Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

A Condemned Species


toodimm

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
Have you ever read Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene"? In it, he makes it clear that evolution works to propagate successful genes rather than successful gene-carriers, i.e. people. Now remember that you share copies of the same genes with your relatives and tribe. This provides the rationale for altruistic behavior and makes it genetically sensible to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of your siblings and tribe. Hence the culture of self-sacrifice (under the guise of patriotism or religion) for providing e.g. WW I cannon fodder, WW II kamikazis and modern suicide bombers.

Evolution also rewards the good guys, or, at least, their genes.

How does that work when I know at least one religion which calls you to die (eg. self-sacrifice) for your enemies (ie. danger to your tribe) as well? This makes patriotism and religion very different in terms of genetics and motivation.

Sorry - OT, I know.

Edited by delurker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442
Have you ever read Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene"? In it, he makes it clear that evolution works to propagate successful genes rather than successful gene-carriers, i.e. people. Now remember that you share copies of the same genes with your relatives and tribe. This provides the rationale for altruistic behavior and makes it genetically sensible to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of your siblings and tribe. Hence the culture of self-sacrifice (under the guise of patriotism or religion) for providing e.g. WW I cannon fodder, WW II kamikazis and modern suicide bombers.

Evolution also rewards the good guys, or, at least, their genes.

Erm...as a theoretical biologist myself I feel I can comment on this...cooperation only trumps defection when the potential competitors reproductive success is highly correlated. In the case of relatives, you have a fair bit in common and you will generally cooperate as long as it doesn't cost too much. As Haldane said (paraphrasing here), he would sacrifice his life for 2 siblings or 8 cousins. When groups are not related, the conditions are less likely to be met, but where success of the group is paramount, cooperation can occur. (Look up the "Price equation"...that is the equation of George Price, not price as in cost.) Generally though, outsiders are treated as speed bumps on the way to reproductive success.

However, even very closely related individuals are not immune to competition. David Haig has done a lot of work on maternal foetal conflict...that's right, that baby in your womb is trying to f*&k you over, because half its genes are daddy's and he can always find a new mummy if you go a little bit too far with this one, or use up all her resources. Maternal foetal conflict is probably the best evolutionary explanation I have seen for pregnancy related diabetes.

In summary, even in win win situations, someone will be trying to get the better "win"...in the large anonymous societies we have now, there is little chance that we will all pull together for the common good. There are just too many people we don't know who we can rip off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
Erm...as a theoretical biologist myself I feel I can comment on this...cooperation only trumps defection when the potential competitors reproductive success is highly correlated. In the case of relatives, you have a fair bit in common and you will generally cooperate as long as it doesn't cost too much. As Haldane said (paraphrasing here), he would sacrifice his life for 2 siblings or 8 cousins. When groups are not related, the conditions are less likely to be met, but where success of the group is paramount, cooperation can occur. (Look up the "Price equation"...that is the equation of George Price, not price as in cost.) Generally though, outsiders are treated as speed bumps on the way to reproductive success.

However, even very closely related individuals are not immune to competition. David Haig has done a lot of work on maternal foetal conflict...that's right, that baby in your womb is trying to f*&k you over, because half its genes are daddy's and he can always find a new mummy if you go a little bit too far with this one, or use up all her resources. Maternal foetal conflict is probably the best evolutionary explanation I have seen for pregnancy related diabetes.

In summary, even in win win situations, someone will be trying to get the better "win"...in the large anonymous societies we have now, there is little chance that we will all pull together for the common good. There are just too many people we don't know who we can rip off.

Perhaps this is why patriotism and religion are such powerful forces in the US, in contrast to most other developed nations? In a nation of immigrants from various cultures, a strong sense of belonging may be necessary in order to hold it all together and reap the benefits of cooperation and self-sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444
Guest Steve Cook
How does that work when I know at least one religion which calls you to die (eg. self-sacrifice) for your enemies (ie. danger to your tribe) as well? This makes patriotism and religion very different in terms of genetics and motivation.

Sorry - OT, I know.

This is a very good point.

It is explained by reference to the fact that we are a species of low dispersal....

Some species do disperse. Meaning they migrate away from their closely related co-special members. In practical terms, this mean that any other member of you species you are likely to come across is not very likely to be related to you. Though, of course, they may be.

Given that that name of the games, in evolutionary terms, is to only share resources with others who shares you genes, this means that in doing so, the net genetic success of the genes you share will at the very least be stable, if not go up. For example, if a grandparent gives resources to a grandchild, then the reproductive success of the genes they share will raise because the grandparent has passed their reproductive sell-by date, whereas the grandchild has not and so can make better reproductive use of those resources.

So, how can an organism in a species of high dispersal determine whether any other individual they meet is sufficiently related as to warrant sharing resources? This appears to be done via a process called “genotype matching”. It would appear that such organisms carry a mental map of their own phenotypic characteristics. Visual, auditory and olfactory. They compare these against any individual they meet. If a certain threshold of similarity is met, then they become more likely to share their resources.

The above mechanism is probably quite complicated to hard wire into an organism's behavioural repertoire. Thus, if a species could use a less complicated mechanism, one might except it to be more likely to have evolved if possible. This is where a species like humans come in....

Humans are a species of low dispersal. What this means is that the anthropological evidence seems to suggest that we form groups of a few hundred related individuals at most and that these groups remain stable over time. Such groups may well disperse over the environment, as groups. But, less so as individuals. What all of this means is that any individual they you come across in such a species of low dispersal is very likely to be related to you to one degree or another. Thus, phenotype matching is not such a necessity as it is for a species of high dispersal.

It appears that the behavioural rules that apply in low dispersal species are based on proximity and familiarity, In other words, behave "altruistically" towards individuals that either are within a given radius from you, or behave altruistically towards individuals that you have spent a minimum threshold of time with.

The above simple behavioural rule does not guarantee that you will not make mistakes in allocation of resources. However, you will be right more often than you are wrong. This is all that is required for this behaviour to be hard wired in through evolutionary processes. Humans appear to obey this behavioural rule.

I would suggest that, had it not been for the above behavioural tendency in humans, civilisation would never have been possible to occur. Civilisation is the way in which these behavioural tendencies has allowed us to congregate in group of many thousands and yet still behave relatively cooperatively. We do this because we make the instinctive assumption that they are related. The reason you are not as likely to rob your neighbour as you are to rob a stranger is because, at a genetic level, you are making the erroneous assumption that they are your close relative.

Nonetheless, such tendencies only work so far. Which is why we have also have a strong tendency to form social groups and retain a much higher degree of loyalty to those groups than we do to other groups. The human phenomena of the formation of groups and to then wage war on other groups is a direct consequence of the breakdown of our method of identifying other related individuals beyond our immediate social environment

So, to answer youir original question.

The phenomenon of people being willing to die for a cause, or religeon is, i believe, a subversion of the tendancy to sacrifice oneself for one's social group. Meaning to sacrifiuce oneself for one's genetically related group

Edited by Steve Cook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446
This is a very good point.

It is explained by reference to the fact that we are a species of low dispersal....

Some species do disperse. Meaning they migrate away from their closely related co-special members. In practical terms, this mean that any other member of you species you are likely to come across is not very likely to be related to you. Though, of course, they may be.

Given that that name of the games, in evolutionary terms, is to only share resources with others who shares you genes, this means that in doing so, the net genetic success of the genes you share will at the very least be stable, if not go up. For example, if a grandparent gives resources to a grandchild, then the reproductive success of the genes they share will raise because the grandparent has passed their reproductive sell-by date, whereas the grandchild has not and so can make better reproductive use of those resources.

So, how can an organism in a species of high dispersal determine whether any other individual they meet is sufficiently related as to warrant sharing resources? This appears to be done via a process called “genotype matching”. It would appear that such organisms carry a mental map of their own phenotypic characteristics. Visual, auditory and olfactory. They compare these against any individual they meet. If a certain threshold of similarity is met, then they become more likely to share their resources.

The above mechanism is probably quite complicated to hard wire into an organism's behavioural repertoire. Thus, if a species could use a less complicated mechanism, one might except it to be more likely to have evolved if possible. This is where a species like humans come in....

Humans are a species of low dispersal. What this means is that the anthropological evidence seems to suggest that we form groups of a few hundred related individuals at most and that these groups remain stable over time. Such groups may well disperse over the environment, as groups. But, less so as individuals. What all of this means is that any individual they you come across in such a species of low dispersal is very likely to be related to you to one degree or another. Thus, phenotype matching is not such a necessity as it is for a species of high dispersal.

It appears that the behavioural rules that apply in low dispersal species are based on proximity and familiarity, In other words, behave "altruistically" towards individuals that either are within a given radius from you, or behave altruistically towards individuals that you have spent a minimum threshold of time with.

The above simple behavioural rule does not guarantee that you will not make mistakes in allocation of resources. However, you will be right more often than you are wrong. This is all that is required for this behaviour to be hard wired in through evolutionary processes. Humans appear to obey this behavioural rule.

I would suggest that, had it not been for the above behavioural tendency in humans, civilisation would never have been possible to occur. Civilisation is the way in which these behavioural tendencies has allowed us to congregate in group of many thousands and yet still behave relatively cooperatively. We do this because we make the instinctive assumption that they are related. The reason you are not as likely to rob your neighbour as you are to rob a stranger is because, at a genetic level, you are making the erroneous assumption that they are your close relative.

Nonetheless, such tendencies only work so far. Which is why we have also have a strong tendency to form social groups and retain a much higher degree of loyalty to those groups than we do to other groups. The human phenomena of the formation of groups and to then wage war on other groups is a direct consequence of the breakdown of our method of identifying other related individuals beyond our immediate social environment

So, to answer youir original question.

The phenomenon of people being willing to die for a cause, or religeon is, i believe, a subversion of the tendancy to sacrifice oneself for one's social group. Meaning to sacrifiuce oneself for one's genetically related group

Thanks for explaining that..

So in effect, our genes dictate our behaviour, but when we get it wrong.. we are misinterpreting(?) our genes? Does this mean we are a product of our genes or a product of free will but influenced by our genes.. as you seem to suggest.. since we can make mistakes?

Does a group then form because there is a genetic relation between the individuals? I'm not sure I follow, since due to our high dispersal wouldn't that have to mean we all came from a genetic Adam then - for us to consider, say, an international group putting each other first before nearby genetic relations?

Eg. A group of MMORPG players from all over the world who meet at conferences and are close buddies, than, say, their cousins and school friends and would put their WoW buddies before those in their locality.

If this is too far off topic then feel free to flame me! :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447
Guest AuntJess
May I please ditto nearly all of that?

Exception: while Mr Bear and I have never splashed it about, we certainly have hoarded our hard-earned stash, because we both know exactly what it's like to have two and fourpence (12p) to last to the end of the week, with no Bank of Mum and Dad to call on (M&Ds also broke and we'd never have asked even if they weren't), absolutely no ATM cash on credit, and exceedingly stern and scary bank managers to see if you ever had the temerity to ask for an overdraft.

And we don't ever want to go there again.

Be my guest :D You sound like a gal after my own heart.

As to hoarding, I can attest to doing that - as in saving, rather than squandering. I am the kind of person who does not think that: -

- foreign holidays

- bottles of wine/beer every night

- designer clothes

- expensive cars

- meals out

- more than one holiday a year

is my God-given right.I went without these for forty working years. and am now down to NO holidays a year.

My Dad died just as I hit 21 :( , and my mum was a hardworking( heavily-taxed) :angry: widow. I never asked her for a penny. She was finding it hard enough to make ends meet as it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
8
HOLA449
Guest AuntJess
Sounds right

But if the OP really thinks that dinosaurs and people co-existed, maybe this should be moved to "Off-topic, religious nutters"?

Hang on a mo, :blink: I saw Rachel Welsh scampering about in a fur bikini...and there were dinosaurs chasing her. :unsure: ............. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410
10
HOLA4411
11
HOLA4412
Hang on a mo, :blink: I saw Rachel Welsh scampering about in a fur bikini...and there were dinosaurs chasing her. :unsure: ............. :lol:

Really? I didnt notice the dinosaurs, I guess I was transfixed on something else....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
The problems we see now are all based on greed, which is itself a genetic trait. The altruistic members of our species died throwing themselves in front of tyrannosauruses (what’s the plural?) in order for our greedy ancestors to steal all of their belongings.

So why did the Corporations set up the PR industry & spend so many millions on advertising to get us to associate good feelings with random products?

Products are market at an unconscious level. People in general wouldn't desire Ipods & 4x4 cars if advertisers associated them with lumps of dog pooh & p*ss stinking tramps instead of beautiful imagery & 'cool' sophisticated people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
To finish on a positive note, you and I can ultimately fix all this, all we have to do is to ensure that if we choose to sleep with a banker or politician then make sure we use protection.

why are people on this site any better? Most here are waiting to snap up a bargain house at the expense of someone else. Some could afford to do so already but are holding out so that they can have something bigger and better or have more money left over (to buy "shiny things" I guess). Same greed, just a different strategy :). Why not just be honest! It is a basic economic assumption that all our actions are an attempt to derive utility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
Well, it's all very well blaming one's genes. If you had found I was messing around with your almost-wife would you have accepted my excuse if I'd said: "Sorry, it was my genetic tendency to reproduce my DNA."

Sorry, I guess I didn't explain myself properly.

I do not believe that genetics provides a get out of jail free morality card, but it does provide a very detailed explanation of why some events happen. Just because we have a genetic disposition to act in certain ways does not make it morally acceptable to do so.

If you were to fool around with fiancé, then your genetic makeup would not be an excuse for your actions, but it may explain them. Similarly if I were to find out and then to punch your lights out, my genetic makeup would not excuse that action, but it may explain it.

Darwinian selective pressures help you understand behavioural traits, but it does not excuse them. We do have a choice as to whether we act on our genetic cues, that’s where morality comes in.

t moraly acce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
Guest Steve Cook
Sorry, I guess I didn't explain myself properly.

I do not believe that genetics provides a get out of jail free morality card, but it does provide a very detailed explanation of why some events happen. Just because we have a genetic disposition to act in certain ways does not make it morally acceptable to do so.

If you were to fool around with fiancé, then your genetic makeup would not be an excuse for your actions, but it may explain them. Similarly if I were to find out and then to punch your lights out, my genetic makeup would not excuse that action, but it may explain it.

Darwinian selective pressures help you understand behavioural traits, but it does not excuse them. We do have a choice as to whether we act on our genetic cues, that’s where morality comes in.

t moraly acce

I would largely agree with this post.

Except, perhaps, to add the following caveats.

The extent to which people are able to make informed moral choices and be therefore morally responsible for their actions will arguably be tempered by the following characteristics:

1) how intelligent they are since this will affect their capacity to mentally model all of the possible consequences of their actions.

2) how much experience they have had since this will provide them with a store of knowledge of actual consequences of previous actions.

So, the less intelligent and/or less experienced a person is, the less morally responsible they are for their actions.

Edited by Steve Cook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
Guest X-QUORK

Altruistic behaviour is no less useful than being able to hunt a mammoth. If we help out our fellow human beings in times of need, not only will we in all likelihood see the favour returned one day, we show ourselves to be capable and caring. Both traits which are likely to attract Miss Cavelady.

That's why we all have a bit of angel and devil in us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
Guest Steve Cook
Altruistic behaviour is no less useful than being able to hunt a mammoth. If we help out our fellow human beings in times of need, not only will we in all likelihood see the favour returned one day, we show ourselves to be capable and caring. Both traits which are likely to attract Miss Cavelady.

That's why we all have a bit of angel and devil in us.

Yes X-quork...

However, it is very important to distinguish between reciprocative and altruistic behaviours.

You are describing reciprocation, which is actually a form of rational, long-term self-interest.

By definition, altruism is a form of behaviour that is truly disinterested. That is to say, there is no interest whatsoever underlying such behaviour. Either directly, or indirectly.

As an example, if I kill you for your food I am acting in a short-term self-interested way. If I choose to cooperate with you in huntings an animal and in doing so we both benefit, I am acting in a long-term self-interested way since we can go and hunt again later.

Both of the above are expressions of self-interest. There is only a difference of how immediate the gain is.

This is quite different from altruism where there is no expected gain, short or long term, direct or indirect.

Edited by Steve Cook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
The problems we see now are all based on greed, which is itself a genetic trait.

So greed isnt learned then? Id say it has more basis in upbringing than genes myself. The conscious brain is easily able to overrule any instinct for greed, and as such id say its genetic contribution is miniscule compared to the environmental contribution.

In short, we are greedy because the TV tells us to be.

Edited by King Stromba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
20
HOLA4421
Guest Steve Cook
So greed isnt learned then? Id say it has more basis in upbringing than genes myself. The conscious brain is easily able to overrule any instinct for greed, and as such id say its genetic contribution is miniscule compared to the environmental contribution.

In short, we are greedy because the TV tells us to be.

"Greed" is the very basis of life. The evidence for this across the natural world (ourselves being no exception) is both voluminous and overwhelming.

Whilst the basis for greed most certainly is not learned, it could well be argued the particuar cultural expression of it is, to some extent.

On what basis do you make the satement that it is easy for the "conscious" brain to overcome such traits?

I am not, by the way, suggesting that we should not attempt to overcome such traits

Edited by Steve Cook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
The S-word seems particularly pernicious because it's so general; its sole purpose seems to be to establish the superiority of the speaker over the general mass of humanity. Having said all that, if someone wants to call people sheeple then let them go ahead.

Moreover posts decrying the sheeple seem to have less information content - but that's just my perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
23
HOLA4424
"Greed" is the very basis of life. The evidence for this across the natural world (ourselves being no exception) is both voluminous and overwhelming.

Whilst the basis for greed most certainly is not learned, it could well be argued the particuar cultural expression of it is, to some extent.

On what basis do you make the satement that it is easy for the "conscious" brain to overcome such traits?

I am not, by the way, suggesting that we should not attempt to overcome such traits

So greed is the basis of life? I think you will find amino acids in the form of proteins are the basis of life my friend. Greed is a behaviour found in higher animals. You are confusing yourself.

The conscious brain is able to overcome most of the 'animal instict' lower brain functions should you wish it to. People can go on hunger strike and abstain from sex to overrule two of the most powerful and instictive behaviours found in man. If your conscious brain can overcome the need for food and let you starve to death, you bet your wages it can overcome the need for a new X5.

Edited by King Stromba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425
"Greed" is the very basis of life. The evidence for this across the natural world (ourselves being no exception) is both voluminous and overwhelming.

I'm not so sure it's as easy to say that 'greed' is the basis of life. Just because we often act out of self-interest doesn't mean we are greedy.

If try to avoid an oncoming car in the road I am acting out of self-interest but I wouldn't consider myself being greedy for more time on the planet.

If I hoard cash for fear of times of hardship to gain security I am acting out of self-interest, but I wouldn't consider myself greedy. Concerned about security in lean times, yes.

I think greed goes way beyond the average level of self-interest & is particularly marked by attempting to gain things at the expense of others rather than at the service of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information