![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIxYIrULM9aqNBTk4I17LnV1V_4_ZMO_q-KxOskonqZs3a3FXCbCgx61zrzg4rdc_Z-VAne0deuHg6GpjWnk4VTJnBDVk73wUyX6INv486p2StdIDJ4FMEEHzn8Xcwtp67Yyp7LE5YggU/s320/Shark+Friend.jpg)
Watching the HBO special about John Adams at work among The Founders, I was struck by how inspired they were towards sharing a civilizing purpose (founding a republic of free citizens), which they deemed important beyond their physical bodies. "In their bones," they were animated by more than mere desire to survive and reproduce. Rather, they wished to create and leave to posterity something of worth which led beyond themselves. In what way, then, should Darwinism be conceived to explain why such an altruistic cause so inspired them?
REGARDING Edward O. Wilson —
(Tainting Words, Rejecting Ayn Rand, and Driving Dawkins Bonkers?)
REGARDING Sociobiology and Multilevel Selection Theory (is there a clear conceptual definition — either of “gene” or of “evolution”?):
QUOTE SNIPPITS:
See http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/522809?cookieSet=1:
Current sociobiology is in theoretical disarray, with a diversity of frameworks that are poorly related to each other. Part of the problem is a reluctance to revisit the pivotal events that took place during the 1960s, including the rejection of group selection and the development of alternative theoretical frameworks to explain the evolution of cooperative and altruistic behaviors. In this article, we take a “back to basics” approach, explaining what group selection is, why its rejection was regarded as so important, and how it has been revived based on a more careful formulation and subsequent research.
REGARDING Edward O. Wilson —
(Tainting Words, Rejecting Ayn Rand, and Driving Dawkins Bonkers?)
REGARDING Sociobiology and Multilevel Selection Theory (is there a clear conceptual definition — either of “gene” or of “evolution”?):
QUOTE SNIPPITS:
See http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/522809?cookieSet=1:
Current sociobiology is in theoretical disarray, with a diversity of frameworks that are poorly related to each other. Part of the problem is a reluctance to revisit the pivotal events that took place during the 1960s, including the rejection of group selection and the development of alternative theoretical frameworks to explain the evolution of cooperative and altruistic behaviors. In this article, we take a “back to basics” approach, explaining what group selection is, why its rejection was regarded as so important, and how it has been revived based on a more careful formulation and subsequent research.
.
Multilevel selection theory:
From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15wils.html?em&ex=1216267200&en=0c430acc141c196e&ei=5087%0A
Dr. Wilson, changing his mind because of new data about the genetics of ant colonies, now believes that natural selection operates at many levels, including at the level of a social group.
[COMMENT: There is a lag between the time consciousness of a decision is sensed and the time the brain-holography had actually already made the decision. So, (including group selection) provides an elegant theoretical foundation for sociobiology in the future, once its turbulent past is appropriately understood. What is IT that accounts for evolution in our habits and modes of thought, in respect of what occurs prior to consciousness of such thought? Is IT a same ineffable Quality/Aspect/Thing that accounts for evolution of emerging and social behaviors, patterns, and memes, beyond genes? Might IT "school minds like fish," in some sort of existentially shared mass-angst? ]
....
It is through multilevel or group-level selection — favoring the survival of one group of organisms over another — that evolution has in Dr. Wilson’s view brought into being the many essential genes that benefit the group at the individual’s expense. In humans, these may include genes that underlie generosity, moral constraints, even religious behavior. Such traits are difficult to account for, though not impossible, on the view that natural selection favors only behaviors that help the individual to survive and leave more children.
OF TAINTED WORDS:
From http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/522809?cookieSet=1 :
It is a natural human tendency to avoid associating oneself with people or ideas that have acquired a bad reputation in the past. Thus, there are evolutionists who study social behavior, but avoid the term “sociobiology,” or who study psychology, but avoid the term “evolutionary psychology,” because of particular ideas that were associated with these terms in the past, including their supposed political implications. At a broader scale, there are people who avoid the word “evolution” because of past negative associations, even though they are clearly talking about evolutionary processes. We think that this very understandable temptation needs to be resisted in the case of scientific terminology, because the short-term gain for the user (avoiding negative associations) results in long-term confusion for the field as a whole (a proliferation of terms that mean the same thing). The problem has been especially severe for multilevel selection theory because many evolutionists have felt that their very careers would be jeopardized if they invoked group selection. In some cases, their fears were well founded; we could provide numerous examples of colleagues whose articles and grant proposals were rejected when stated in terms of multilevel selection theory, and then accepted when restated using other terms.
[COMMENT: Shades of “Expelled”!]
The rejection of group selection in the 1960s was based on three arguments, like the legs of a stool: a) group selection as a significant evolutionary force is theoretically implausible; b) there is no solid empirical evidence for group selection as a distinctive, analytically separable process; and c) alternative theories can explain the evolution of apparent altruism without invoking group selection.
[COMMENT — Well, I suspect the primary reason may have been this: ASSUMING everything can be reduced to computation, there seems no way to test the compute-ability of group selection. (If so, and so long as non-group selection also remains inadequate in itself, what is the implication of that, regarding the original ASSUMPTION?) Until we plumb individual selection, to encourage shared conceptualizations of group selecton too quickly may lead us to overlook other avenues of scientific manipulation, even if while expediting appreciation of limits of conceptional applications.]
....
The closest that Williams came to a rigorous empirical test was for sex ratio, leading him to predict that female-biased sex ratios would provide evidence for group selection. The subsequent discovery of many examples of female-biased sex ratios, as well as evidence of group selection in the evolution of disease organisms, brought him back toward multilevel selection in the 1990s.
....
Field studies of social vertebrates are seldom as precise as laboratory experiments but nevertheless provide convincing evidence for group selection. The following description of territorial defense in lions (Packer and Heinsohn 1996:1216; see also Heinsohn and Packer 1995) is virtually identical to Darwin's passage about human morality that began this article: “Female lions share a common resource, the territory; but only a proportion of females pay the full costs of territorial defense. If too few females accept the responsibilities of leadership, the territory will be lost. If enough females cooperate to defend the range, their territory is maintained, but their collective effort is vulnerable to abuse by their companions. Leaders do not gain ‘additional benefits' from leading, but they do provide an opportunity for laggards to gain a free ride.” In this field study, extensive efforts to find a within-group advantage for territorial defense failed, leaving between-group selection as the most likely—and fully plausible—alternative.
....
“.... to offer the following one-foot summary of sociobiology's new theoretical foundation: “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.”” (COMMENT: Might this help explain the result of WWII?)
[COMMENT: So, how should a viable civilization inspire altruism?
I think, not entirely or merely with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. For moral purposes, rather than choosing between "either-or" thinking (individual or collective, singular or plural), we must reconcile "I" with "we." Each must value his or her own integrity, even while appreciating derivation in respect of empathy beyond. That is, "Mind" is not entirely or only individual or collective. Rather, Mind/Will ("Elohim"), in moral sense, is not only individual (singularity), but also capable of infinity (plurality) of perspectives.
From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15wils.html?em&ex=1216267200&en=0c430acc141c196e&ei=5087%0A
Dr. Wilson, changing his mind because of new data about the genetics of ant colonies, now believes that natural selection operates at many levels, including at the level of a social group.
[COMMENT: There is a lag between the time consciousness of a decision is sensed and the time the brain-holography had actually already made the decision. So, (including group selection) provides an elegant theoretical foundation for sociobiology in the future, once its turbulent past is appropriately understood. What is IT that accounts for evolution in our habits and modes of thought, in respect of what occurs prior to consciousness of such thought? Is IT a same ineffable Quality/Aspect/Thing that accounts for evolution of emerging and social behaviors, patterns, and memes, beyond genes? Might IT "school minds like fish," in some sort of existentially shared mass-angst? ]
....
It is through multilevel or group-level selection — favoring the survival of one group of organisms over another — that evolution has in Dr. Wilson’s view brought into being the many essential genes that benefit the group at the individual’s expense. In humans, these may include genes that underlie generosity, moral constraints, even religious behavior. Such traits are difficult to account for, though not impossible, on the view that natural selection favors only behaviors that help the individual to survive and leave more children.
OF TAINTED WORDS:
From http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/522809?cookieSet=1 :
It is a natural human tendency to avoid associating oneself with people or ideas that have acquired a bad reputation in the past. Thus, there are evolutionists who study social behavior, but avoid the term “sociobiology,” or who study psychology, but avoid the term “evolutionary psychology,” because of particular ideas that were associated with these terms in the past, including their supposed political implications. At a broader scale, there are people who avoid the word “evolution” because of past negative associations, even though they are clearly talking about evolutionary processes. We think that this very understandable temptation needs to be resisted in the case of scientific terminology, because the short-term gain for the user (avoiding negative associations) results in long-term confusion for the field as a whole (a proliferation of terms that mean the same thing). The problem has been especially severe for multilevel selection theory because many evolutionists have felt that their very careers would be jeopardized if they invoked group selection. In some cases, their fears were well founded; we could provide numerous examples of colleagues whose articles and grant proposals were rejected when stated in terms of multilevel selection theory, and then accepted when restated using other terms.
[COMMENT: Shades of “Expelled”!]
The rejection of group selection in the 1960s was based on three arguments, like the legs of a stool: a) group selection as a significant evolutionary force is theoretically implausible; b) there is no solid empirical evidence for group selection as a distinctive, analytically separable process; and c) alternative theories can explain the evolution of apparent altruism without invoking group selection.
[COMMENT — Well, I suspect the primary reason may have been this: ASSUMING everything can be reduced to computation, there seems no way to test the compute-ability of group selection. (If so, and so long as non-group selection also remains inadequate in itself, what is the implication of that, regarding the original ASSUMPTION?) Until we plumb individual selection, to encourage shared conceptualizations of group selecton too quickly may lead us to overlook other avenues of scientific manipulation, even if while expediting appreciation of limits of conceptional applications.]
....
The closest that Williams came to a rigorous empirical test was for sex ratio, leading him to predict that female-biased sex ratios would provide evidence for group selection. The subsequent discovery of many examples of female-biased sex ratios, as well as evidence of group selection in the evolution of disease organisms, brought him back toward multilevel selection in the 1990s.
....
Field studies of social vertebrates are seldom as precise as laboratory experiments but nevertheless provide convincing evidence for group selection. The following description of territorial defense in lions (Packer and Heinsohn 1996:1216; see also Heinsohn and Packer 1995) is virtually identical to Darwin's passage about human morality that began this article: “Female lions share a common resource, the territory; but only a proportion of females pay the full costs of territorial defense. If too few females accept the responsibilities of leadership, the territory will be lost. If enough females cooperate to defend the range, their territory is maintained, but their collective effort is vulnerable to abuse by their companions. Leaders do not gain ‘additional benefits' from leading, but they do provide an opportunity for laggards to gain a free ride.” In this field study, extensive efforts to find a within-group advantage for territorial defense failed, leaving between-group selection as the most likely—and fully plausible—alternative.
....
“.... to offer the following one-foot summary of sociobiology's new theoretical foundation: “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.”” (COMMENT: Might this help explain the result of WWII?)
[COMMENT: So, how should a viable civilization inspire altruism?
I think, not entirely or merely with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. For moral purposes, rather than choosing between "either-or" thinking (individual or collective, singular or plural), we must reconcile "I" with "we." Each must value his or her own integrity, even while appreciating derivation in respect of empathy beyond. That is, "Mind" is not entirely or only individual or collective. Rather, Mind/Will ("Elohim"), in moral sense, is not only individual (singularity), but also capable of infinity (plurality) of perspectives.
Empiricists, becoming stunted in indisposition to imagine beyond "either-or" scientific boxes, often become, for moral purposes, maddeningly myopic --- if not quite morally hollow.
Minds shoehorned into strict "either-or" habits of thought for empirical reasoning come easily to transfer similar habits of thought as if appropriate for moral reasoning, coming comfortably to deny that Ayn Rand's "moral philosophy" (being incomplete) can never suffice.
Note: Ironically enough, Gary Cooper starred not only in a film based on Rand's "The Fountainhead," but also in another film, showing another side of altruism, i.e., "Meet John Doe."]
From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15wils.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&em&en=0c430acc141c196e&ex=1216267200
Morality and religion, he suspects, are traits based on group selection. “Groups with men of quality — brave, strong, innovative, smart and altruistic — would tend to prevail, as Darwin said, over those groups that do not have those qualities so well developed,” Dr. Wilson said.
....
Looking back at the “heavy mortar fire” that rained down on him over “Sociobiology,” he said he had risked his academic career and feared for a time that he had made a fatal error. His admiration for the political courage of the Harvard faculty is not without limits; many colleagues told him they supported him, but all did so privately. Academic biologists are still so afraid of inciting similar attacks that they practice sociobiology under other names, like evolutionary psychology.
.... he says: “Stop quibbling — I’m willing to say ‘Under God’ and to hold my hand to my heart. That’s recognition of how this country evolved, and that we are using strong language to strong purpose, even if we may not agree on how the Earth was created.”
....
....it is back to the ants and the writing and the endless quest to understand how the hand of evolution has shaped every aspect of life.
....
[COMMENT: Theorists of “emergence” seem interested in reducing the apparent “evolution” of multilevels of patterns to mere epiphenomena, lacking “real” source substantiveness in themselves. But, are theorists of “multilevel selection” interested in expanding the concept of evolution to encompass synchronizing agents of cause?
I need to consider WHY Dawkins is so frothy against those he deems to be messing with his conceptual scheme.
May Dawkins be troubled that multilevel evolution is more readily conceptualized for implicating a Unitary Synchronizer?
What does Dawkins think about George C Williams's concern that, only by a theory of between-group selection could we achieve a scientific explanation of group-related adaptations”? Does the possibility of multilevel selection render any ultimate unifying theory of biology so “non-computational” as to drive Dawkins and Company bonkers?
Must Something-Noncomputable "exist," beyond science, which synchronizes, facilitates, and guides evolution across multi-levels, based on ITs appreciation of feedback on holographic scales, rather than merely scales relating to survival and replication of individuals?] :
From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15wils.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&em&en=0c430acc141c196e&ex=1216267200
Morality and religion, he suspects, are traits based on group selection. “Groups with men of quality — brave, strong, innovative, smart and altruistic — would tend to prevail, as Darwin said, over those groups that do not have those qualities so well developed,” Dr. Wilson said.
....
Looking back at the “heavy mortar fire” that rained down on him over “Sociobiology,” he said he had risked his academic career and feared for a time that he had made a fatal error. His admiration for the political courage of the Harvard faculty is not without limits; many colleagues told him they supported him, but all did so privately. Academic biologists are still so afraid of inciting similar attacks that they practice sociobiology under other names, like evolutionary psychology.
.... he says: “Stop quibbling — I’m willing to say ‘Under God’ and to hold my hand to my heart. That’s recognition of how this country evolved, and that we are using strong language to strong purpose, even if we may not agree on how the Earth was created.”
....
....it is back to the ants and the writing and the endless quest to understand how the hand of evolution has shaped every aspect of life.
....
[COMMENT: Theorists of “emergence” seem interested in reducing the apparent “evolution” of multilevels of patterns to mere epiphenomena, lacking “real” source substantiveness in themselves. But, are theorists of “multilevel selection” interested in expanding the concept of evolution to encompass synchronizing agents of cause?
I need to consider WHY Dawkins is so frothy against those he deems to be messing with his conceptual scheme.
May Dawkins be troubled that multilevel evolution is more readily conceptualized for implicating a Unitary Synchronizer?
What does Dawkins think about George C Williams's concern that, only by a theory of between-group selection could we achieve a scientific explanation of group-related adaptations”? Does the possibility of multilevel selection render any ultimate unifying theory of biology so “non-computational” as to drive Dawkins and Company bonkers?
Must Something-Noncomputable "exist," beyond science, which synchronizes, facilitates, and guides evolution across multi-levels, based on ITs appreciation of feedback on holographic scales, rather than merely scales relating to survival and replication of individuals?] :
******
OF MORAL INTUITION:
Moderates should think logically and experientially about what are limits of science and beginnings of moral judgment and intuition. Challenges multiply as hedonists assert there are no “oughts” beyond personal, bodily, physical gratification and as scientists jealously assert “intuition” is devoid of meaning (i.e., that there are no worthwhile or meaningful concerns beyond logic and empiricism.
For annihilating social traditions and mores, Scientists and Hedonists seem often to align against Moderates, like Nihilist Libertines against responsible society.
In empirical sense, “intuition” may subsequently be evidenced to have been or not to have been descriptive of the case. However, in moral sense, “intuition” (or judgment) may be meant to pertain to that which one applies in endeavoring to effect choices in managing among moral uncertainties.
“Objective” minded persons, when unaccustomed to moral responsibility for decisions outside parameters of safe calculation, may grow agitated when pressed to discuss moral terms or ideas not readily reducible to cold, replicable measure, statistics, control, or prediction. Of course, much that is not trivial challenges us concerning our futures, being not reducible to certain knowledge. Beyond rough parameters of measurable or predictable accuracy, little that is not trivial is rigorously reducible to certainty.
In hindsight, one may imagine what could have been deduced from what was knowable, had one known it. By what strategy, however, does or should one approach decision making responsibilities when data or knowledge is uncertain or seems insufficient? And, when one does somehow muddle through to make non-trivial decisions or choices, by what label or name should the process or moral choice making be referenced --- if not “Intuition?”
Surely, such process “exists.” How then, may or should it be termed? For such term, what does an Objectivist offer? Should such process be named only in respect of its result, as in: “stuff happens?” Depending upon context, does an Objectivist offer anything better for terming such process than: hunch, guess, judgment, will, choice, intuition, or insight?
If, in non-trivial situations, Objectivists do not exercise something like “intuition” (an oft disparaged word among them), what then are they doing? If they are not “doing,” is “Nature” (Gaia?) then making “random” choices? Or, “should” Objectivists presume all is predetermined by indifferent and irrelevant “Original Cause(s)?” Is Nature (or Science) practicing science (Meta-science)? Is everyone and everything mere manifestation of experiment of ever higher orders of experiments (or Experimenters)?
When any choice is intuited, decided, or embarked upon as may be thought “best,” by what “objective” test, then, may any mere “empiricist,” not having access to the universe of the alternative, assert gnosis in respect of evidence gathered either in support or to the contrary? And, the instant an Objectivist deigns to care enough to attempt to gather such “evidence,” does he not thereby show his “objective indifference” to be NOT THE CASE?
Moderates should think logically and experientially about what are limits of science and beginnings of moral judgment and intuition. Challenges multiply as hedonists assert there are no “oughts” beyond personal, bodily, physical gratification and as scientists jealously assert “intuition” is devoid of meaning (i.e., that there are no worthwhile or meaningful concerns beyond logic and empiricism.
For annihilating social traditions and mores, Scientists and Hedonists seem often to align against Moderates, like Nihilist Libertines against responsible society.
In empirical sense, “intuition” may subsequently be evidenced to have been or not to have been descriptive of the case. However, in moral sense, “intuition” (or judgment) may be meant to pertain to that which one applies in endeavoring to effect choices in managing among moral uncertainties.
“Objective” minded persons, when unaccustomed to moral responsibility for decisions outside parameters of safe calculation, may grow agitated when pressed to discuss moral terms or ideas not readily reducible to cold, replicable measure, statistics, control, or prediction. Of course, much that is not trivial challenges us concerning our futures, being not reducible to certain knowledge. Beyond rough parameters of measurable or predictable accuracy, little that is not trivial is rigorously reducible to certainty.
In hindsight, one may imagine what could have been deduced from what was knowable, had one known it. By what strategy, however, does or should one approach decision making responsibilities when data or knowledge is uncertain or seems insufficient? And, when one does somehow muddle through to make non-trivial decisions or choices, by what label or name should the process or moral choice making be referenced --- if not “Intuition?”
Surely, such process “exists.” How then, may or should it be termed? For such term, what does an Objectivist offer? Should such process be named only in respect of its result, as in: “stuff happens?” Depending upon context, does an Objectivist offer anything better for terming such process than: hunch, guess, judgment, will, choice, intuition, or insight?
If, in non-trivial situations, Objectivists do not exercise something like “intuition” (an oft disparaged word among them), what then are they doing? If they are not “doing,” is “Nature” (Gaia?) then making “random” choices? Or, “should” Objectivists presume all is predetermined by indifferent and irrelevant “Original Cause(s)?” Is Nature (or Science) practicing science (Meta-science)? Is everyone and everything mere manifestation of experiment of ever higher orders of experiments (or Experimenters)?
When any choice is intuited, decided, or embarked upon as may be thought “best,” by what “objective” test, then, may any mere “empiricist,” not having access to the universe of the alternative, assert gnosis in respect of evidence gathered either in support or to the contrary? And, the instant an Objectivist deigns to care enough to attempt to gather such “evidence,” does he not thereby show his “objective indifference” to be NOT THE CASE?
To empiricists of little practical, moral responsibility who presume to disdain either "altruism" or “intuition”: GROW UP!
5 comments:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism :
On the NBC sitcom, Friends, when the character Phoebe had been trying throughout the episode to prove that she could perform a wholly "selfless act," she let a bee sting her and fly away, insisting that the bee was happy to sting her. Her friends inform her that she did not do the bee a favor, since a bee will die soon after stinging a person. Phoebe is shocked at the apparent irony and denounces altruism altogether.
However, the real irony in this example is that if Phoebe was performing a truly altruistic act (as defined regarding the absence of desire for any reward whatsoever - material or immaterial), the ultimate fate of the bee would be inconsequential to her. Her own feelings can not weigh into the performance of a truly selfless act. If the act were truly selfless, then her own feelings about performing that act, positive or negative, ought to be inconsequential to her.
….
Specifically, egoism leans on the assumption that satisfaction is synonymous with self-satisfaction. Such a precept automatically sidesteps counterpoint, however, and remains unfalsifiable. Thus, until empirical evidence favors one view or the other, egoism must acquiesce to uncertainty.
….
Norwegian Philosopher Arne Næss, a proponent of deep ecology, has suggested that the narrow concept of egoic self implies that all acts of "doing good" are acts of altruism, whereas, through a larger concept of the self-actualised "ecological self", in which it is the interconnectedness within progressively larger wholes, ultimately incorporating the whole of life (see Gaia hypothesis), means that our self interest ultimately requires the flourishing and well-being of the whole of life itself.
….
A new study by Samuel Bowles at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, US, is seen by some as breathing new life into the model of group selection for Altruism, known as "Survival of the nicest". Bowles conducted a genetic analysis of contemporary foraging groups, including Australian aboriginals, native Siberian Inuit populations and indigenous tribal groups in Africa. It was found that hunter-gatherer bands of up to 30 individuals were considerably more closely related than was previously thought. Under these conditions, thought to be similar to those of the middle and upper Paleolithic, altruism towards other group-members would improve the overall fitness of the group.
If an individual defended the group but was killed, any genes that the individual shared with the overall group would still be passed on.
Of Analytic Philosophy:
The problem with analytic philosophy is that its proponents (“AP’s”) tend to be blind not only to its inadequacy or inappropriateness for ill suited purposes, but also to the potential usefulness of alternative approaches.
AP’s imply or pretend proof, merely by assumption, of the irrelevance to spiritual purposefulness of Something (“God”) whose existence seems implicated to fundamental intuition, but whose reality seems phased to resonate beyond the measure or control of our physics.
The worldview of AP’s is fine for empirical experimentation. But it is hardly suitable to a mature philosophy of morality.
Of course, those sheltered within ivory castles, with little responsibility for hard, moral decisions, have little need to develop any practical, gut-checking moral philosophy.
They can afford to join in frivolity, much as any dropout doper or clown of few aspirations beyond burdening society or avoiding manly duty.
GOOD NEWS:
ANIMAL ALTRUISM:
Quote snippets from http://veggierevolution.blogspot.com/2007/08/chimps-share-human-trait-of-altruism.html:
Until recently, we thought only humans could behave altruistically. Not any more. "Altruism" is an act or behavior that benefits the recipient but is of no benefit to the person performing the act. To qualify as true altruism, in zoology, the recipient of the good deed must be unrelated to the performer of the deed.
....
But altruism has seldom if ever been documented in animals, except for cases of "reciprocal altruism," such as primates cleaning each other's teeth or grooming each other within a social group.
That has all changed. New research has shown that chimps readily perform altruistic acts not only for other chimps that are unrelated and unknown, but also for humans!
....
In the chimp experiments, 36 chimps watched one at a time from a barred enclosure while an experimenter unknown to the chimps tried in vain to reach a stick on the other side of the bars. Only the observing chimp could reach the stick.
Most of the chimps grabbed the stick and handed to the experimenter, with no reward.
A similar experiment with 36 children yielded similar results. The second round of experiments involved 18 chimps and 22 youngsters. In this round, the chimps had to climb a 2.5-meter-high platform to reach the stick, while the children had to navigate barriers and hurdles. Most chimps and children still retrieved the stick for the unknown experimenter trying to reach it, with no reward.
ANIMAL FLATULENCE:
Quote snippits from http://veggierevolution.blogspot.com/2008/06/sheep-flatulence-innoculation-developed.html :
New Zealand scientists claim to have developed a "flatulence inoculation" aimed at cutting down on the massive amount of methane produced by its sheep and cows.
Such animals are believed to be responsible for more than half of the country's greenhouse gases, causing huge environmental problems.
....
Under the Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming, New Zealand must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
In the past New Zealand's farmers have showed their disgust at government plans to impose an animal "flatulence tax" by sending parcels of manure to members of parliament.
....
See also http://veggierevolution.blogspot.com/2008/06/can-warmer-planet-feed-us.html.
Regarding E.O. Wilson and his neologism, “biophilia”:
BIOPHILA:
From http://www.wilderdom.com/evolution/BiophiliaHypothesis.html :
“A somewhat controversial hypothesis put forward by Edward Wilson is the idea that humans evolved as creatures deeply enmeshed with the intricacies of nature, and that we still have this affinity with nature ingrained in our genotype.”
….
“Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard University entomologist, coined the term "biophilia", referring to humans' "love of living things" - our innate affinity with nature.”
….
“The one process now going on that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.”
BIODIVERSITY:
From http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/wilson.html :
“When an island or an archipelago is formed, for example, or an area is cleared by glaciation or other major physical event of its original biodiversity, there is first a flood of immigrant species. They interact with one another and form a community that we call an ecosystem. If the new area is left undisturbed, then typically there is an episode of rapid evolution — an adaptation of new species to the environment.”
….
CORPORATE WELFARE:
(NOTE --- MY OBSERVATION --- THE SUBSIDIZATION OF CORPORATE WELFARE THROUGH THE “FREE” SACRIFICE OF BIODIVERSITY:)
“In your new book Future of Life you deflate the myth that environmental policy is hostile to economic growth. Can you elaborate?
Wilson: The living resources of the world — ecosystems and its species — are still largely unexplored, much less studied for the benefits they might hold for humans, for example, new pharmaceuticals or water purification. Some ecologists and economists have estimated that the total value of these natural ecosystems, that’s the total amount of services they provide to humanity, is in the vicinity of 30 trillion dollars a year. That’s more than the total of the gross national products of all nations combined. And it’s free!
To save and make fuller use of them in a non-obtrusive way is economically valuable to us. To destroy them is to force humanity into an artificial world in which we have to personally manage our water systems, our food supply, and our atmosphere by prosthetic devices day by day instead of relying on powerful organisms to do the work for us. Do we want to turn Earth literally into a spaceship that requires constant tinkering?”
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eo_wilson :
Wilson prefers and uses the term "consilience" to describe the synthesis of knowledge from different specialized fields of human endeavor. He defines human nature as a collection of epigenetic rules, the genetic patterns of mental development. He argues that culture and rituals are products, not parts, of human nature.
….
Wilson's sociobiological ideas have offended some liberals and conservatives, who both favored the idea that human behavior was culturally based. Sociobiology re-ignited the nature-versus-nurture debate, and Wilson's scientific perspective on human nature led to public debate. He was accused of racism, misogyny, and eugenics. In one incident, members of the International Committee Against Racism (a group connected to a left-wing organization Science for the People) poured a pitcher of water on Wilson's head and chanted "Wilson, you're all wet" at a conference in November 1977.
Regarding oxymoron: "Liberal Altruism --- government regulated, “forced altruism” ---
see http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/compulsory_altruism_if_obama_i.html.
Post a Comment