[altruism]
> would be the best case scenario for your argument since
> there is a clear "Darwinian" advantage to saving my
> daughter. The complete stranger seems to me to be the
> worst case scenario since it is very hard to see a direct
> advantage to my own descendents. Instead, I'm promoting the
> survival of a competing set of genes, and this won't do :).
Actually, you share something like 99.5% of your genes with
any other human being. The ones that are left may be
competing fiercely, though! :-)
If people started giving up their lives to save spiders, now
that would really throw a monkey wrench into the sociobiology
works.
> One suggestion I read somewhere was that the person I save
> will have descendents who might promote the survial of my
> descendents in some way out of gratitude. But to have to stoop
> as low as this is merely to reinforce Art's point [wow, it
> feels really weird to agree with Art on something :)]
I'm not even sure altruism works the way sociobiology would
predict. That is, it is true that we give gifts and support
to those we're related to (most often, that is), and to a lesser
degree to those who can reciprocate (hi, boss!), and to those
who can't only when told to by the government :-). (JK)
When we get into the relatedness noise, however, we seem to
behave based on other things--that is, we don't especially
go out of our way to save species which share more genes with
us than those which don't, much less according to any proportional
rule. What we *do* do, though, is go out of our way to save
species which bear some resemblance to human infants (the
well-known-to-conservationists cute-animal factor). Furthermore,
even when dealing with people, we sure don't seem to take these
things into account in a lot of situations! Instead, we tend
to just help the people we're adjacent to (if we're nice, that
is :-)). I think if sociobiology wants to have a prayer of
addressing this type of behavior, it should look more towards
population dynamics (for all I know, it already is...).
> >KK> This is where we disagree. I am not a sociobiologist so
> >perhaps I am getting over my head here. This does seem more like
> >an argument of which words to use for the same principle. Use
> >one set, theists argree, use another sociobiologists agree.
> >
>
> It is not clear to me what you are disagreeing with. If there is
> a gene for this "altruistic behavior" and if there is variation
> within a population regarding this behavior and if the behavior
> promotes the survival of the individual showing this behavior
> then this "altruistic behavior" is going to be selected for.
> What is going through an individuals mind when they engage in
> this behavior (selfish or unselfish motives etc.) seems to me
> to have nothing to do with it.
I'm not super familiar with sociobiology, myself, so perhaps you
know: have they ever demonstrated *any* kind of 'altruism gene'
in *any* species? I wouldn't be surprised if the whole business
turned out to have very little to do with genetics at all.
> >Specifically, would you save a stranger. What would motivate you
> >to do this?
>
> This is a fair question yet one that is difficult to answer. I think
> that none of us really know what we would do until the moment
> arrives where we suddenly have to decide. I suspect that I would
> react on impulse and emotion without much reason. As to my
> motives I suspect they would be to help someone who seems
> helpless.
>
> "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing"
> -- Blaise Pascal
>
> Now to turn the question around, in an ultra-Darwinian scenario
> it is mandatory that an action should promote the survival of
> my genes or at least those very closely related to myself.
> How would you explain someone attempting to save a stranger?
> From my point of view it seems hopeless to develop a "just
> so" story unless the benefit to my descendents is greater
> than the benefit to society in general, and again motives
> seem to me to be irrelevant.
I don't know how ultra-Darwinians deal with altruism. As a case
study, though, take the behavior in bonobo's that's just been
described in _Nature_: bonobo's leave trail markings when moving
from one place to another. If the group separates, the lead
group will use leaves, plants, etc. to mark which trails are
followed to get to the new location. Is this altruism? Well...
it certainly helps the second group know where the first group
went. Perhaps ignoring the loaded question of whether it is
altruism or not and focusing on what it clearly *does* do, namely,
keep the group together, which enables persistent relationships,
all sorts of complex social dynamics which, being the most
intelligent animals on the planet :-), bonobos are good at
doing, and so forth, is more helpful. I don't know if this
trail-marking behavior is genetic or not--I'd guess it has
very little to do with genetics, and more to do with culture.
In humans, we're socialized into very complex social dynamics
(more complex than bonobo civilization, even! :-)) I'd be
surprised indeed if our social behavior (including altruism)
had much at all to do with genetics. Thus, in my opinion,
ultra-Darwinians, being genetically-obsessed :-), should just
ignore the problem as uninteresting.
-Greg