T
tonyrey
Guest
If that were true the law of the jungle wouldn’t exist…
It also implies that we cannot/do not choose to be altruistic…
- Status
It also implies that we cannot/do not choose to be altruistic…
M
minkymurph
Guest
Your arguments are not unlike Rousseau’s. Rousseau argued humans can be incredibly benevolent, but are also self interested.
I think we do have a dual nature in the sense we have a nice side and one that is not so nice. I buy into Rousseau’s arguments in terms of explaining human nature to an extent. His argues man’s ‘state of nature’ is one in which he is a solitary being living off the land, and reciprocity was a consequence of the establishment of civilizations and trade, and ‘protecting what is our’s’ was came about once we acquired property rights, and the the greatest cause of conflict is acquisition of land or territory and competition for resources.
I would buy a lot of Rousseau’s arguments and thus would say altruism and reciprocity are a result of evolution, but social not biological. It has been established the manner in which genes manifest their effects is intrinsically linked to our upbringing and society. The ‘warrior gene’ is one example. It has also been argued the desire to be a ‘hero’ is endemic in men as a result of social conditioning and may explain why some have a need to be ‘rescuers.’
O
o_mlly
Guest
Some? Does the child come out of the womb with any altruistic DNA? When the child feels discomfort, ie, hunger, cold, cramps – does the child before seeking relief ask itself, “Has mom had enough sleep? Do my sibs need mom more than I?” No, the shrill wailing begins immediately.
Becoming oriented to the other’s needs instead of self is a learned behavior and purely a rational act. Selfishness is our evolved condition; selflessness is our learned condition. We call it by its more familiar name – virtue.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Have you been listening to me talking to my guinea-pigs?
B
Bradski
Guest
There isn’t just one law. Sometimes the Law of the Jungle wins out. Sometimes the bad guy wins. Sometimes the better angels of our nature lose out. Sometimes might is right.
It is absolutely certain that a lot of our direct ancestors would have been exactly the type of person you would not like to meet down a dark alley. Or in the recesses of a damp cave.
But if all our ancestors were like that, none of us would be here now. So altruistic behaviour and empathy obviously wins out in the long run. But that doesn’t mean that what we describe as bad traits simply die out.
And you can choose not to be altruistic if you like. But you can’t choose not to feel a need to be altruistic. Just like you can choose not to eat sweet things, but you can’t choose not to want to.
I
inocente
Guest
Not sure that’s valid, since behaviors get switched on. Presumably a little girl doesn’t have much of a suckling response before leaving the womb, and doesn’t dream of non-threatening boys until closer to puberty. But neither are learned behaviors, and altruism could also be switched on, by socialization. An experiment would confirm by testing socialized children against unsocialized, although obviously that would be unethical if the latter had been denied normal interaction.
B
Bradski
Guest
Yes. Absolutely. Your question is like asking if we are born with dna that makes us like sweet things. Of course we are.
It’s sometimes a difficult thing to grasp, but it wasn’t the fact that altruistic behaviour seemed to work and that therefore nature made sure it was coded into our dna. It works the other way around.
Those who, by the pure chance of the roll of the genetic dice, exhibited less behaviour which we describe as being altruistic, fared less well than those who, by pure chance, exhibited more of the same behaviour. So the genetic disposition for altruism was generally passed on and the disposition for non altruistic behaviour wasn’t.
It’s not that altruistic behaviour is developed. It’s that non-altruistic behaviour is weeded out.
Almost all humans exhibit altruism. It’s part of your nature. Just like you have a tendency to enjoy sweet and fatty foods. If you have a child, you will have passed those traits on. No child is taught to be altruistic no more than they are taught to enjoy ice cream.
And we all tell our kids to play nicely. To share their toys. To help each other. But that is not teaching altruism. It’s encouraging it.
B
Bradski
Guest
I would say that the gender roles are now conditioned, but as a result of evolutionary differences.
If you were in charge of a tribe, who would you send out to hunt? Personally, I’d make sure the ones I sent were the strongest and fastest available. If you sent a group of women out and another group of men (this in hunter gatherer times), then on average, who would be the most successful? So the guys are out huntin’ and fishin’ and the girls are at home minding the kids.
And males are generally larger and stronger because females, for a number of biological reasons, are a little more choosy than males when it comes to sex. They want a partner with some decent genes so that her offspring will have a head start in life. She’s not going to pick the weedy looking runt at the back of the pack. She’d prefer the alph male.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Did you read, “Lord of the Flies”? Subtitle: “When Boys Go Feral.”
If altruism were in our nature rather than our nurture then we would not have the Niccolo Machiavelli instruction, “Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved” (The Prince). Of course, Niccolo ancestors probably uniquely lacked the “altru” DNA.
I think human history rails against the proposition that we are (now?) born with an altruistic bent. If one thinks this altruistic nature evolved then scientifically through the historical record show us when the weeding process tipped us to prefer selflessness to selfishness. Do we have more saints today than in 2000 BC? Do we have more saints today than in 33 AD? I think the latter dating more accurate.
M
minkymurph
Guest
With respect Bradski I still think it’s a very ‘male’ argument. If this is a consequence of biological evolution as opposed to social how do we explain all the female animals that hunt, worker bees (as far as I know males lie around the hive doing nothing), and ‘stuff?’
I’m not sure the weedy looking runt in the pack would have survived long enough to acquire a ‘mate’ but I could be wrong. That said if his dad was head of the tribe he may have been attractive.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Dr. E.O. Wilson seems to very strongly disagree with that statement. He suggests we practice innate reciprocal altruism with those we perceive as “us”.
We also display distrust and hostility with those we perceive as “them”.
Verily, there is no “us” without a “them”, at least as posited in his “Social Conquest of Earth”. The two are existentially linked.
Our evolutionary “war and rivalry itch” is why many love organized sports so much. We gather in large stadiums to watch young, fit men from different “tribes” battle each other while scantily dressed young women cheer them on. It’s a simulated war ceremony - and one he attends every year in the “Iron Bowl” between the Alabama and Auburn college football teams.
“It’s not that altruistic behaviour is developed. It’s that non-altruistic behaviour is weeded out.” - this is unsupported, quasi-religious fantasy. We are as innately “bad” as we are innately “good”.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Just want to add - if you’ve ever watched the Bruce Parry ‘Tribe’ series the women in contemporary hunter/gatherer tribes are engaged in hard physical work. Children go out hunting for small animals once they are old enough, and there is not a lot of different in men and women in terms of physical stature. Certainly the men are strong - very strong - but in fact light made up as they are hunters and have to run and climb trees and stuff.
I
inocente
Guest
I’m no expert so did a quick check and:
“In 2010, E.O. Wilson announced that he no longer endorsed the kin selection theory he had developed for decades. This caused a big stir in evolutionary biologist circles. He acknowledged that according to kin theory, that altruism arises when the “giver” has a genetic stake in the game. But after a mathematical assessment of the natural world, Wilson and his colleagues at Harvard University decided that altruism evolved for the good of the community rather than for the good of individual genes. As Wilson put it, cooperating groups dominate groups who do not cooperate.” - psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism
Not sure which of you or Brad is the more up-to-date. Unless our moral cognition appeared by miracle or magic, it must have evolved in some way, but it seems the exact mechanisms are still a matter of conjecture.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
He addressed as much in the book (it was published in 2012). Essentially, all he stated was that “us” may not require a close biological relationship. Parlayed to humans, the recipient of your reciprocal altruism doesn’t have to be a close relative. They just have to return it in kind in order to promote the genes that influence your “altruism”.
He also posited that sacrifice that was not rewarded contributed to either the defection of the individual or the failure of the group on the whole - particularly in apes.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
I would agree some altruistic behaviours have to taught or at least reinforced, but we also have innate altruistic behaviours, but I’m surprised by the example you have chosen to demonstrate this. The example you have chosen in my view a very ‘western male’ one - women are the nurturers men are the protectors and providers. I have had many a debate with a ‘western male’ on this topic. There are any amount of arguments and evidence that the traditional gender roles are a product of societal conditioning, and are neither a product of evolution nor ‘God given.’
Yes, women generally find babies the cutest thing ever more than men, but generally speaking only after they have had their own. Lots of women who have not had babies do not think they are the cutest thing ever. I believe the bond between mother and child is a very unique one, and arguably the strongest human bond there is, but I think this stems from practicalities - they have them they feed them. Whilst women may think babies are cute they are also generally speaking quick to hand them back to the ‘original owner’ when they start crying.
Wow, so many great responses. Which is a shame because it’s March. Because that means that I have to force myself to stop spending so much time on this forum, and focus on outdoor activities instead. (I hate to lose) I used to be a cyclist, and I still have the old habit of putting all distractions aside at the beginning of March to focus on outdoor activities. That’s also why I tend to kill off screen names, so that even if I’m tempted to keep posting, I can make it somewhat impractical to do so.
That being said the latest responses are great because they’re tending more toward the…“okay I accept the premise, but how do you explain this then?”…type of response. Which are the type of responses that I love, because they force me to ask myself how in the heck do I explain those things. Like a lot of us inquisitive types, I love the anomalies. I want to know why in the heck things happen the way that they do. And that’s also why I can’t accept pat answers like “God did it”. To me that’s not good enough, I’m stuck in two year old mode…I constantly wanna know why.
I remember back in parochial school, one of the lay teachers explaining that some animals, like people, pair bond for life. But that animals simply do it out of instinct, while people do it because they love each other. Which didn’t make sense to me. If people behave in the same manner that animals do, then they probably do it for the same reason. Which of course leads to someone else responding…oh yeah, well what about this then?
So when someone suggests that the only way to explain morals, or altruism, or anything else, is by invoking the hand of God, then I’m immediately going to object. I don’t care what the question is, my absolute last option is going to be “God did it”. That’s not anti-theism, that’s anti-defeatism. I just won’t accept that there’s no other explanation. Maybe it’s just my competitive nature coupled with my inquisitive nature that simply won’t let me accept that there’s no other possible answer.
Like I stated at the beginning, there really are some great responses here, but I just don’t have time to answer them. But for gosh sakes keep thinking about them, and I’ll keep reading them, and biting my tongue.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Thanks for the chat, Enos. Enjoy the cycling. You might see my brother-in-law out there.
I’ve been to most of the continents on this big 'ole Earth and the concept she laid out isn’t particularly western. It’s readily observed just about everywhere. On a funny note, the Japanese kanji for simple “conflict” is three kanji for “woman” stacked in miniature.
In our species, the men are, on average, just bigger. That makes them more adept at activities that took place beyond the sight of the home-camp fire like game hunting and war. Women have participated in combat throughout history - of course. Men are just more biologically adept at it. All-female armies are practically mythical.
If we were spiders, it’d likely be the other way around. The ladies would be bigger and stronger. And they’d occasionally eat the men.
Probably should be another thread, but I couldn’t help myself.
I’ve been to most of the continents on this big 'ole Earth and the concept she laid out isn’t particularly western. It’s readily observed just about everywhere. On a funny note, the Japanese kanji for simple “conflict” is three kanji for “woman” stacked in miniature.
In our species, the men are, on average, just bigger. That makes them more adept at activities that took place beyond the sight of the home-camp fire like game hunting and war. Women have participated in combat throughout history - of course. Men are just more biologically adept at it. All-female armies are practically mythical.
If we were spiders, it’d likely be the other way around. The ladies would be bigger and stronger. And they’d occasionally eat the men.
M
minkymurph
Guest
There is an all female army currently fighting in the borders of Afghanistan - I think.Thanks for the chat, Enos. Enjoy the cycling. You might see my brother-in-law out there.
Probably should be another thread, but I couldn’t help myself.
I’ve been to most of the continents on this big 'ole Earth and the concept she laid out isn’t particularly western. It’s readily observed just about everywhere. On a funny note, the Japanese kanji for simple “conflict” is three kanji for “woman” stacked in miniature.
In our species, the men are, on average, just bigger. That makes them more adept at activities that took place beyond the sight of the home-camp fire like game hunting and war. Women have participated in combat throughout history - of course. Men are just more biologically adept at it. All-female armies are practically mythical.
If we were spiders, it’d likely be the other way around. The ladies would be bigger and stronger. And they’d occasionally eat the men.
It was a Ross Kemp documentary. Don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Ross Kemp but he does documentaries in seriously risky places.
Generally men are bigger but women are the nurturers men are providers protectors is a traditional view of gender.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I’m not familiar, but I’m sure you’re right.
Veritably, the invention of the firearm certainly removed many of the bodily advantages enjoyed by males in the perpetuity of human warfare. You need only the strength to hold it up and pull the trigger.
In fact, if it weren’t for the advent of rifles we’d all probably speak some dialect of Mongol or Turkic origin. The Khanate’s mightiest horse archer pales in comparative power to a Polish granny holding up a readied blunderbuss, as they found out.
And that view is indeed traditional. It’s found all the world over. It’s further augmented by the fact that the evolved food supply for an infant “grows” on its mother
B
Bradski
Guest
Yes. One of the first books I can remember reading when I was about 15. It had quite an effect on me. But…I must repeat what I said in an earlier post:
The competing facets of our nature (characterised by Jack and Ralph) are always there. But I think it’s obvious that had Ralph won out, then the school kids might have had a chance at survival. That Jack won out meant that that was not likely to happen.
So imagine a few hundred islands where the scenario is acted out. On one of those islands, Ralph will come out on top. Either physically or emotionally winning over the majority. On all the other islands, the kids degenerate into an uncoordinated rabble, unable to fend for themselves in the long run. They will die out. But, and this is the vitally important point, you only need one island out of those hundreds to survive and the human race survives (assuming that they had a few females amongst them as well – Golding probably thought that including girls and involving sexual tension as well would detract from the point of the story).
It was the same way back when. We didn’t flood out of Africa in the millions. There were very few. It is thought that the tribe that survived (Ralph’s tribe if you like) numbered only in the thousands. All the hundreds of other tribes suffered the same fate as Jack’s. And Jacks’ tribes were the ones where altruistic behaviour either didn’t exist or wasn’t strong enough (coupled with a litany of other characteristics) to enable them to survive and Ralph’s tribe DID posess altruistic behaviour.
That is a given because we exhibit it now and we are descended from that group.
But we’re not talking about birds and bees where there may be a greater share of the workload when it comes to feeding offspring. We are talking about human evolution. You can’t point to a penguin and say that because the female puts in just as much work as the male that it contradicts the argument that humanoid males aren’t better adapted to hunt than females.
I class myself as a feminist (I’ve been a long time getting there) but you won’t catch me fudging evolutionary facts in an attempt to be ‘politically correct’ (I nearly said ‘to appease the sisterhood’ – so maybe I’m not all the way there yet).
It undoubtedly evolved. As it says in the linked article:
“Through the development of the specific part of the brain that experiences the reward of others, social decisions and empathy-like processes may have been favored during evolution in primates to allow altruistic behaviour. “This may have evolved originally to promote being nice to family, since they share genes, and later friends, for reciprocal benefits,” says Michael Platt.”
And:
:”Science proves that our genes and our brains have evolved to be compassionate, to cooperate, and to foster community. This is common sense”.
Although some might baulk at the suggestion that it is common sense.
B
Bradski
Guest
Incidentally, it was very many years before I started thinking about Lord of The Flies as a religious allegory. I believe that Golding was an atheist. His parents certainly were.
- Status