Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Post Reply
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David O'Donnell »

Given the heated (though remarkably restrained given the subject matter) debate surrounding Matthew Green's post I thought I would share, with you, an essay I am writing for some undergraduates. No, don't worry, I am not going to share the whole essay just some of the key ideas contained therein.

The essay is: If Darwin is right can genuine [my emphasis] altruism exist?

(We can ignore, if you like, that the essay is in fact a conditional which demands a specific mode of analysis).

Darwinian accounts of human nature, it has been argued, undermine our sense of morality as based on human agency. We merely do that which we are programmed to do and where an altruistic action takes place it is generally based on deeply-rooted, strategic and self-interested motives. For instance within the family altruism could be viewed as nothing more than protecting the interests of one's very own genes. In general the notion of self-sacrifice is quite often associated with the preservation of a species or sub-group thereof. Indeed, sacrificing one's life, perhaps the highest state of altruism that one can attain, is an action that is probably the most lauded in our society. Has it risen to such prominence due to the social and cultural recognition of its worth or is it genetically ingrained?
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Lesley Hines »

O'Donnell you bad tempter! I'm up to my eyes in work and now I'm going to be thinking about this.

Gah! :lol:

And, since you ask, no. Will be back when I've done said chores to show my working ;)
Lowering the averages since 2009
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I'm not sure what genuine altruism would be. Ungenuine altruism would presumably be the standard Darwinian type where it still serves our genes. But we can easily imagine the system going "wrong" and someone helping out others where there is likely to be only detrimental effect to their genes. In fact I'm sure that we could find many cases of this. But even so, one could still argue that this has still resulted from standard "ungenuine altruism software" in the brain but that it's not functioning optimally. Would this be genuine altruism? Would there need to be a "deeper cause" for the altruism? What could that be? Essentially the cause of all our behaviour is physical.
User avatar
Matthew Green
Devotee
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Matthew Green »

DoD, I have a question for you that I have been discussing with various people. Interested to see what you think:

There is an argument that the progress of medical science over the last few centuries and especially the last couple of generations has led to people being kept alive when maybe they shouldnt be. For example, I know a diabetic who is essentially kept alive by an insulin pen. Its great that he is kept alive as he has some great facebook status updates but is this not interfering with nature too much? Are we not overcrowding the planet and unbalancing our ecology by resisting the natural refinement of the gene pool? Its not exactly survival of the fittest when you have millions of overweight lifeless peasants sponging the NHS to stay alive and contributing zero to the human race except sick offspring.

An alternative argument is that its the incredible will to survive that has led us as a species to develop such amazing medicine and that we are merely surviving and thriving as the fittest species so to speak.

Where do you stand on such issues and what do you think about the youth in asia and such issues?
If I suddenly have a squirming baby on my lap it probably means that I should start paying it some attention and stop wasting my time messing around on a Countdown forum
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Charlie Reams »

Matthew Green wrote:Are we not overcrowding the planet and unbalancing our ecology by resisting the natural refinement of the gene pool? Its not exactly survival of the fittest when you have millions of overweight lifeless peasants sponging the NHS to stay alive and contributing zero to the human race except sick offspring.
This probably deserves its own thread, because you raise some interesting points. First stab:-

1) It's not our job to enforce survival of the fittest. It's a natural phenomenon and we don't need to promote it any more than we need to promote gravity. Nevertheless...
2) Survival of the fittest still works. Fitness is always defined by the environment, and the human environment has changed from one where physical superiority is the dominant factor. (In fact, this may have happened a long time ago.) I'm not sure what the important factors are now, but clearly they aren't those that would have faced early humans.
3) Survival of the fittest will get us in the end anyway, however successful we might be at resisting it. On some timescale (short or geological), the climate of the planet will change. At that point, our current way of life will be disrupted and other factors will become relevant to reproductive success. This may be strength, speed, intelligence, eye sight, skin colour (as in moths) or something completely unexpected, who knows. By keeping as many people alive as possible, we have the maximum genetic diversity to maintain humanity through this change (although you could certainly argue whether this is a valid aim).
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David O'Donnell »

Gavin Chipper wrote:I'm not sure what genuine altruism would be. Ungenuine altruism would presumably be the standard Darwinian type where it still serves our genes. But we can easily imagine the system going "wrong" and someone helping out others where there is likely to be only detrimental effect to their genes. In fact I'm sure that we could find many cases of this. But even so, one could still argue that this has still resulted from standard "ungenuine altruism software" in the brain but that it's not functioning optimally. Would this be genuine altruism? Would there need to be a "deeper cause" for the altruism? What could that be? Essentially the cause of all our behaviour is physical.
I agree with you, Gevin, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Theories interact with reality as interpretations of it so essentially you can have a theory that can respond to anything reality throws at it. Marxism is a good example: it's incapable of being falsified.

The definition of 'genuine altruism' is the ability to give some weight to the interests of other individuals and goods against those of our own (so it's quite a thin reading of altruism). The reason I have forsaken strong readings is because they seem rather easier to debunk: religious reasons are not altruistic because the goal seems to be some reward in the afterlife; you can argue that someone's sanity was in question when they committed a certain altruistic act etc.

I think the key to resolving this issue is if you accept the premises of social Darwinism is there still an outlet for human agency. If our genetic blueprint is encoded in a way to dispose us to a range of actions including acting selfishly to preserve our genes if we choose to accord weight to the interests of other and to other goods are we not being genuinely altruistic?
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Charlie Reams »

David O'Donnell wrote:Marxism is a good example: it's incapable of being falsified.
Interesting you should say this. Have you read Born To Rebel? It shows statistically that Marx was essentially wrong that there were significant class differences on either side of major revolutions. This doesn't undo his whole theory of course, but it's a pretty significant blow, and the idea of empirical testing of political theory was new and interesting to me.
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David O'Donnell »

Matthew Green wrote:DoD, I have a question for you that I have been discussing with various people. Interested to see what you think:

There is an argument that the progress of medical science over the last few centuries and especially the last couple of generations has led to people being kept alive when maybe they shouldnt be. For example, I know a diabetic who is essentially kept alive by an insulin pen. Its great that he is kept alive as he has some great facebook status updates but is this not interfering with nature too much? Are we not overcrowding the planet and unbalancing our ecology by resisting the natural refinement of the gene pool? Its not exactly survival of the fittest when you have millions of overweight lifeless peasants sponging the NHS to stay alive and contributing zero to the human race except sick offspring.

An alternative argument is that its the incredible will to survive that has led us as a species to develop such amazing medicine and that we are merely surviving and thriving as the fittest species so to speak.

Where do you stand on such issues and what do you think about the youth in asia and such issues?

I agree with Charlie here, a much more adroit and excellent synopsis than my booze addled brain could muster (and that it deserves its own thread).

In addition, and with so many of the cruder forms of social Darwinism, I am a little bit worried by the political consequences of your argument. Does it lead to us advocating some type of population control? I would be totally against this for obvious reasons and think that it is not for the state or any other agency to determine when my life should end.

As for "youth in Asia", is this a play on words for Euthanasia? I take the classic liberal view that a sentient being should be allowed to exercise control over their own life and death. This view would only incorporate suicide in marginal cases since very often families are destroyed by this event. I think that if your action harms someone else then it cannot be described as a moral action.

My grandmother had cancer for years and gradually got very sick and was in severe pain and discomfort. The doctor gradually increased her morphine dose until she was effectively given an overdose. Now, my family are strict Catholics and wouldn't openly condone euthanasia or suicide but it was seen as a relief from what would have been many more tortured hours (maybe days) of excruciating pain. It's not like they turned a blind eye to what the doctor was doing he explained fully what the effect of gradually increasing the morphine dose would do and they were more than content that he should continue.
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David O'Donnell »

Charlie Reams wrote:
David O'Donnell wrote:Marxism is a good example: it's incapable of being falsified.
Interesting you should say this. Have you read Born To Rebel? It shows statistically that Marx was essentially wrong that there were significant class differences on either side of major revolutions. This doesn't undo his whole theory of course, but it's a pretty significant blow, and the idea of empirical testing of political theory was new and interesting to me.
Lol, obviously not since I just argued it couldn't be falsified.

Does he really argue that the differences have been significant? I am thinking of his use of the idea 'bourgeois revolution' which describes a revolution wherein the elite are purged but the system remains the same. He was certainly scathing about the notion that there had ever been a popular revolution and that very often revolutions had been more about various elites grappling for power.

Having typed that I am not sure but he may have argued that these elites, without power, did not have power because their position arose from changes in social and economic structure. So, are they in effect, though part of the elite, a newly emergent class (or cluster of classes). I am thinking of the effects of the industrial revolution had and the emergence of a wealthy industrial class coming in to conflict with old landed gentry.

So if Marx's idea of class struggle views history as the struggle between a class and the one immediately above it would this amount to a significant difference? Unfortunately as I haven't read the book I don't know if it is significant.

Of course, a Marxist could argue that even if the protagonists of a revolution were of mixed class heritage the conflict only arises due to the emergence of a new class or the tension between a class and the one above it.

Sorry, I know this reads inanely but I am genuinely trying to think it out as I type and I also think it's an interesting point.

Will we need another thread?
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Charlie Reams »

David O'Donnell wrote: So if Marx's idea of class struggle views history as the struggle between a class and the one immediately above it would this amount to a significant difference? Unfortunately as I haven't read the book I don't know if it is significant.
Yes, by "significant" I meant statistically significant.

I or the author may have misrepresented Marx but anyway you should read it, it's good.
David Roe
Enthusiast
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David Roe »

David O'Donnell wrote:The essay is: If Darwin is right can genuine [my emphasis] altruism exist?
My answer would be, yes it can.

My reasoning:

1. Has any genuinely altruistic act ever taken place? I would say yes. For example, a man dies on the tube when hit by a train while trying (successfully) to save the life of a stranger who was crossing the line.

2. Does this single act disprove anything Darwin said? Without a more detailed knowledge of Darwin, I couldn't say for sure. But I doubt it. Darwin's theories were basically based on averages, weren't they? Not to every single individual in every respect?
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Charlie Reams »

David Roe wrote: 1. Has any genuinely altruistic act ever taken place? I would say yes. For example, a man dies on the tube when hit by a train while trying (successfully) to save the life of a stranger who was crossing the line.
I think the problem here is the preoccupation with "genuine" altruism. It's pretty hard to do something good that could not conceivably result in personal reward, if only because a bunch of people will automatically like you for being nice and that could easily translate into personal reward. If you die in the pursuit (as in your example), that payoff could be passed to your family or someone else you care about, and then we're back to the original problem.

I don't really see the need to worry about the genuineness of altruism. If people do good things then that's cool, no matter their motivation.
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David O'Donnell »

Charlie Reams wrote:
David Roe wrote: 1. Has any genuinely altruistic act ever taken place? I would say yes. For example, a man dies on the tube when hit by a train while trying (successfully) to save the life of a stranger who was crossing the line.
I think the problem here is the preoccupation with "genuine" altruism. It's pretty hard to do something good that could not conceivably result in personal reward, if only because a bunch of people will automatically like you for being nice and that could easily translate into personal reward. If you die in the pursuit (as in your example), that payoff could be passed to your family or someone else you care about, and then we're back to the original problem.

I don't really see the need to worry about the genuineness of altruism. If people do good things then that's cool, no matter their motivation.

I agree to a certain extent. I like to think that given how complicated we are and given we are neither purely selfish or altruistic animals that our responses to different stimuli will remain complex. What if my genetic programming doesn't tell me I am selfish or altruistic? What if it leaves it open for me to make the choices (knowing that either choice will be a boon)? If I am both, genetically designed to be selfish or altruistic and I choose altruism ... isn't it altruism?
User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by John Bosley »

I think 'game theory' is relevant to this discussion. Best to google it and only read what interests you.
Richard Dawkins and Steven Rose write about this sort of thing in various places and Maynard Smith (among others) refers to 'hawks' and 'doves' (as a way of behaving among all sorts of species) and how a stable balance is only maintained if both are equally successful.
I am now out of my depth and need to read it all again ! :)
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David O'Donnell »

John Bosley wrote:I think 'game theory' is relevant to this discussion. Best to google it and only read what interests you.
Richard Dawkins and Steven Rose write about this sort of thing in various places and Maynard Smith (among others) refers to 'hawks' and 'doves' (as a way of behaving among all sorts of species) and how a stable balance is only maintained if both are equally successful.
I am now out of my depth and need to read it all again ! :)

It may surprise you to know but as a postgrad philosophy student I have actually heard of game theory without having the need to google it.

Game theory is interesting in explaining how rational actors can produce sub-optimal results as in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" but I am not sure how it elucidates the problem of altruism within a Darwinian conceit.

I am really convinced that the issue at stake here is assessing how much freedom our genetic blueprint affords us. I think we are complex beings who have evolved in this manner to survive a range of circumstances. This means that the individual can be genuinely altruistic, they can simply choose to be and are enabled with this facility by their genetic code.

Did Joan of Arc whisper to herself, actually this flame is going to smart a little? Did Jesus say to himself that actually I don't want to be nailed to a cross, I would find such a death to be a tragic ambivalent metaphor for my relationship with my father? Of course they did, if anything the awareness that we can be selfish, and how it benefits us, and the awareness that we can be altruistic means that choosing an altruistic course is a genuinely altruistic choice.
User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by John Bosley »

I was speaking to the world at large, not specifically to you David; and it does not surprise me that you know it all. Why should it? I admitted that I know little and just try to chuck a bit in here and there. I do think some of what I said has relevance, but there you go.
Dinos Sfyris
Series 80 Champion
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Dinos Sfyris »

I helped an old lady and her husband with their bags at the station the other day. They'd just got off the train and were clearly struggling so I carried their bags to the taxi rank for them. They offered me money for my troubles but I refused. As a result I missed my train and had to wait 30 minutes for another one, but I wasn't bothered cause I had that lovely sense of self-satisfaction from helping another human being. If this sort of sick pleasure makes it a non-altruistic deed, fuck it. At least she didn't fall and break her hip.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Gavin Chipper »

David O'Donnell wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
David Roe wrote: 1. Has any genuinely altruistic act ever taken place? I would say yes. For example, a man dies on the tube when hit by a train while trying (successfully) to save the life of a stranger who was crossing the line.
I think the problem here is the preoccupation with "genuine" altruism. It's pretty hard to do something good that could not conceivably result in personal reward, if only because a bunch of people will automatically like you for being nice and that could easily translate into personal reward. If you die in the pursuit (as in your example), that payoff could be passed to your family or someone else you care about, and then we're back to the original problem.

I don't really see the need to worry about the genuineness of altruism. If people do good things then that's cool, no matter their motivation.

I agree to a certain extent. I like to think that given how complicated we are and given we are neither purely selfish or altruistic animals that our responses to different stimuli will remain complex. What if my genetic programming doesn't tell me I am selfish or altruistic? What if it leaves it open for me to make the choices (knowing that either choice will be a boon)? If I am both, genetically designed to be selfish or altruistic and I choose altruism ... isn't it altruism?
Although the way we have evolved means that we look after our genes, this obviously does still result in a lot of behaviour that helps others. And it seems that we have evolved a sense of morality to help us along with this. Now the clever thing about morality is that we don't have to be consciously aware that this only came about for the furtherance of our genes. So as far as we're concerned at our conscious level, an act we do might be completely altruistic, but it still only came about due to the underlying cause of our morality (selfish genes). Looking at the definition of genuine altruism that David gave:
the ability to give some weight to the interests of other individuals and goods against those of our own
Of course it is possible for this to happen. The interaction between our morality and self-interest is complex and it's quite plausible that in some cases the morality might "overcome" self interest to a maladaptive level. Maladaptive behaviours happen in all sorts of scenarios, so I see no reason why it can't also happen here.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Gavin Chipper »

To add to the above, since people aren't always consciously calculating the pros and cons for themselves when helping someone else, how is genuine altruism measured? You can't always look at intent, because people would presumably consciously intend to be altruistic even there are other causes of their behaviour. You can't look a the ultimate result, partly because it would be difficult to determine if someone benefited, especially in the long term, and also because it would be strange to retrospectively call an action altruistic due to an outcome that might have many chance elements.
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David O'Donnell »

Gavin Chipper wrote:To add to the above, since people aren't always consciously calculating the pros and cons for themselves when helping someone else, how is genuine altruism measured? You can't always look at intent, because people would presumably consciously intend to be altruistic even there are other causes of their behaviour. You can't look a the ultimate result, partly because it would be difficult to determine if someone benefited, especially in the long term, and also because it would be strange to retrospectively call an action altruistic due to an outcome that might have many chance elements.
I think there is an assumption that what is the interests of your genes is also in the interests of the individual. I have found it necessary to add this premise to make some of the arguments against altruism in natural selection work. For instance:


Premise 1 When you rescue your child, at great risk to yourself, your genes are doing nothing more than saving some of themselves.
Premise 2 Genuine altruism means acting for others at a cost to yourself.
Premise 3 What is in the interests of your genes is in your interests.
Conclusion Parental altruism as produced by natural selection is not genuine altruism

There are convincing counter-examples to the first premise like, say, the parents of a deeply disabled child who sacrifice reproducing, and promulgating their genetic code, to devote the additional time to the raising of the child who will not subsequently reproduce. The second point is that this argument seems to need the third premise to function yet how can it be remotely entertained? Genes do not have any interests at all. Also, the genes I have are not forward looking they are based on what has been successful in the past to lead to them being copied.
User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by John Bosley »

Why would an elephant rescue a rhino?
I ask because a case was reported of this happening when the rhino got stuck in deep mud - in the wild I should add.
User avatar
Ben Hunter
Kiloposter
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
Location: S Yorks

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Ben Hunter »

John Bosley wrote:Why would an elephant rescue a rhino?
I ask because a case was reported of this happening when the rhino got stuck in deep mud - in the wild I should add.
To prove to itself it could be genuinely altruistic. Or maybe it thought it was another elephant, both are fat and grey.
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David O'Donnell »

John Bosley wrote:Why would an elephant rescue a rhino?
I ask because a case was reported of this happening when the rhino got stuck in deep mud - in the wild I should add.
:lol: Glad you added the secondary bit, I thought you'd gone totally random there!

I got the damn essay finished, thought it was going to be some easy money but ended up having to pull back-to-back all nighters to meet the deadline. At one point I heard my computer, audibly, say to me: "is that the best you've got?" I decided that I should probably get a few hours at least. On a related note, anyone else find that sleep deprivation can induce the symptoms of schizophrenia?
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Charlie Reams »

David O'Donnell wrote:On a related note, anyone else find that sleep deprivation can induce the symptoms of schizophrenia?
I don't know about schizophrenia, but it's well-documented that sleep deprivation can induce hallucinations. Some time last year I was awake for about 40 hours and, cycling home from work near the end of it, I saw a man lying in the road in the foetal position, and I braked sharply to avoid running him over. Closer inspection revealed him to be a small stone.

It seems you got audial hallucinations so maybe you're due for visual ones too. I've also had tactile hallucinations, wherein I felt like someone was stroking my arm for several hours. All good fun!
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by Gavin Chipper »

David O'Donnell wrote:I think there is an assumption that what is the interests of your genes is also in the interests of the individual. I have found it necessary to add this premise to make some of the arguments against altruism in natural selection work. For instance:


Premise 1 When you rescue your child, at great risk to yourself, your genes are doing nothing more than saving some of themselves.
Premise 2 Genuine altruism means acting for others at a cost to yourself.
Premise 3 What is in the interests of your genes is in your interests.
Conclusion Parental altruism as produced by natural selection is not genuine altruism

There are convincing counter-examples to the first premise like, say, the parents of a deeply disabled child who sacrifice reproducing, and promulgating their genetic code, to devote the additional time to the raising of the child who will not subsequently reproduce. The second point is that this argument seems to need the third premise to function yet how can it be remotely entertained? Genes do not have any interests at all. Also, the genes I have are not forward looking they are based on what has been successful in the past to lead to them being copied.
Yeah, it makes sense to explicitly distinguish between you as an individual and your genes.

Obviously you're right about genes having no interests or purpose themselves, but genes that code for behaviour that enables them to be reproduced are the ones that reproduce. Behaviour such as looking after your offspring.

As for looking after a disabled child that will never reproduce, this still makes sense. The behaviour itself might not help genes, but evolution will never produce "perfect" genes that cause a being to always act in the best possible way for the genes. Looking after offspring is something that would be very deeply rooted in behaviour and it might take quite a large change in psychology and quite a big evolutionary step for something that confers only a small advantage (not looking after disabled children). Also it would be frowned upon by society so even though it might be advantageous if everyone took that attitiude, it would not be an advantageous adaptation for any individual, so it's a non-starter. Although, I wonder if this happens in very poor countries.
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David O'Donnell »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Yeah, it makes sense to explicitly distinguish between you as an individual and your genes.

Obviously you're right about genes having no interests or purpose themselves, but genes that code for behaviour that enables them to be reproduced are the ones that reproduce. Behaviour such as looking after your offspring.

As for looking after a disabled child that will never reproduce, this still makes sense. The behaviour itself might not help genes, but evolution will never produce "perfect" genes that cause a being to always act in the best possible way for the genes. Looking after offspring is something that would be very deeply rooted in behaviour and it might take quite a large change in psychology and quite a big evolutionary step for something that confers only a small advantage (not looking after disabled children). Also it would be frowned upon by society so even though it might be advantageous if everyone took that attitiude, it would not be an advantageous adaptation for any individual, so it's a non-starter. Although, I wonder if this happens in very poor countries.
In the case of complex animals I think it's possible that all sorts of genetic dispositions fused together in one lumbering organism. Given that none of us share the same genetic code, unless we are identical twins, there seems to be quite a lot of variety out there. This could mean that our genetic makeup is sufficiently complicated to incorporate contradictory drives like maybe selfishness and altruism.

The case of the sterile worker castes in the bee species is interesting. These sterile females doing nothing but protecting the hive and operating as workers while one queen does all the reproducing. Also, they will administer a sting to any intruder even though this act is terminal to them. The classical Darwinist models had trouble explaining these sterile workers continued being reproduced since in an order where you have altruistic types and selfish types it was felt the altruistic types would eventually die out.

Not really relevant to your point, maybe, but I found it interesting when I was researching it.
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Social Darwinism contra altruism.

Post by David O'Donnell »

Charlie Reams wrote:
David O'Donnell wrote:On a related note, anyone else find that sleep deprivation can induce the symptoms of schizophrenia?
I don't know about schizophrenia, but it's well-documented that sleep deprivation can induce hallucinations. Some time last year I was awake for about 40 hours and, cycling home from work near the end of it, I saw a man lying in the road in the foetal position, and I braked sharply to avoid running him over. Closer inspection revealed him to be a small stone.

It seems you got audial hallucinations so maybe you're due for visual ones too. I've also had tactile hallucinations, wherein I felt like someone was stroking my arm for several hours. All good fun!
The tactile hallucination sounds cool, I might stay up tonight. It's also possible to get gustatory and olfactory hallucinations. Another type I have experienced (I should admit it was in the days of the old pounds, shillings and pence) are Lilliputian hallucinations where people and objects appear to shrink in front of your eyes. In my case I was sitting opposite a friend and I gradually saw him shrink until he seemed around 30 feet away in a tiny corner of the room even I could reached out my hand and touched him. The way I have explained this makes it sound like I actually was chasing him into a corner.
Post Reply