Originally posted by no1marauderHow does that get around selfish individuals that exploit the rest of the group. One single selfish individual and the whole group selection thing falls to pieces.
That's a Strawman. Altruism does not lead to a lesser chance of reproduction of the group as a whole; in fact, it increases it.
Originally posted by scottishinnzBaloney. The most cohesive groups will have the greatest advantage. And the other members of the group will not tolerate a selfish individual for long. And that, dear boy, will be communicated to the potential selfish individual by the group's culture. See these aren't molds you're talking about; these are intelligent social animals with a culture.
How does that get around selfish individuals that exploit the rest of the group. One single selfish individual and the whole group selection thing falls to pieces.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'll never be able to discuss this stuff at scientist level, but I do find things like this...
Yes, it's called "The Selfish Gene".
"Although Dawkins' frequently evokes the gene and DNA to make his arguments, his gene is most useful if it remains a theoretical construct. For instance, Dawkins' formulation of the gene does not incorporate the complex picture of the eukoryotic genome molecular geneticists are now forming. Especially important is the recent understanding of the complexity of genetic regulatory regions, coding region repetition in intervening genetic sequences, and the fact that a single coding region can be spread over an astonishing distance on the chromosome. No, Dawkins' gene does the most analytical work for him if it remains a non-material entity that can shrink or expand to fit the theoretical circumstances: "It is a fair point that the gene is an abstraction. [...] What I've said in the Selfish Gene is that I agree that we're not talking about a particular unit. There's a continuum."4
http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/commentary/thurtle.html
"One thing we can be sure of--we should never expect nor want Gould and Dawkins to agree. For a successful scientific discipline should not be measured by the amount of agreement among its members, but the total number of questions that the discipline allows to be asked."
Do you agree?
(Check out the G-files...
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/the_g_files.shtml )
How do wars fit in your idea of natural selection? Is it the good general's genes that count? Or the diplomatic genes of the king? Or the warriors' genes? The scientists'? Or do you think wars have no impact on the gene pool?
Our thought and behaviour is heavily conditioned by culture and history. Just look at how anthropology has studied for the differences in behaviour and culture. It seems to me simply absurd to rule out one type of behaviour through a simple argument of genetic conditioning.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAn interesting and easy primer, from a philosophical perspective:
I'll never be able to discuss this stuff at scientist level, but I do find things like this...
"Although Dawkins' frequently evokes the gene and DNA to make his arguments, his gene is most useful if it remains a theoretical construct. For instance, Dawkins' formulation of the gene does not incorporate the complex picture of the eukoryotic genome mol ...[text shortened]... p://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/the_g_files.shtml )
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/#1
Section 4 is quite enlightening.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhy thanks to you too - I'm good.
Why thank you. Hope you're fit as ever in your bunker up North!
I'm working on this:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1985122,00.html
Have those grumbling backbenchers not read The Selfish Gene?
Originally posted by no1marauderWon't tolerate? Wait, so they'll withhold from an organism which doesn't reciprocate? Wait, that'd be reciprocal altruism, dear boy.
Baloney. The most cohesive groups will have the greatest advantage. And the other members of the group will not tolerate a selfish individual for long. And that, dear boy, will be communicated to the potential selfish individual by the group's culture. See these aren't molds you're talking about; these are intelligent social animals with a culture.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDawkins' defines why he refuses to use the traditional definition of the word gene in "Selfish gene". From memory he defines his gene as any section of DNA which is conserved through generations. This allows him to take whole multigene complexes as single entities (if splicing doesn't mix them up too often), and also small, non-coding, regions, again providing they don't get mixed up too often. However, since this is a bit of a mouthful every time you want to say it, he stuck with the word "gene".
I'll never be able to discuss this stuff at scientist level, but I do find things like this...
"Although Dawkins' frequently evokes the gene and DNA to make his arguments, his gene is most useful if it remains a theoretical construct. For instance, Dawkins' formulation of the gene does not incorporate the complex picture of the eukoryotic genome mol ...[text shortened]... p://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/the_g_files.shtml )
Originally posted by PalynkaTwo things, I would suggest.
How do wars fit in your idea of natural selection? Is it the good general's genes that count? Or the diplomatic genes of the king? Or the warriors' genes? The scientists'? Or do you think wars have no impact on the gene pool?
Our thought and behaviour is heavily conditioned by culture and history. Just look at how anthropology has studied for the differen ...[text shortened]... y absurd to rule out one type of behaviour through a simple argument of genetic conditioning.
One, resources. Wars are most often fought for resources, more than any other single reason. If someone wants to take my resources off me, I'll defend them. If I want to take the resources off someone else, then I'll cooperate with others to get the job done (cooperation / (potential) benefit of victory greater than potential cost and likelihood of loss).
Two. Religion. Religion is probably the second most fought over thing in the world. Humans evolved in small groups, controlled by a single alpha-male. As the groups got bigger, so did the alpha-males. At some point, the ultimate alpha-male, God, is invented as a crowd control mechanism (See Jared Diamond's book, "Gun, Germs and Steel" for more). All authority (i.e. a king's power) flows from this ultimate alpha. Heaven (and hopefully a decent way of life) is the carrot for doing what you're told; Hell is the stick. Really (IMO), it's a perversion of an evolved social hierarchy mechanism. Ultimately, as we all know, it's *good* to belong to a society, and if the cost of that is going off to war occasionally, well, so be it.
Originally posted by dottewellTheir explanation of adoption fails to point out that the adoptive parents are learning to parent, which may increase their chances of successfully rearing children in the future. Also, the raised child may be a source of labour in the future, when raising ones own children. Adoption may more closely represent cooperation and reciprocal altruism (albeit with the benefit repaid in the future) than anything else. Likewise, it does not take into account that the individuals adopting get a buzz from triggering their "nurture child" neutral pathways.
An interesting and easy primer, from a philosophical perspective:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/#1
Section 4 is quite enlightening.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat doesn't really explain why people choose to adopt children rather than have their "own".
Their explanation of adoption fails to point out that the adoptive parents are learning to parent, which may increase their chances of successfully rearing children in the future. Also, the raised child may be a source of labour in the future, when raising ones own children. Adoption may more closely represent cooperation and reciprocal altruism (albe ...[text shortened]... at the individuals adopting get a buzz from triggering their "nurture child" neutral pathways.
I have known couples to do this. It is not rare.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, #1, I give up. You've become Ivanhoe in this thread. If you refuse to recognize that
WHAT?????? I'm flipflopping on the term "selfish"??? No, you and SS are equivocating on it and using it in a non-standard way.
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.
something can be both genetically selfish and morally altruistic (because it entails recognizing
that the point of view is different), then you will never understand what SS and I are saying.
That is, until you acknowledge that coöperative behaviors which entailed personal sacrifice
were ultimately for the good of the individual, group and species and therefore are genetically
selfish for they ultimately entail a greater chance of survival, you will never be able to
understand the concept of the 'selfish gene' and the schools of evolutionary thought which have
arisen from it.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, it ain't. You're again using the Fallacy of Equivocation.
Won't tolerate? Wait, so they'll withhold from an organism which doesn't reciprocate? Wait, that'd be reciprocal altruism, dear boy.
Reciprocal altruism has you previously described it was doing something expecting someone to do the same or similar thing for you in the future. But what is being described here is the punishment of someone who constantly does things against the group's norms with the main purpose of having them conforming their behavior to that acceptable to the group.