Groups (say, societies) will tend to select individuals who demonstrate altruism toward the group. Those disposed genetically to behaviours that accrue to the detriment of the group will tend not to be allowed to stay within the group and therefore will not be permitted to contribute to the groups gene pool.
I'm sorry, dear Nick... but it doesn't compute (for me, but don't write me off, just yet, please)... not in light of the whole "survival of the fittest" model. If we look at the definition of "altruism" ("the renunciation of the self, and an exclusive concern for the welfare of others" or "b ehavior by any animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species") it would seem to ME that t he good of the group would be to send the weakest off, leave them behind, if not kill 'em... a culling out, if you will. Which make the one allowing themselves to BE culled the "altruistic" one, yes? Yet, it is the altruistic who are selected to be part of the group?
Or are you saying that the altruistic ones... are the ones willing to leave, send off, even kill... the weaker... for the benefit of the remaining group? Is THAT the definition of altruism? I mean, I kind of understand that due to films I've seen where primates, elephants, others animals will leave their sick/dying young to continue on with the group (rather than stay with them, regardless). But it seems like they did so because they had no choice - they couldn't make them move/drag them along... but WOULD have if they COULD have... and mourned deeply because they couldn't.
If so, is it Mr. Hawkins' position that this... ummmmm... willingness is genetically disposed, that there are those whose... ummmm... main concern is the group, rather than the individual... as a result of genetics?
I am just trying to understand...
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,