LOVE, ALTRUISM & EVOLUTION (page 4)

proplog2

Terry:

Prove that altruism is a "neurosis". Then, you will have successfully rebutted my comment that your statement is a sweeping generalization.

Do you think by implying "I do it too" (with reference to generalizations) makes your statement fly?

RAF

TP: I'm not picking on you particularly RAF but the words "gives you the feeling that you are usefull" make me question whether this is altruism or not. I really wonder about what really motivates people. Is it their desire to help others as a sole motive or is there an ego-based need that is asking to be filled. Do we help others, express love, show affection, etc. for the other or is it because it makes us feel better about us?

tall penguin

Ego can help (but who cares when it helps) it'sabout being a solution (you can / you do : and it satisfies you) Now if any ask for his/her name to be in the dictionnary for that (for instance) well I guess it's ego based and of course have nothing to do with altruisme but Egotisme.

There are some situation I just do not react ... just because I know I can't offer the solution espected or needed or I'm just not able to.

bavman

For love or for sex?

Lol! Well, I suppose you could pick up a couple of good moves while observing...

I'd recommend Robert Wright's The Moral Animal for a highly entertaining survey of the evolutionary reasons for love, hate, sense of justice, etc. One of the most interesting points in the book is that natural selection fits us with "mental organs" - tendencies and feelings - that tend to maximize inclusive fitness. The carrier need not be aware of the underlying "logic."

So, for example, people and animals love their offspring without thinking about the logic behind it, even though there is clearly an important evolutionary reason. Natural selection gets us to behave certain ways by causing us to feel certain ways. Many species demonstrate things like friendship-based alliances, anger at injustice, and so on. They need not be aware of the particular function of these feelings, but the feelings spur them to behavior that increases their fitness.

For example, making deals with trustworthy reciprocal altruists and cutting off cheaters is a smart strategy. But a primate doesn't need to consciously think, "By golly, if I keep losing resources to that cheater, it will decrease my ability to effectively raise offspring!" Instead, it just feels anger at being cheated, and that feeling causes him to cut his losses.

SNG

RAF

SNG : For example, making deals with trustworthy reciprocal altruists and cutting off cheaters is a smart strategy. But a primate doesn't need to consciously think, "By golly, if I keep losing resources to that cheater, it will decrease my ability to effectively raise offspring!" Instead, it just feels anger at being cheated, and that feeling causes him to cut his losses.

The difference is that a human being (not all) because he can see a bigger picture (by ideology on long terme even for after him) is able to forget about himself (not because he is weaker but he knows that he is able to sustain it - and can accept any loss even his life for his ideology). his/her primal need then is to be usefull at any rate (just because it's more important for him to be satisfied).

proplog2

Tall Penquin:

You and RAF have zeroed in on an important point. And it is kind of a which came first the Chicken or the Egg? Is there some selfishness at the bottom of love? Sure. But that doesn't change its structure. As RAF points out when a good deed is done it is done and who cares if someone gets satisfaction from it. If a person wants a metal. Then that's after the fact and becomes their personal problem. And if you make too big of a deal about your altruism the group will punish you.

Aren't we "altruistically" selfish and "selfishly" altruistic?

An individual oranism may adapt in a way that it gets some kind of advantage over others resulting in competition. But for that adpatation to be conserved it needs the group. So evolution is not really geared to competition but to conservation of adaptation. The adaptation does you no good if the group doesn't provide you with mates and other goodies.

In the end we only have the world which we create with others.

XJW4EVR

XJW4EVR:
Animals do not display altruism. .................. There are no acts of altruism by animals.
Sorry, you are wrong! Dr. Maurice Burton, a zoologist, wrote an excellent book on the subject Just Like an Animal, 1978, Dent. Burton has compiled many stories of animals that have displayed altruism, not only to their own kind but to other species including man.

Dansk, I beg to differ. Most of the examples Dr. Burton cites can be attributed to instinct or reciprocity.

seattleniceguy

Dansk, I beg to differ. Most of the examples Dr. Burton cites can be attributed to instinct or reciprocity.

Well, that seems like a convenient way to dismiss the research. An alien biologist viewing Earth might well say the same thing about humans, but that wouldn't change the altruistic behavior. One can argue about how much consciousness is involved, but I don't think that's an important point.

SNG

XJW4EVR

Dansk, I beg to differ. Most of the examples Dr. Burton cites can be attributed to instinct or reciprocity.
Well, that seems like a convenient way to dismiss the research. An alien biologist viewing Earth might well say the same thing about humans, but that wouldn't change the altruistic behavior. One can argue about how much consciousness is involved, but I don't think that's an important point.
SNG

I am not dismissing the research. I have a differing opinion based on what I have seen in nature. I am of the opinion that consciouness has a lot to do with altruistic behavior, for instance an animal may adopt an orphan one day, and another day kill and eat another. It seems to me that the animal's action is dependent on which instinct has preimenence, hunger or nurture. This another element of human behavior that appears to have difficulty being answered with evolution.

tetrapod.sapien

hi dansk,

we seem to connect with that special someone and it seems lightening runs through our veins.

it's called dopamine. that special "lightening" lasts for 6 to 12 months, and then it is gradually replaced by oxytocin, a chemical implicated in long term bonding relationships. mothers and children produce lots of oxytocin in relation to each other. and some researchers are drawing interesting observations on the relationship status, socially, of people who naturally produce larger amounts of oxytocin. for example, they usually find mates who produce more too, and end up staying together for decades. both chemicals are tied to the greater experience of "love". one gets love going, and the other keeps it going.

tetra

LOVE, ALTRUISM & EVOLUTION

Share this