The God Delusion

Originally posted by no1marauder
Acting in one's self-interest doesn't necessarily equal acting in a selfish manner, Nemesio; at least in the English language.

Well, acting in one's self-interest does exclude altruism. As I
understand the term, altruism has as its primary goal the assistance
of others often at the expense of oneself. Acting in one's self-interest
doesn't require that you act in a fashion which diminishes someone
else's interests, but it would necessarily require that the primary goal
is one's self.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, it isn't "similarly explained" at least with any degree of rationality. You're buying into SS' "hero gene" nonsense when the evidence suggests that altruistic behavior, even extreme self-sacrificing altrustic behavior, is utterly common in humans. And has been for as long as we have been humans (possibly before).

Plus you are ignoring that ...[text shortened]... Unless you believe the "indirect reciprocal altruism" baloney, there is no similarity.

Why, when anger has a genetic basis, as does love (seretonin) do you see such a problem which a gene which gives people a pre-disposition towards acting as a hero? You've certainly provided no evidence to the contrary (again).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why, when anger has a genetic basis, as does love (seretonin) do you see such a problem which a gene which gives people a pre-disposition towards acting as a hero? You've certainly provided no evidence to the contrary (again).

I can't prove a negative. I suppose it's possible there's a "hero" gene that almost everybody has.

You are the one who hasn't provided any evidence to support any of your claims.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, all this post does is say:

'I disagree' and 'You agree with nonsense.'

It fails to explain why someone would disagree with it.

The 'common' self-sacrificing you are talking about (I suppose fire-
fighters, for example?) is, as I said, an example of where biological
impetus has outpaced its evolutionary context because of the massive
sociolo ...[text shortened]... In such a case, the bands of
people comprised largely kin relations.

Nemesio

I've been discussing the actual reality of human behavior for 15 pages, Nemesio. All I hear are contrived explanations for behavior where a simpler one is available which has the great advantage of comporting with how the persons acting perceive their actions. SS' explanations rely on self-delusion on a grand scale.

I see no reason why to believe that altruism was ever not present in human behavior. I see no reason to suppose that human beings ever lived in very small groups composed entirely of kin; where is the anthropological evidence for this? And even if they did, why would behaviors learned during that period survive competition with the more efficient hunter gatherer groups of the late Pleistocene?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've been discussing the actual reality of human behavior for 15 pages, Nemesio. All I hear are contrived explanations for behavior where a simpler one is available which has the great advantage of comporting with how the persons acting perceive their actions. SS' explanations rely on self-delusion on a grand scale.

I see no reason why to beli ...[text shortened]... od survive competition with the more efficient hunter gatherer groups of the late Pleistocene?

Except for the fact that unconditional altruism cannot evolve, as has been pointed out time and time again in the evolutionary biology literature.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I can't prove a negative. I suppose it's possible there's a "hero" gene that almost everybody has.

You are the one who hasn't provided any evidence to support any of your claims.

So there is no problem with it, at least hypothetically. Why then, do you choose to mock the suggestion?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Except for the fact that unconditional altruism cannot evolve, as has been pointed out time and time again in the evolutionary biology literature.

Yet there it is. That means your explanation is wrong one way or the other. Perhaps all behavior doesn't need a genetic basis? Perhaps evolutionary biologists are myopic, looking for the answers to all human behavior in their field and ignoring other scientific disciplines which give different answers to this question.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So there is no problem with it, at least hypothetically. Why then, do you choose to mock the suggestion?

Supposing something is possible doesn't mean I think it's likely. Since I don't believe that ALL behavior is determined by genes I don't think that a "hero gene" is necessary. And such a gene would have to be extraordinarily common as it seems most people are capable of heroic acts (meaning acts which endanger your life and/or health for others, esp. non-kin).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yet there it is. That means your explanation is wrong one way or the other. Perhaps all behavior doesn't need a genetic basis? Perhaps evolutionary biologists are myopic, looking for the answers to all human behavior in their field and ignoring other scientific disciplines which give different answers to this question.

If it is there, you certainly cannot, and have not, proved it! You may as well stipulate a behaviour that breaks the laws of physics.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I see no reason why to believe that altruism was ever not present in human behavior. I see no reason to suppose that human beings ever lived in very small groups composed entirely of kin; where is the anthropological evidence for this? And even if they did, why would behaviors learned during that period survive competition with the more efficient hunter gatherer groups of the late Pleistocene?

You keep insisting on making your argument 90k years after the genetic institution of many of
these behaviors.

Yes, there was never a time in the pleistocene era that humans ever lived in small groups comprising
mostly kin.

That's because group size by that time was already approaching tribal social units (exceeding 100
individuals).

But if you go back, say one million years, this was not the case. Social units were on the
order of a few dozen at most, primarily comprising family. This was the case even until just over
100k years ago, even as we advanced through the discovery of fire, the use of simple tool kits, and
the creation of increasingly sophisticated weapons.

These behaviors survived competition in the larger HFG groups because they yielded an increased
likelihood of survival for all involved.

So, yes, macroscopic altruism as always existed in the Pleistocene era, because it evolved to give
the humans hundreds of thousands of years earlier a better chance of survival. That is, this so-
called altruism arose out of self-interest, not other-interest.

Nemesio

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Except for the fact that unconditional altruism cannot evolve, as has been pointed out time and time again in the evolutionary biology literature.

Perhaps the selfish gene simply cannot account for this inexplicable behaviour? Why do acts of unconditional altruism occur?

Originally posted by Nemesio
You keep insisting on making your argument 90k years after the genetic institution of many of
these behaviors.

Yes, there was never a time in the pleistocene era that humans ever lived in small groups comprising
mostly kin.

That's because group size by that time was already approaching tribal social units (exceeding 100
individuals).

But if y ...[text shortened]... That is, this so-
called altruism arose out of self-interest, not other-interest.

Nemesio

Modern humans didn't even exist until about 100,000 BC. I seriously doubt that the social structure of non-humans a 1,000,000 years ago had any effect on human beings.

I got the 12,000 figure from Dawkins or a summary of Dawkins; I'll see if I can find it. You are, of course, merely repeating the same thing over and over again without any evidence to support it and that's SS's gig.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Perhaps the selfish gene simply cannot account for this inexplicable behaviour? Why do acts of unconditional altruism occur?

According to SS they don't; it's all an illusion.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Perhaps the selfish gene simply cannot account for this inexplicable behaviour? Why do acts of unconditional altruism occur?

Unconditional altruism doesn't occur. It cannot evolve.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Modern humans didn't even exist until about 100,000 BC. I seriously doubt that the social structure of non-humans a 1,000,000 years ago had any effect on human beings.

I got the 12,000 figure from Dawkins or a summary of Dawkins; I'll see if I can find it. You are, of course, merely repeating the same thing over and over again without any evidence to support it and that's SS's gig.

He only said 100,000. Even that would seem a conservative estimate, fossil H. sapiens of 130,000 years have been found, and estimates go from 100,000 at the lower end up to 250,000 years. Even so, this is not to say that H. erectus, our immediate fore bearers, didn't evolve these responses, and we "inherited" it from them. Unfortunately, a lack of evidence precludes us from determining either way.

[edit; H. erectus had controlled use of fire by 300,000 years ago, and possibly as far back as 790,000. They seem to have been hunting mammoth (cooperating) as far back as 1.8 MYA, so despite the fact that they were certainly less culturally advances than H. sapiens, it seems plausible that many of our habits may have evolved in H. erectus.]