morality, charity according to evolution

we're no longer really in competition with anything. but again, this doesn't affect history. we are great hunters. once upon a time we were in competition with great hunters. now, we aren't. but when we were, we lived in small groups and the idea was to ensure the survival of the group and to be better at hunting than, say, lions.so now we no longer have competition and we've become idiots enraged with our technology and all we do is kill everything around us.none of this affects the fact that once upon a time we evolved altruism in order to ensure the continuation of the species. but we're not alone. many mammals adopt orphaned offspring and such things. our societies and morals built from these norms and now they have extended from simple group altruism to good samaritan parables. it went from biological evolution to cultural evolution.

Yep. And more adept at avoiding being hunted by... This is IMO pretty clearly where the biological basis of altruism evolved. Especially each other. This is where I disagree, I think. Altruistic behavior evolved probably to insure continuation of our own individual genetic legacy - which was extended early on to the genes of our close kin (google on Trivers, "reciprocal altruism"). We have not yet come close to anything resembling an instinctual (not really the right word) desire to continue the species.Beyond the kin level, altruism today is still pretty much limited to identity-groups (nationstate, religion, girl scout troop, etc). Even supposed "extreme acts" of altruism (the person who jumps in the river to save the complete stranger) can be explained as representing a cultural altruism limited to place: sort of "this guy is in my {space}, therefore is a member of my group, therefore should be saved". I'm not sure I can back this up with hard science, but to me it is a natural extension of the kin selection/cultural group selection model. Just a bit larger scale. Yep, I think that's what I just finished saying. However, we are far from the "species altruism" you allude to. Hmm, it's Monday. I think I'll go bomb Liberia.

It's a low expectation of life? That I realize that I want to pass on my legacy? We name sons after ourselves, passing our name on. Why do people get so distraught about cathching (mumps, or is it measles? you know, the disease that kills most people's chances at reproducing)By the way, I happen to be very optimistic about life, and I don't get myself stressed out easily (rather, I try to avoid stress).

well. the purpose of the altruism is to further the species, immaterial of the fact that we only exercise it within groups. if our group survives, thus the species. the altruism needn't be expressed species-wide.

Furthering the species cannot ever be considered a selective force. While I agree group selection is a strong force in human evolution and very likely needed to explain the evolution of morality, 'for the good of the species' arguments are examples of the missuse of group selection. It simply works by the differential survival of groups having an impact on the genetic composition of the population. No animal has ever been selected to perform any behavior for the good of its species.

read the rest of the post.

quote:

---

Uhhhh.....you've never heard of a bird? Or a humpback whale?

---

What? You're comparing an animals language (which may or may not equate to a language in humans by singing) to human beings playing instruments? So if I played certain chords on a guitar, you'd know what I'm communicating to you? If I played a drum beat, you'd know that I'm saying to you, "Hey, lets go eat some pizza"? This isn't even remotely comparable. This argument does nothing to support the argument that music equates to an evolving language, especially when we already have languages. If you were to say that ;anguage is evolving, then there would be some semblance of veracity. But music doesn't fit the criteria at all. Music is spiritual. That isn't something that language could ever aptly portray in words. If music speaks to us, it speaks to us on an individual and spiritual level. I think everyone could agree with that even if they didn't ascribe to any theistic beliefs.To add to the overall argument: Morals fit nowhere in the evolutionary paradigm. Helping dying people detracts from your own sense of self-preservation, which Darwinism is totally based upon. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing competitors.... These sinful notions is what Darwinsim is all about. The fact that any of you are arguing that point is hysterical because it completely undermines everything you assert about evolution as it pertains to the animal kingdom.This message has been edited by nemesis_juggernaut, 05-09-2006 09:15 AM

I don't know about morality - there are some open threads on that. However, I think you are incorrect on altruism. We can certainly see genetically-based (i.e., subject to evolutionary processes) altruism in just about all eusocial/social species, including humans, to a greater or lesser extent. Have you been following the discussion on group selection between EZScience and Crashfrog on the Humans are Losing thread? An interesting read, regardless of which side you come down on.The principle of intra- and inter-specific competition for resources (what you term "lying, cheating, stealing") is certainly a major part of evolution. Chiro will, I think, be addressing this in more detail in the discussion you and he are having. However, once any kind of "cooperative" behavior evolves (i.e., social behavior), in-goup competition is significantly lessened. Game theory quite nicely demonstrates why this occurs and how it could have evolved (google on "iterated prisoner's dilemma" for instance). Out-group behavior, of course, remains highly competitive.In simplified terms, the more complex the available behavioral options, the larger and more diffuse the "in-group" definition can be. From the genetically hard-wired rigid caste system of eusocial insects, to the highly diffuse social system of humans, there is a continuum of increasingly complex and cooperative behavior, and lessening in-group competition. One down side is that, because human behavior is so complex (blame it on big brains and large populations), and so diffuse, we have less capability of dealing effectively with "cheaters". However, be that as it may, evolution provides a quite reasonable explanation for the development of altruism - even extreme altruism (i.e., self-sacrifice) - intially at a biological evolution level, and ultimately at a cultural evolution level.IOW, altruism is perfectly consistent with our understanding of evolutionary processes.

quote:

---

Game theory quite nicely demonstrates why this occurs and how it could have evolved (google on "iterated prisoner's dilemma" for instance).

---

The iteration is important, of course. One of the initial problems with reconciling altruism with the theory of evolution is that perfect altruism is unstable. If you had a tribe of perfect altruists and a tribe of non-altruists, then it is possible that the altruistic tribe will do better than the non-altruistic tribe.However, if a mutation causes a non-altruist to arise in the altruistic tribe, then usually the non-altruist will have a reproductive advantage - it will have the benefits of getting help from others without the cost of actually helping others herself.The solution is that perfect altruists do not exist (except, perhaps, as individuals among humans). The individuals of any cooperative species can identify and retaliate against cheaters, and this is the essential point that makes altruism stable in real populations.I first read about this in a long ago article in Scientific American in connection with Robert Axelrod who I believe did a lot to develop the theory, although I don't know whether he is the one who first came up with the solution.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

The concept was really fleshed out by Maynard Smith who defined Evolutionary Stable Strategy by applying game theory to evolution. The links go into more detail.

"Spiritual." What does that mean? That you're haunted?

Is this post "Some Random Thoughts" Coragyps?

Yep. ESS is how game theory translates to real populations (i.e., evolution). I didn't think there was need (yet?) to get into it unless NJ can go a bit further on this topic than he's been able to manifest with genetics.Edited to change title before Nosey sees it and spanks me for non-descriptive topic titles.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-09-2006 11:56 AM

Is this post "some random thoughts" Mod?

I did. I don't have any problem with rest of it, only when you talk about a 'purpose' for altruism related to the good of the species. You then put it into a reasonable context of group selection, but we need to remember that 20-30 yrs ago the concept of group selection was badly missued to explain a lot of traits based on 'good for the species' arguments. I don't want to be a stickler, but it was just your choice of words in the initial sentence I felt compelled to correct.