> I'm not even sure altruism works the way sociobiology would
> predict...
> 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.
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
>
>