfish' in a manner which is consistent and totally standard with evolutionary
biologists.
Nemesio
(cough)
Some extra reading:
On Dawkins, incl. discussion of his dispute with Gould, Lewontin et al
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/dawkny.shtml
and
"The Blank Spandrels of Dawkins’ Cathedral—the Origins of Religion in The God Delusion" (criticism of said book: Doctor Scott, what would you say to this research student?)
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnz"Indirect reciprocal altruism" is BS. It's a scientific sounding way to claim that people do things (including extremely dangerous things) for no immediate benefit on the speculative belief that they will benefit at some indeterminate time in the future. There isn't a shred of evidence that this is so and plenty of evidence it ain't (like ask them).
[b]1) There are observable behaviors in modern humans which have no biological precedent or analogue which are demonstrably altruistic
Such as? Pretty much all behaviours can be explained in terms of either direct or indirect reciprocal altruism (including cooperation) or sexual selection. Even if they can't be explained in these terms, if they l tendencies until after reproduction, although suicide could hardly be called altruistic!).[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzHeroism is actually quite common if people are put in certain circumstances. Perfectly average persons perform heroic acts in war time or emergencies on a routine basis. If you find a "hero" gene let me know; if it exists a lot of people have it.
I was thinking about this some more. You state that people who do heroic acts are "no different" to anyone else. I wonder, how do you know this? It is not readily apparent to me by looking at someone whether or not they have any particular gene or not, unless it manifests itself phenotypically. A gene which alters brain chemistry or physiology is no ...[text shortened]... e is, which (/and) may certainly have effects on reproductive fecundity and gene survival.
Originally posted by no1marauderReally? What about these references?
"Indirect reciprocal altruism" is BS. It's a scientific sounding way to claim that people do things (including extremely dangerous things) for no immediate benefit on the speculative belief that they will benefit at some indeterminate time in the future. There isn't a shred of evidence that this is so and plenty of evidence it ain't (like ask them).
"Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring - The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity" Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund; 1998, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
"The biology of moral systems". RD Alexander, Mind Vol. 98, No. 391 (Jul., 1989), pp. 461-463
"Titre du document / Document title
Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
NOWAK M. A. (1) ; SIGMUND K. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Zoology University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, ROYAUME-UNI
(2) Institut für Mathematik, Universität Wien, Strudlhofgasse 4, 1090 Wien, AUTRICHE
Résumé / Abstract
Darwinian evolution has to provide an explanation for cooperative behaviour. Theories of cooperation are based on kin selection (dependent on genetic relatedness)[1,2], group selection[3-5] and reciprocal altruism[6-9]. The idea of reciprocal altruism usually involves direct reciprocity: repeated encounters between the same individuals allow for the return of an altruistic act by the recipient[10-16]. Here we present a new theoretical framework, which is based on indirect reciprocity[17] and does not require the same two individuals ever to meet again. Individual selection can nevertheless favour cooperative strategies directed towards recipients that have helped others in the past. Cooperation pays because it confers the image of a valuable community member to the cooperating individual. We present computer simulations and analytic models that specify the conditions required for evolutionary stability[18] of indirect reciprocity. We show that the probability of knowing the 'image' of the recipient must exceed the cost-to-benefit ratio of the altruistic act. We propose that the emergence of indirect reciprocity was a decisive step for the evolution of human societies."
" Title: The evolution of cooperation and altruism - a general framework and a classification of models
Author(s): Lehmann L (Lehmann, L.), Keller L (Keller, L.)
Source: JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY 19 (5): 1365-1376 SEP 2006
Document Type: Review
Language: English
Cited References: 84 Times Cited: 17 Find Related Records Information
Abstract: One of the enduring puzzles in biology and the social sciences is the origin and persistence of intraspecific cooperation and altruism in humans and other species. Hundreds of theoretical models have been proposed and there is much confusion about the relationship between these models. To clarify the situation, we developed a synthetic conceptual framework that delineates the conditions necessary for the evolution of altruism and cooperation. We show that at least one of the four following conditions needs to be fulfilled: direct benefits to the focal individual performing a cooperative act; direct or indirect information allowing a better than random guess about whether a given individual will behave cooperatively in repeated reciprocal interactions; preferential interactions between related individuals; and genetic correlation between genes coding for altruism and phenotypic traits that can be identified. When one or more of these conditions are met, altruism or cooperation can evolve if the cost-to-benefit ratio of altruistic and cooperative acts is greater than a threshold value. The cost-to-benefit ratio can be altered by coercion, punishment and policing which therefore act as mechanisms facilitating the evolution of altruism and cooperation. All the models proposed so far are explicitly or implicitly built on these general principles, allowing us to classify them into four general categories. "
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI like this quote. Marauder, take note!
(cough)
Some extra reading:
On Dawkins, incl. discussion of his dispute with Gould, Lewontin et al
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/dawkny.shtml
and
"The Blank Spandrels of Dawkins’ Cathedral—the Origins of Religion in The God Delusion" (criticism of said book: Doctor Scott, what would you say to this research student?)
"Essentially, their insight was that altruism in nature was a trick of the light. Once one understands that evolution works at the level of the gene--a process of gene survival, taking place (as Dawkins developed it) in bodies that the gene occupies and then discards--the problem of altruism begins to disappear. Evolution favors strategies that cause as many of an animal's genes as possible to survive--strategies that may not immediately appear to be evolutionarily sound. In the idea's simplest form, if an animal puts its life at risk for its offspring, it is preserving a creature - gene "vehicle," in Dawkins's language--half of whose genes are its own. This is a sensible, selfish strategy, despite the possible inconvenience of death. No one is being nice."
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes, you've been repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again.
I like this quote. Marauder, take note!
"Essentially, their insight was that altruism in nature was a trick of the light. Once one understands that evolution works at the level of the gene--a process of gene survival, taking place (as Dawkins developed it) in bodies that the gene occupies and then discards--the problem of altruism begins to disappea ...[text shortened]... le, selfish strategy, despite the possible inconvenience of death. No one is being nice."
Originally posted by scottishinnzBuilding models ain't evidence, Sparky.
Really? What about these references?
"Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring - The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity" Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund; 1998, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
"The biology of moral systems". RD Alexander, Mind Vol. 98, No. 391 (Jul., 1989), pp. 461-463
"Titre du docum ...[text shortened]... these general principles, allowing us to classify them into four general categories. "