Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Self-serving? Um... yeah. That's evolution in action. An organism acts in ways that favor the success of its genes. Giving a hand to, for example, my village neighbor, helps the village, which is the setting in which my progeny live. This assistance is more likely than not to have a beneficial result on the environment in which my progeny live.
Self-serving? Um... yeah. That's evolution for you. Altruism works because as a whole it is ultimately self-serving (from the point of view of Dawkins' Selfish Gene).
All right, if you want to characterize the evolutionary basis for altruism as "Gawd of the Gaps" then I'll stop wasting my time trying to lead you to useful information, as you asked. You either have no idea what that means, of you're just dismissing something because you've rejected it before knowing anything about you.
Your problem, not mine.
What's with all the anger? Are you demonstrating altruism? Why engage in the thread with a chip on your shoulder? It's not life and death.
That book is just an attempted gap-filler, nothing personal.
What does "evolution does not teach altruism" mean?
If you're wondering how altruism evolved, there are lots of benefits to it. Starting with the reasons why animals live in groups, passing through kin selection and ending at complex heirarchies and breeding rights.
I 'am having some trouble deciphering altruism. Evolution does not teach altruism or does it? Altruism does not demonstrate/reflect survival of the fittest. This is a dog eat dog world, fight or flight where does altruism fit into this? Is altruism some type of woo? They are saying it's found in nature . This is counter-evolutionary. Life knows it's good to be the king. Is altruism the basis for all religions?
No, spiritual growth is the root of all religions, which allows us to become humans from animal origins. It is what makes us humane.
I wonder after reading your question and comments:
Do you walk about naked and defecate where the urge strikes you? When you are hungry, to you pounce on the first edible thing that comes your way? Are you the fittest? If so, does that mean when you weaken it will be okay with you if some other stronger animal pounces on you? How will it feel to you to be devoured by another? Satisfied that your philosophy bears fruit?
The survival of the fittest philosophy doesn't hold up under scrutiny. For ever person here that decries it as his or her creed I will show you a person that uses artificial means to stake their claim in life. If you are of that ilk, I pity you for the future you have ahead of you.
When I 'am weakest I will be devoured......Can't speak for the next guy but I never want to be a useless eater.
Isn't it selfish to consume more resources than one generates? How do we justify this? How does one justify consuming resources when one "statistically" has outstayed or simply has no planetary usefulness."
btw: I like community living and I know altruistic behaviors are necessary, these behaviors seem to require some teaching with positive and negative re-enforcements ie. +/-capitalism, shunning etc. which leads back to self-survival.
If you're wondering how altruism evolved, there are lots of benefits to it. Starting with the reasons why animals live in groups, passing through kin selection and ending at complex heirarchies and breeding rights.
But don't humans sometimes exhibit altruistic behavior that goes way beyond social cooperation? What about the thousands who turn out to try to save a beached whale?
The fact is we have the capability to experience compassion. I am not sure I can see how this might have evolved, although I would say it is fairly plain it is not related to religious impulses.
But don't humans sometimes exhibit altruistic behavior that goes way beyond social cooperation? What about the thousands who turn out to try to save a beached whale?
The fact is we have the capability to experience compassion. I am not sure I can see how this might have evolved, although I would say it is fairly plain it is not related to religious impulses.
What do you mean teach? Evolution is just the subject of how the life currently on earth came to be. It does not technically "teach" anything any more than the Theory of Gravity teaches you how to play football.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
Altruism does not demonstrate/reflect survival of the fittest. This is a dog eat dog world, fight or flight where does altruism fit into this?
Yet which do you think would survive better in this "dog eat dog" world? A pack of 20 dogs who only look out for each other and that is all? Or a pack of 20 dogs who have each others back, look out for each other, work together and so forth? And if another such pack back had all that but also had the ability for any one individual to at any time sacrifice itself for the good of the pack how much better would IT fare than the previous two?
Altruism is not as counter evolutionary as you think. Alas the phrase "survival of the fittest" tends to obfuscate the operations of evolution to the common reader and even what "fittest" means is opaque to many many people. Too often people think "fittest" means fastest, biggest, strongest and so forth when often it means anything but.
"A buffalo herd will respond to the distress call of a captured member and try to rescue it." It's perfectly natural evolved behavior as expressed in the Golden Rule. Justice systems and religions are simply evolutionary morality systematized.
The demonstration that animals show helpful behavior when it in some way enhances their personal reproductive success is one thing, but human beings (and maybe other animals) also show such behavior when personal reproductive considerations are nowhere around, as with the human mass turnout to save a beached whale that I mentioned in the last message but which you did not respond to.
The articles cited were brief and unsupported by rigor. It is one thing to assert that our justice system and our religions derive from a systematizing of something called "evolutionary morality," but the demonstrations are hardly persuasive and seem to just consist of speculation, and the examples never got away from situations where personal reproductive success was involved.
I do not doubt that much of what we deem morality is instinctual, and that of our morality which is instinctual no doubt evolved under natural selection. This does not even begin to explain the outrage we feel at an injustice, or the pain we feel in compassion with suffering, or the revulsion we feel at the tactics of a sadistic bully.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. This is counter-evolutionary. Life knows it's good to be the king. Is altruism the basis for all religions?
