Spiritual vs. physical

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
I do not believe that true idealized altruism exists at all within humanity.

---

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this statement (hey, there's always a first time for everything...) Would you define your terms ("true idealized altruism") a bit more? There's pretty strong inference for the adaptive value of altruism for gregarious species - especially humans with their complex cultural as well as biological structures. The more complex the social behaviors/interractions, the more likely altruism is to be manifested.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
No way man!!!!!

---

Hey, it could happen.

quote:

---

Q: Would you define your terms ("true idealized altruism") a bit more?

​

J: I have no quarrel with partially altruistic behavior, or even behavior strongly weighted towards altruism; what I don't believe is that humans ever do things purely for the (perceived) good of others. An example, my mom would do anything in her power to save my life if I were in danger; and be happy about it. The emotion of happiness is an end in itself, even if only partial motivation for her actions.

---

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. It really is a question of how you think about the particular behavior(s). It's possible to consider biologically-determined "altruistic" behavior in the context of selfishness (through Triver's reciprocal altruism, f'rinstance), or from an altruistic gene standpoint (a la Hamilton and Wilson, et al) where kin selection determines the amount of cooperation (basically altruism) between organisms in the same aggregate or population. IOW, you can consider the behavior "selfish" from the point of view of the gene or the one doing the behavior, or "altruistic" from the point of view of the beneficiary.Bird alarm calls are an excellent case in point. If a predator approaches a flock of blackbirds, for example, the bird who first sights the predator gives an alarm - in spite of some risk to itself. Why?1. The alarm call may cause the caller’s neighbors to either aggregate or act nervously, thus actually drawing attention away from the caller. (selfish organism, with individual payoff)2. The call may discourage prey from a pursuit by alerting it that it has been spotted and has lost the element of surprise. (selfish organism, with individual and group payoff - inadvertent altruism)3. Alarm calling might reduce the probability of later attacks by the same predator, if a predator is more likely to hunt a particular species of prey that has given it success previously. (selfish organism, with group payoff)4. An individual might give an alarm call if those benefited are likely to return the favor in a form a reciprocal altruism. (altruistic/selfish organism - individual payoff)5. Alarm calling might evolve if prey populations consisted of multiple groups with differing proportions of individual with alarm calling tendencies as a result of group selection. (altruistic organism, group payoff - IMO the weakest possibility 'cause it presupposes group selection)6. Although a caller jeopardizes its own life in the face of immediate danger, if its neighbors consist of relatives, the call may aid in their escape, thus increasing the caller’s inclusive fitness. (selfish gene, payoff is to specific gene/group of genes)For humans, the biological basis for any behavior is often overridden or modified by culture. Once you get to a certain level of social and especially cognitive complexity, the ability to communicate abstract concepts makes it easy to see how altruism in man could have evolved through kin selection. Early human groups were almost certainly composed mainly of close kin. Also, through language and an increased mental capacity, early man had a much greater ability than other primates at not only recognizing kin, but also at distinguishing between subtle differences in degrees of relatedness.Besides kin selection, the rise of reciprocal altruism is key. Humans have all the necessities for reciprocal altruism a la Trivers: long-lasting relationships, an increased memory to distinguish reciprocators from non-reciprocators, and a method of punishing non-reciprocators. A number of sociobiologists even claim that some of our more complex emotions may have evolved to improve upon or as an outgrowth of the system of reciprocal altruism. For example, gratitude and sympathy could increase your chances of receiving altruism by implying an increased chance of reciprocation, while guilt serves to discourage the non-reciprocator and may cause you to find some way of demonstrating that you'll plan to reciprocate in the future (the Tit-for-Tat or Iterated Prisoners Dilemma theory).Anyway, reciprocal altruism in humans is probably a good starting theory for understanding why someone would jump into the water at the risk of their own lives to save someone to whom they're not even related. It's really just an extreme example of #4, and probably arose from that.

quote:

---

Q: There's pretty strong inference for the adaptive value of altruism for gregarious species - especially humans with their complex cultural as well as biological structures. The more complex the social behaviors/interractions, the more likely altruism is to be manifested.

​

J: I know what you mean, but these things just don't strike me as being altruistic ultimately, but merely superficially. Basically, it boils down to survival of progeny. We call self-sacrifice 'altruism' in the 'higher' animals but what about ants? Is the fearless defense of the mound altruistic too, or just hardwired behavior? The survival of the queen is the survival of the worker's DNA, even if ten-thousand die to save her life.

---

Yeah, hymenoptera are cool. Actually, the ant's probably a bad example. In the first place, you're dealing with a relatively simple organism with a very limited repertoire of hard-wired behaviors. In the second, ants (and bees) are haplodiploid, meaning that you can take kin selection (Hamilton's Rule) in its purest form to show why a worker is willing to sacrifice itself for the hive. After all, a worker (all female) shares 75% or more of its genes with its sisters, and only 50% with its mother! A strong case could be made that the mutual defense of the hive or nest is based on defense of its genetic sisters, not necessarily their collective mother. OTOH, since the workers are non-reproductives, the only way to insure their genes replicate at all is to insure the mother survives (this would be like #6 above). I wouldn't consider this altruism, per se. The altruistic behaviors, at least in eusocial haplodiploid organisms, is more likely an extreme form of kin selection (carried to its logical conclusion).

quote:

---

In primates the behavior is more complicated, but it still revolves around survival of progeny and hence, of your own DNA-- colloquially called "one's blood" or "family line" or "freakin' leeches" Humans mix in 'love' and 'compassion' but basically, it is the same old thing. With complex social interactions you may get several layers removed from direct defense of one's offspring. In some primates (most even), for example, paternity is often questionable, hence defending the whole group is defending one's offspring.

---

You won't get much argument from me, except on the highlighted bit. And that's just a quibble - you're completely correct in the case of bonobos, for example. However, several chimp societies and babboons (IIRC) practice infanticide when a change in leadership takes place. The new dominant male wants to insure that the group is protecting HIS infants. It depends a lot on how strongly hierarchical the society is. As far as group protection, I think that may relate more to territoriality than protecting the infants. I could be wrong, of course.[/B][/QUOTE]

To possibly shortcut some of the semantic arguments here, I’d like to offer the definition provided by sociobiology for consideration:Weak altruism: behavior that provides more benefit to another individual than it does to the individual performing the behaviorStrong altruism: behavior that provides benefit to another individual, but at a net cost to the individual performing the behaviorThe distinction between strong and weak is an important one. Sharing of food, for example, although altruistic cannot be truly considered as a cost to the sharer if the individual otherwise has sufficient food (or has finished eating). On the other hand, jumping into a river to save a stranger or risking one’s life to save a little girl from a falling piano are assuredly examples of strong altruism.The question then, for evolutionists, boils down to whether or not there can be a natural explanation for the existence and persistence of strong altruistic behavior among humans. I am purposely singling out evolutionists, because theists will simply use their catch-all non-explanation goddidit; strong altruism because weak altruism is both observable in non-human species and relatively easy to explain via kin selection, in-group cooperation, and reciprocal altruism theory; and humans because, afaik, they are the only species to exhibit strong altruistic behavior.Anyone care to take a stab at it? (A hint: is there a difference between genetically-programmed altruism such as in kin selection and culturally-modified behaviors?)