Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 243 (310332)
05-08-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Hyroglyphx
05-08-2006 1:38 PM


Re: The evolution of morality
So, helping a man in a coma is going to affect your likelihood of survival? No.
You save the lives of two of your brothers, at the cost of your own. Based on the likelyhood of how many genes you share with them, you just doubled the number of your genes in the world compared to if you had let them die.
It's called "kin selection." In some circumstances the loss of your own life can pass on more of your genes, through your relatives, than if you were to survive at the cost of your own life.
And, too - what kind of sociopath are you that you can't see the benefit, for everybody, of cooperation? Does it really seem illogical to you that two heads are better than one? That cooperation for mutual benefit is better than short-sighted competition? Do I have to break out the game theory to prove something that should be immediately obvious?
Human beings help other human beings because they have a conscience. There is an innate quality to help those injured.
So, crimes never occur? People are never taken advantage of by other people?
You've never lied? Cheated? Stolen pens from work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-08-2006 1:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 243 (310524)
05-09-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by EZscience
05-09-2006 1:01 PM


Re: Stability of Altruism
Yes. And you might also point out the mathemetical difficulty in getting a gene for altruism to increase in frequency in a population when it starts out as a single mutation.
That doesn't strike me as difficult. It starts out as a signle mutation, yes; but the mutation is in someone's genitals, not their brain. In other words, the mutation is in several offspring before it has a chance to influence behavior. So, already, there are several related individuals with the gene who can reciprocate each other's altruism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by EZscience, posted 05-09-2006 1:01 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by EZscience, posted 05-09-2006 2:15 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 05-09-2006 4:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 243 (311036)
05-11-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
05-11-2006 12:13 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
Kin selection can't be quantified.
That's bogus. You can precisely quantify kin selection based on how many of your genes you statistically share with the kin in question. For instance, worker bees sacrifice their lives to protect the hive because the queen is an exact clone of every worker bee, so there's not a genetic difference between the offspring of a worker bee (which are sterile, actually) and the offspring the queen produces on her behalf.
Any worker sacrificing herself for the queen is a 1 to 1 equivalence, because the queen shares all her genes. There's no reduction in fitness for that behavior.
As I pointed out elsewhere, merciless killing, lying, cheating, stealing elucidates ToE, not altruism.
Could you cite a source for where those are defined and mandated within modern evolutionary theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2006 12:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2006 3:40 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 42 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2006 3:42 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2006 9:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 243 (311116)
05-11-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by EZscience
05-11-2006 3:40 PM


Re: Inclusive fitness of bees
The queen and her workers are only 50% related to one another - it is the workers that are 75% related to each other, by virtue of all having the same father who only has a single copy of all his genes (assuming the queen mates only once, which is not always true).
You're right, of course. I think my mistake was forgetting that the queen is the mother of the workers, not their sister, even though queens are promoted workers. That queen would, of course, be the queen of a new colony.
Dumb mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2006 3:40 PM EZscience has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 243 (311119)
05-11-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by kuresu
05-11-2006 3:48 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
Your dog eat dog is a business world, not in the reproductive world.
And not the natural world: dogs don't eat dogs!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 3:48 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2006 9:37 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 243 (311246)
05-11-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
05-11-2006 9:37 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
Altruism is a selfless act where one person gains nothing and the other gains everything
It doesn't ever happen, though. The altruism you describe is a philosophical impossibility. Even Mother Theresa derived a deep sense of satisfaction and pleasure from the commission of good deeds, as we all do.
And that's what we gain from it - that sense of satisfaction. Because we gain, the act cannot be truly altruistic. The question is not why are we altruistic, but how it is we come to develop a sense of satisfaction from acts that gain us no immediate benefit and often, considerable immediate cost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2006 9:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2006 10:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 243 (311256)
05-11-2006 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
05-11-2006 10:50 PM


Re: The altruism conundrum
But, how does this resonating inner-joy cross over in the animal kingdom?
Where did I say that it did? I'm just untangling the assorted concepts you keep conflating under the heading of "altruism." You've been adamant that "true altruism" doesn't happen in the animal kingdom. What I'm telling you is that it doesn't happen in the human kingdom, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2006 10:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 243 (311314)
05-12-2006 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
05-12-2006 12:09 AM


Re: The altruism conundrum
Go down to a farm sometime and watch a bull in action. Take careful notice to look at the cows face. She's not terribly excited to be underneath him.
Well, I have been to the farm, and let me tell you, copulation doesn't begin until the cow signals her readiness to the bull.
In any case, Its not the same pleasurable experience that we might associate with humans.
No, but in primates like humans, sex is a social bonding tool as well as a necessity for procreation. In fact humans and closely-related primates have a number of adaptations that make conception less likely, so that more sex can occur without resulting in an unsupportable number of offspring.
There's an old joke about the difference between chimpanzees and bonobos. (Stop me if you've heard this one.) If you give two chimps an empty cardboard box, they'll start to fight over who gets to play with it. If you give two bonobos an empty cardboad box, they're crawl inside and start having sex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-12-2006 12:09 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024