that dawkins, what'll he come up with next??

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Go out in the sunshine!

Nah, im going to the cinema later. For now I'm eating an apple. Mmm, apple.

Now I come to think about, just defining it as being "to the point of it being a selective disadvantage" makes your claim true, but tautological, because it's all in the definition. It's useful only insofar as we can almost certainly say that the altruism you commonly find amongst humans can't be "to the point of it being a selective disadvantage", because it hasn't been weeded out.

Well, that seems to imply that the current generation of humans is the finished product, which I know I don't need to tell you isn't true. Although you specify "commonly find amongst humans". Bear in mind my comment that started this was:

Zillah wrote:

In principle. I'm sure there's loads of people that go way too far in their altruism, far more than is selfishly justifiable. In a few hundred thousand years I'm sure they'd be picked off by natural selection.

"Loads" in the sense of "hundreds of thousands around the world" rather than loads in the statistical sense. Either way, I didn't mean the sort of altruism that people show day to day. I was refering to the kind of people that give big loans to their "friends" and never get them back, that Siberian farmer who gave too many potatoes to that family he's never going to see again or the Buddhist monk who gives money to children in an inner city despite the fact that he really needs that money to live. I'm sure in a spiritual sense he feels great but its not neccessarily an evolutionarily stable strategy.

Now its arguable that these kinds of acts are indeed the kind of thing that evolution has programmed, but I'd say its more likely that they are examples of altruism gone too far. Bear in mind, altruism is not binary, its a scale. You could have a guy who never ever shares money or knowledge, that girl who shares sometimes, and that lunatic who gives everything away. I'd say the girl is what was successful in evolutionary terms, the others are erroneous expressions of the altruistic tendency (or lack thereof).

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Nah, im going to the cinema later. For now I'm eating an apple. Mmm, apple.

And I have websites to build. Yurg, websites.

Zillah wrote:

Well, that seems to imply that the current generation of humans is the finished product, which I know I don't need to tell you isn't true. Although you specify "commonly find amongst humans". Bear in mind my comment that started this was:

"Loads" in the sense of "hundreds of thousands around the world" rather than loads in the statistical sense. Either way, I didn't mean the sort of altruism that people show day to day. I was refering to the kind of people that give big loans to their "friends" and never get them back, that Siberian farmer who gave too many potatoes to that family he's never going to see again or the Buddhist monk who gives money to children in an inner city despite the fact that he really needs that money to live. I'm sure in a spiritual sense he feels great but its not neccessarily an evolutionarily stable strategy.

Now its arguable that these kinds of acts are indeed the kind of thing that evolution has programmed, but I'd say its more likely that they are examples of altruism gone too far. Bear in mind, altruism is not binary, its a scale. You could have a guy who never ever shares money or knowledge, that girl who shares sometimes, and that lunatic who gives everything away. I'd say the girl is what was successful in evolutionary terms, the others are erroneous expressions of the altruistic tendency (or lack thereof).

OK. Most of the problem is with looking at altruism not from a selfish point of view, but asking how it benefits the individual in isolation. Altruism is, I think, clearly something that works only in a group setting.

That said, I don't think it need be a small or regular group - I think altruism works in larger settings like cities - first, because we actually trace quite limited paths through cities, and second, because an altruistic example encourages altruism in others. A city with 50% altruists is going to be a much nicer place to live than somewhere with 1% altruists.

How does that benefit the individual? It may not do so, directly, but the likelihood is, I would argue, that it will benefit his genetic line.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Yes, in so far as there is no universal concrete moral standards, but this doesn't have to lead to moral relativism - where anything goes if it feels right for that society i.e. slavery, cliteridectomy or whatever. We don't need universal moral truths to engage in a rational objective discourse between different cultures and their morals (objective in the sense that we should suspend our own moral judgement i.e. how you feel , to permit a rational dialogue in the first place). I don't think it a simple case of what feels right (Zillah) and thats it, rational discourse (which can include looking at scientific facts about certain practices) can inform certain cultures about practices that feel right to them now, but given the facts might not feel right to them anymore. I suppose it may be as much a matter of diplomacy as it is rational discussion but so be it.

Not quite sure if I'm following you here, but my response would be that the fact that you can convince someone to agree with your moral position doesn't make you right. It just means you both agree now. Neither of you is right. People convincing each other of their moral positions does not preclude moral relativism.

moral relativism (whatever one feels like doing well then they can do)

Uh, that would be moral anarchy or a lack of morality. Moral relativity states that there is no objective basis for morality. Thats it. It is the opposite of Objective Morality.

Redefining moral relativism as "do whatever you feel like" is a grossly unhelpful thing to do; its a moral position itself.

What i meant by real morality is I suppose just the middleground the book above tries to take, i called it 'real' because just because there is not morals written in stone somewhere doesn't mean we cant have real morality (a typical dennettian strategy)

You're using "real morality" in your definition for real morality. None the less, I think I understand your position considering the misrepresentation of moral relativism above.

What about culture and technology, in a 100-500 years we could give these guys artificial hearts. And altruistic behaviour - in one generation an idea could come a long and negate any genetic predisposition to altruistic behaviour.

As I've argued at great length in another thread, I think humanity's future is going to be determined technologically rather than evolutionarily. For all intents and purposes, our evolution is pretty much over. A few hundred thousand years from now we'll most likely either be extinct or existing in a form beyond our current fleshy existence, both probably due to technology

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

How does that benefit the individual? It may not do so, directly, but the likelihood is, I would argue, that it will benefit his genetic line.

Well, we could look at it from a more economic or even gambler's point of view. If you buy someone a drink, thats a very minor investment on your part, but its quite likely to pay back even more; you may have the beginings of a lifelong friendship. But if we think of a working class person who gives 80% of their income to charity, the payback from that is highly, highly unlikely to be anywhere near what that income spent otherwise would have returned. Now, while the 80% charity donor might be an extreme example, it does serve as an example of what I would consider "too altruistic"*.

EDIT: *NOT a moral statement. An observation in terms of evolutionary stable strategies.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Well, we could look at it from a more economic or even gambler's point of view. If you buy someone a drink, thats a very minor investment on your part, but its quite likely to pay back even more; you may have the beginings of a lifelong friendship. But if we think of a working class person who gives 80% of their income to charity, the payback from that is highly, highly unlikely to be anywhere near what that income spent otherwise would have returned. Now, while the 80% charity donor might be an extreme example, it does serve as an example of what I would consider "too altruistic"*.

EDIT: *NOT a moral statement. An observation in terms of evolutionary stable strategies.

Fair enough. However, as you pointed out, altruism is a spectrum. If it's a spectrum, and genetic, then it is highly unlikely to be eliminated by natural selection, since too high an 'altruism setting' is probably the result of a particular combination of genes. "Carriers" would be generous, but not too altruistic, and so the high-altruism gene is unlikely to eliminated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lookinforpicnic

Zillah wrote:

It just means you both agree now. Neither of you is right.

Yeah sure.

Zillah wrote:

Uh, that would be moral anarchy or a lack of morality. Moral relativity states that there is no objective basis for morality. Thats it. It is the opposite of Objective Morality.

Redefining moral relativism as "do whatever you feel like" is a grossly unhelpful thing to do; its a moral position itself.

Yeah i did misrepresent it a bit alright with what i said in the brackets, I had in mind extreme moral relativism where anything done (raping, murdering) by another culture is taking as beyond rational criticism, because there is no underlying objective moral code and thus (as argued) no objective basis for one culture to express criticism to another.

Zillah wrote:

As I've argued at great length in another thread, I think humanity's future is going to be determined technologically rather than evolutionarily. For all intents and purposes, our evolution is pretty much over. A few hundred thousand years from now we'll most likely either be extinct or existing in a form beyond our current fleshy existence, both probably due to technology

Yeah i agree. Edit ..if by evolutionary you mean genetic evolution.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Fair enough. However, as you pointed out, altruism is a spectrum. If it's a spectrum, and genetic, then it is highly unlikely to be eliminated by natural selection, since too high an 'altruism setting' is probably the result of a particular combination of genes. "Carriers" would be generous, but not too altruistic, and so the high-altruism gene is unlikely to eliminated.

Well, we're really getting into the nitty gritty of it now, so unless someone can link us to a study on the nature of the genetic inheritence of altruistic tendencies then we're mostly up in the air.

Lets say A is a gene that causes a small amount of altruism, B is a gene that causes the ideal amount, and C causes way too much, then B is likely to take prominence. It works out the exact same if we say "gene combination A", "gene combination B" etc.

Why would you assert that the factors for "too altrusitic" would be free of natural selection when there are thousands of traits of the human body all of which are determined by subtle combinations of genes? More and more they are discovering that genes have multiple, and often unrelated, functions which are entirely dependent upon the presence of other specific genes. These traits are no more immune to natural selection than others, why is the overly-altruistic inheritence?

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Well, we're really getting into the nitty gritty of it now, so unless someone can link us to a study on the nature of the genetic inheritence of altruistic tendencies then we're mostly up in the air.

Lets say A is a gene that causes a small amount of altruism, B is a gene that causes the ideal amount, and C causes way too much, then B is likely to take prominence. It works out the exact same if we say "gene combination A", "gene combination B" etc.

Why would you assert that the factors for "too altrusitic" would be free of natural selection when there are thousands of traits of the human body all of which are determined by subtle combinations of genes? More and more they are discovering that genes have multiple, and often unrelated, functions which are entirely dependent upon the presence of other specific genes. These traits are no more immune to natural selection than others, why is the overly-altruistic inheritence?

Hmm. Say Altruism Gene A gives you 10% altruism, B gives you 25%. Assume that anything over, say, 45% altruism is deleterious, and that the gene effects are additive:

AA = 20%
AB = 35%
BB = 50%

An AB/AB cross will give you the following children (according to the 'one black, one white, and two khaki' rule):

1 x AA, 2 x AB, 1 x BB

So AB carriers are quite likely to persist in the population, because only BB's suffer from the ill-effects of too much altruism - so while they are more likely to be "eliminated", the B gene is not. Increase the number of genes involved, and the effects are ever more subtle.

If the BB survives, and breeds even with an AB, we get 2 x AB carriers, and 2 x BB 'defectives' - so the BB can still give rise to a gene line that doesn't suffer from excessive altruism. If the BB breeds with an AA, all their children will be AB carriers, and at no disadvantage compared to the general population.

Obviously, if, say, anything under 25% altruism were also deleterious (and why not?), then any given population will almost certainly consist mainly of AB carriers - that is to say, people who are reasonably altruistic - with small numbers both of excessively altruistic and excessively mean people. Curiously, that is not far from the real position!

cordially,
Scofflaw

lookinforpicnic

Scofflaw wrote:

then any given population will almost certainly consist mainly of AB carriers - that is to say, people who are reasonably altruistic - with small numbers both of excessively altruistic and excessively mean people. Curiously, that is not far from the real position!

Its also very irrational to be in either end of the spectrum:p

robindch

> [...] someone can link us to a study on the nature of the genetic
> inheritence of altruistic tendencies [...]

Sounds like you're looking for William Hamilton's theory of kin selection at the gene level, and Robert Trivers and John Maynard-Smith's theory of reciprocal altruism.

A short overview to these is here and a longer one is here.

Zillah

Well, a family with all AAs will have no deliterious effects due to BBs getting picked off by natural selection, while family's with some ABs will occasionally lose a sibling to BB.

Hence, would the AA's not eventually out breed the ABs and BBs? I concede it would take a long time for all the ABs to vanish but they'd become quite scarce relatively quickly.

Bearing in mind that the vast majority of birth defects and genetic diseases are caused when we get two carriers for Z ("ZZ" being required for a manifestation of the condition) have a child.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Well, a family with all AAs will have no deliterious effects due to BBs getting picked off by natural selection, while family's with some ABs will occasionally lose a sibling to BB.

Hence, would the AA's not eventually out breed the ABs and BBs? I concede it would take a long time for all the ABs to vanish but they'd become quite scarce relatively quickly.

Bearing in mind that the vast majority of birth defects and genetic diseases are caused when we get two carriers for Z ("ZZ" being required for a manifestation of the condition) have a child.

That would assume that AA's preferentially breed with AA's - unlikely, particularly with all the evidence that people tend to be attracted to those whose immunes systems and genetics are different from their own.

In addition, it's quite possible (as suggested above) that too llittle altruism is also deleterious, so AA's would also be at a disadvantage compared to the AB's.

Again, rates of birth defects are, I think, relatively steady in natural populations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

That would assume that AA's preferentially breed with AA's

I don't see how? Lets assume that they breed regardless of their AA/AB/BB status. Those who are free of B entirely are likely to out breed those who include B in their pool.

In addition, it's quite possible (as suggested above) that too llittle altruism is also deleterious, so AA's would also be at a disadvantage compared to the AB's.

A technicality only introduced by your arbitrary percentages above. In theory I could suggest percentages that fit seamlessly with what I'm proposing. Hell, you said 50% or over is bad, lets say 15% or below is also bad.

Again, rates of birth defects are, I think, relatively steady in natural populations.

In evolutionary timescales I'd doubt that. Is this based on anything?

DeVore

But that is another debate. On the topic, I'm not aware of any evidence for a human genetic predisposition for altruism...

There are perfectly explainable genetic reason for "Altruism". The book The Selfish Gene has a few chapters on it. Genetics is not about survival of the fittest species, not even about survival of fittest individual. Its about the pairing of genes into groups with higher probabilities of progressing to the next host.

Parents are altruistic towards their kids because genes that group with genes that make you do that, are more sucessful in being passed along because kdis have a higher chance of surviving and reproducing then their parents. Plus they have a higher chance of surivival if their parents give a **** about them, possibly to the point of laying down their lives for them.

DeV.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

I don't see how? Lets assume that they breed regardless of their AA/AB/BB status. Those who are free of B entirely are likely to out breed those who include B in their pool.

A technicality only introduced by your arbitrary percentages above. In theory I could suggest percentages that fit seamlessly with what I'm proposing. Hell, you said 50% or over is bad, lets say 15% or below is also bad.

Sure. Essentially, there are plenty of possible setups - AA best, AB best, BB best, effects multiplicative rather than additive etc.

The reason I propose the version I do is that:

1. heterozygous combinations of genes appear to be fitter than homozygous - the phenomenon called "hybrid vigour".

2. there is no evidence that human altruism has either increased or decreased in recorded history, which suggests a stable setup.

Zillah wrote:

In evolutionary timescales I'd doubt that. Is this based on anything?

Largely on the basis that several quite common birth defects are homozygous, where the heterozygous state provides an advantage. These are therefore evolutionarily stable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

2. there is no evidence that human altruism has either increased or decreased in recorded history, which suggests a stable setup.

1 - Human history is a proverbial drop in the ocean of evolutionary time. Its like saying that plate tectonics don't change the face of the planet because that local hill you know hasn't changed in your lifetime.

2 - Even if human altruism had increased or decreased in our recorded history, it wouldn't neccessarily be detectable given the nature of the subject. Besides, social trends are more likely to dictate how altruistic a given generation of humanity behaves. While I have no doubt genetics provide the potential for altruism, like anything else, nurture must play a part.

3 - One could actually make a good argument for an increase in human altruism over our recorded history. This is made mostly moot in terms of genetics by point 2 above, but considering social welfare, charities and generally benevolent democracy we're definately being nicer to each other than the time of say, the Aztecs or the Roman Empire.


This has to be one of the most rammbling discussions I've ever had...

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

1 - Human history is a proverbial drop in the ocean of evolutionary time. Its like saying that plate tectonics don't change the face of the planet because that local hill you know hasn't changed in your lifetime.

True, but for things like altrusim, it's all we're going to have evidence for.

Zillah wrote:

2 - Even if human altruism had increased or decreased in our recorded history, it wouldn't neccessarily be detectable given the nature of the subject. Besides, social trends are more likely to dictate how altruistic a given generation of humanity behaves. While I have no doubt genetics provide the potential for altruism, like anything else, nurture must play a part.

True - they'd be almost impossible to disentangle. Back to twin studies - if there are any.

Zillah wrote:

3 - One could actually make a good argument for an increase in human altruism over our recorded history. This is made mostly moot in terms of genetics by point 2 above, but considering social welfare, charities and generally benevolent democracy we're definately being nicer to each other than the time of say, the Aztecs or the Roman Empire.

It's almost impossible to tell whether social welfare is genuinely kindly, or an instrument of social control.

Zillah wrote:

This has to be one of the most rammbling discussions I've ever had...

That's because neither of us can actually prove our contentions (which aren't terribly different anyway), but we're both argumentative buggers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ron_darrell

And why is it not possible for an individual to be more 'grown up' than a species? Species depend on generalisations, their activities are to promote the growth, expansion and continued development of the species and will often do so at any cost even when the activities involved will in the long run lead to the extinction of the species. Species are dumb - individuals are capable of seeing the big picture.

Humans as a species are like a natural disaster only more damaging. A storm or an earthquake (generally) have a small circle of damage. Humans are a plague across the planet. The real problm is that we have outgrown all of our competitors and we have no real containment criteria. In the wild, herbivores are contained by carnivores; carnivores by the size of the herbivore population. We will eat anything; and are capable of making food from quite literally dirt.

There has never been anything like us and the sooner we come to terms with that and say ok we're unique and we need to control ourselves the better; not only for us; but for all life on this world. Now there are two ways this can happen. We can grow up and start thinking ahead. Or we can accelerate the self destruction in which case we will be gone in a very short (lifespan of the planet term of time) time.

Personally, I'd prefer the first option but I don't have sufficient faith in humankind to believe that will be the option we choose.

-RD

Zillah

ron_darrell wrote:

And why is it not possible for an individual to be more 'grown up' than a species?

Because "grown up" doesn't mean anything?

Or we can accelerate the self destruction in which case we will be gone in a very short (lifespan of the planet term of time) time.

Sensationalist nonesense. Short of a nuclear holocaust our survival on this planet is almost guaranteed to last until we leave it behind altogether.

And unlike you I think that humanity is by far the best thing to come out of this rock in space and if our survival means leaving it behind in a flaming mess then so be it. Obviously I'd like if that wasn't neccessary, but I think its foolishness of the highest order to imply that any other species or the planet itself are somehow more worthy or deserving of existence than we are.

Omellete. Broken eggs. Delicious.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Sensationalist nonesense. Short of a nuclear holocaust our survival on this planet is almost guaranteed to last until we leave it behind altogether.

And unlike you I think that humanity is by far the best thing to come out of this rock in space and if our survival means leaving it behind in a flaming mess then so be it. Obviously I'd like if that wasn't neccessary, but I think its foolishness of the highest order to imply that any other species or the planet itself are somehow more worthy or deserving of existence than we are.

Omellete. Broken eggs. Delicious.

So every other living organism on the planet is just "broken eggs"? Nice for them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

If it comes to it, yes. Every single time I will choose the future of humanity over any other species on this planet.

Is it not so with you?

pinksoir

ron_darrell wrote:

And why is it not possible for an individual to be more 'grown up' than a species? Species depend on generalisations, their activities are to promote the growth, expansion and continued development of the species and will often do so at any cost even when the activities involved will in the long run lead to the extinction of the species. Species are dumb - individuals are capable of seeing the big picture.

-RD

that is a rather narrow-minded and unreflective look at the human race. i suggest you read 'the wisdom of crowds'

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

it's pretty enlightening with regards to what you are saying there.

or even 'tipping point'
http://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316316962

which deals with the complexities of human behaviour.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

If it comes to it, yes. Every single time I will choose the future of humanity over any other species on this planet.

Is it not so with you?

In an absolute sense, yes, just as I would choose my future over anyone else's. However, it leaves unasked the huge questions - how much humanity, what kind of future, what sort of choice?

I would not choose the increased comfort of humanity over the lives of others, any more than I would kill you in order to obtain a better seat on a crowded train. Nevertheless, there are people to whom "choosing humanity's future over that of other species" justifies exactly that.

So, while I agree with you in one sense, I disagree with the artificially dramatised, sweeping, binary, and above all, unthinkingly violent form in which the choice is put.

watchfully,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

any more than I would kill you in order to obtain a better seat on a crowded train.

WEAK!!

So, while I agree with you in one sense, I disagree with the artificially dramatised, sweeping, binary, and above all, unthinkingly violent form in which the choice is put.

watchfully,
Scofflaw

Well, it was mostly a knee jerk reaction to the previous poster. I truly loathe the whole "humanity is a plague" notion.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Well, it was mostly a knee jerk reaction to the previous poster. I truly loathe the whole "humanity is a plague" notion.

Fair enough. On the other hand, while it's a silly emotive position, he's quite correct from a scientific (ecology) point of view. Human activity does have similar impact levels on natural ecosystems to natural disasters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Or if you enjoyed The Matrix - humanity is but a parasite, living off the planet.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Human activity does have similar impact levels on natural ecosystems to natural disasters.

Yes but I prioritise humanity above that ecosystem. In my view, if a planet can be ascribed any sort of goal or purpose it is to produce a sentient species that will out live it.

Obviously its just an opinion.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Yes but I prioritise humanity above that ecosystem. In my view, if a planet can be ascribed any sort of goal or purpose it is to produce a sentient species that will out live it.

It can't be ascribed any sort of purpose, except through the operation of faith.

Zillah wrote:

Obviously its just an opinion.

And one that puts you in almost exactly the same boat as other believers, who also regard the world as a stage on which the human drama is playing.

We are one species in a planetary ecosystem. We have, for the moment, absolutely no idea how we would reach and colonise another planet en masse. This is not a stage, this is our home, and filling it with filth for no better reason that we can't be bothered to clean up our act is unbelievably stupid.

Our lives are no more a dress rehearsal for the human conquest of the universe than they are for Heaven. You are living now, not in some future utopia that we may never reach - and that means that your responsibilities are here and now too.

"..ah, the brave music of a distant drum.."

cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

Our lives are no more a dress rehearsal for the human conquest of the universe than they are for Heaven. You are living now, not in some future utopia that we may never reach - and that means that your responsibilities are here and now too.

Not a John Travolta fan I see.

Very well said.

/edit thought I better explain for people not up to scratch with idiotdom

John Travolta wrote:

"It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.

"Everyone can do their bit. But I don't know if it's not too late already.

robindch

> "..ah, the brave music of a distant drum.."

"oh, the brave music... "

There's a BBC reading of the Rubaiyat here:

http://www.foobar.org/robin/rubaiyat-sam-dastor.mp3

...for anybody interested -- regulars who don't know it may enjoy it.

.