bodacity writes:
how does evolution explain altruism that's not reciprocated?
Another way to look at altruism is to think of the pure survival advantage given to ones genes if you help enough of ones relatives (who share the simliar genes-this is an obvious over simplification) reproduce. The familial genes get propergated through time.
Think again of ants. All drones are sisters and share 50% of each others genes. If a soldier ant dies defending 10 grubs she has aided the survival the gene pool. This is called 'inclusive fitness'.
Now, we humans are very clever and generalise this to not just our family but to anyone in an 'in group'. This increase the likelyhood of people surviving in our in group.
This is where it fits in with Pauls explantion of groups.
In a way all altruism is rewarded with a pay off. Behaviour is always driven by aversion or attraction of possible outcomes.
So every time you think something is altruistic you should ask yourself: what drives this behaviour?
The only truly altruistic behaviour I can come close to imagining is giving money to a charity that you hate. But, even then one would prolly be doing it just to prove you where altruistic.
Our evolution to our current state pretty much requires altruism for co operation. Morality can be seen in terms of a particular take on what ones culture conciders altruistic.
In WWII for some pilots, flying a plane into a battleship could have been concidered an altruistic act, from a certain point of view. as Paul said rape is genetically selfish, flying a plane into a battleship that could soon be shelling your nation (in group) is pretty damn genetically self
less.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.