3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzDogmatic as a priest, you are.
Unconditional altruism doesn't occur. It cannot evolve.
These people must be deluded: http://www.tau.ac.il/~lotem/pdf/Lotem%20et%20al%202003%20Proc%5B1%5D..pdf
Interesting one here too:
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/2/4.html
Another one, about BitTorrents...http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:w4FkMe-LtO8J:cfpm.org/~david/posters/patarin-hales-delis-poster6.pdf+%22unconditional+altruism%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13
Edit: Take a look at the first link and report on your findings, o dogmatic one.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYour reading skills aren't very good.
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 ev ...[text shortened]... than H. sapiens, it seems plausible that many of our habits may have evolved in H. erectus.]
Nemesio: But if you go back, say one million years
You seem very willing to assume things without any actual evidence IF they fit in with your preconceived notions. That makes you rather unremarkable on this forum.
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePsychologist Danial Batson has conducted a systematic program of research which as empirically tested whether the kind behavior that empathy produces can be explained by various forms of egoism (e.g., whether empathizing people help a person in trouble to get rid of negative feelings observing them creates, to forestall future guilt, to feel good about themselves, and so forth).
Dogmatic as a priest, you are.
These people must be deluded: http://www.tau.ac.il/~lotem/pdf/Lotem%20et%20al%202003%20Proc%5B1%5D..pdf
Interesting one here too:
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/2/4.html
Another one, about BitTorrents...http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:w4FkMe-LtO8J:cfpm.org/~david/posters/patarin-hales-delis-poster6.pdf+%22 ...[text shortened]... t=clnk&cd=13
Edit: Take a look at the first link and report on your findings, o dogmatic one.
In any study this research program has comprised, the empathy-kindness associations could have been accounted for by a particular form of egoism.
Remarkably, however, none of those associations were so explained (although there is some contrary evidence, in my view unpersuasive, by Robert Cialdini and colleagues).
http://www.psych.ku.edu/faculty_Daniel_Batson.html
I personally don't see why psychological altruism can't involve as an evolutionary by-product of selfless behavior.
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.
LOL! Read this sentence and see if you see the problem: Modern humans....non-humans.
1,000,000 years ago we had pre-modern human ancestors.
Are you seriously suggesting that the social structures of homo erectus had no effect on homo
sapiens? That a light switch flipped at some point 100,000 years ago and we decided magically to
form 100-person groups? That the genes which influenced our immediate ancestors just disappeared
and 'altruism' just arose?!
So much for parsimony!
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.
You remain confused. I am not disputing your claims about the humans from 12k years ago. I'm
disputing your claims that such behavior had no precedent or did not arise gradually through genetic
influence because of the pressures of selection and the optimization of survival (and, is thus,
self-interested and not altruistic).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThat a light switch flipped at some point 100,000 years ago and we decided magically to form 100-person groups?
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.
LOL! Read this sentence and see if you see the problem: Modern humans....non-humans.
1,000,000 years ago we had pre-modern human ances ...[text shortened]... optimization of survival (and, is thus,
self-interested and not altruistic).
Nemesio[/b]
Out of mild curiousity, at what point does recorded human history begin?
Originally posted by NemesioYou guys seem to shift your arguments around at the drop of a hat. Dawkins is arguing for recent evolution of "reciprocal altruism" in this passage I quoted earlier:
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]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.
LOL! Read this sentence and see if you see the problem: Modern humans....non-humans.
1,000,000 years ago we had pre-modern human an ...[text shortened]... optimization of survival (and, is thus,
self-interested and not altruistic).
Nemesio[/b]
We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, if Zahavi is right, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising.
Through most of our prehistory, humans lived under conditions that would have strongly favoured the evolution of all four kinds of altruism. We lived in villages, or earlier in discrete roving bands like baboons, partially isolated from neighbouring bands or villages. Most of your fellow band members would have been kin, more closely related to you than members of other bands - plenty of opportunities for kin altruism to evolve. And, whether kin or not, you would tend to meet the same individuals again and again throughout your life - ideal conditions for the evolution of reciprocal altruism. Those are also the ideal conditions for building a reputation for altruism, and the very same ideal conditions for advertising conspicuous generosity. By any or all of the four routes, genetic tendencies towards altruism would have been favoured in early humans.”
"The God Delusion" by Prof. Richard Dawkins, p218-220
When do you think humans lived in villages? Did our pre-human ancestors live in them? As I mentioned previously, Dawkins makes some assumptions about human social organization that are at best dubious and most likely simply wrong. So if you want to bitch about someone saying altruism evolved recently, I'm the wrong target.
Originally posted by no1marauderHe doesn't seem to mention a date though. "Recent" could be anywhere in the last million years!
You guys seem to shift your arguments around at the drop of a hat. Dawkins is arguing for recent evolution of "reciprocal altruism" in this passage I quoted earlier:
We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is rec ...[text shortened]... you want to bitch about someone saying altruism evolved recently, I'm the wrong target.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere are, for example, 250,000 year old axe heads, and evidence of controlled fire usage over 300,000 years ago. It's hardly "nothing, nothing, BAM"!
Given that date, seems rather sudden. Nothing, nothing, BAM.
However, the history of man seems closer to >10,000 years. That phenomena almost fits the definition of punctuated equil-whatchyamacallit.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, you can't have "recorded" history without writing and that happened somewhere around 5000 years ago.
[b]That a light switch flipped at some point 100,000 years ago and we decided magically to form 100-person groups?
Out of mild curiousity, at what point does recorded human history begin?[/b]
Archaeological discoveries suggest that Egyptian hieroglyphs may be the oldest form of writing. The earliest evidence of an Egyptian hieroglyphic system is believed to be from about 3300 or 3200 bc. The Sumerians of Mesopotamia also were writing before 3000 bc.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573431_2/Writing.html