Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Evolution

Actually no. I've got an organ donor card, but I never thought about this one.

They seem to want $52 along with a swab. I guess that helps weed out the SAs.

From where I sit ... any pro-life prosletyzer that isn't carrying a donor card and hasn't signed up as a marrow donor (~12 latte's at Starbucks) is just a FH.

And I measure them by their deeds ... not their words.

[/QB][/QUOTE]
Not been following this post, been busy, but I am not sure you are right about that Dan.

The reason that a school of fish 'ball'
Is enrirely due to a group of Dolphin that swim very fast around the fish in ever tighter circles.
The Dolphin also release streams of bubbles, further frightening the fish. When corralled into a tight ball. A single Dolphin to enters the ball and grabs a mouthful of fish. The Dolphins take turns at this.
Now thats evolutionary intelligence.

I think the dolphins are taking advantage of the normal tendency of the fish to school, seeing as they do it when approached by tuna, not able to blow bubbles or do other things. The balling of the school of fish is a general respone to any threat, not just dolphins. As a behavior it must have survival value, if it has persisted so long in fish. Maybe the predator becomes confused and can't single out any one fish to grab, somewhat like zebras on the plains of Africa. While it is true that fish ball up in the face of dolphins, the dolphins are not the sole cause of the behavior.

dougalbod wrote:
[/QUOTE] Altruistic behaviour, that is behaviour which is beneficial to others but has no benefit or is detrimental to the individual displaying the behaviour, can only evolve through natural selection if the individuals which benefit pass on genes which cause the behaviour. [QUOTE]
_______________________________________________

Donating organs, giving blood, helping the poor, going to the aid of another - are in no way examples of altruistic behaviour, as they are instead examples of selfishness.

Unlike other animals, human consciousness makes us value the individual self over the tribe. We may agree, or disagree with the mores and morals of the tribe we belong to - either way, the choices we make are wholly dependent on our own egotism.

For example: Soilguy wrote, ?Kids helped through altruism may be more likely to behave altruistically from then on?. Which is the same as saying, ?If I help in any way, or am kind and friendly to this kid, he or she may be less inclined to bash and rob others in the future ? especially not me?. So even though we may feel that our good deeds are purely altruistic, that feeling is actually just part of our own egotism.

Obviously, the concept of altruism, though not true, has been a useful tool in our evolutionary progress, as it has assisted our ability to cooperate in large groups.

-
Sue

Sue,

Can you point to something that confirms what you write? I not, then it is just philosophy and I'm free to disagree.

Are you really saying there is no such thing as an altruistic act and that all actions are mercenery?

Just because there is always a reward for altruistic actions (a positive feeling, for example) it does not automatically follow that the act was self serving.

Is it not possible that we can simply come to a reasoned decision that acting in another's interest is simply the right thing to do?

Are you saying we would not act altruistically if there was no reward for us? I feel that even if there was no reward whatsoever (no gooey feeling etc.) then I could still act in another's interest, even at cost to myself.

At one stroke you rid humans of altruism, goodness, kindness and nobility, and make them all calculated acts designed to do nothing else but benefit the supposed altruist.

I don't go for it - we are better than that.

Blacknad.

And again the two following definitions of altruism are being used interchangeably:

1. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

2. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"The reason that a school of fish 'ball'
Is enrirely due to a group of Dolphin that swim very fast around the fish in ever tighter circles."

Read my example again and you will see that my reference was to tuna: "When a tuna approaches." Tuna don't strategize.

But you do bring up one fascinating aspect of evolution. If the smaller fish didn't form a ball the dolphins would use a different strategy. The reason they do it, and the reason it works, is that the dolphin's understand, and can predict, the behaviour of schooling fishes.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:
"Donating organs, giving blood, helping the poor, going to the aid of another - are in no way examples of altruistic behaviour, as they are instead examples of selfishness."

Hardly. When you donate a kidney you put yourself at risk. In fact you are not allowed to be a donor without having the risks explained to you. This is definitely true with bone marrow.

Sue continues:
"Unlike other animals, human consciousness makes us value the individual self over the tribe."

Not true again. But then I doubt you have any personal experience with living in a tribal society so I wonder upon what basis you would make such an absolutist statement.

And Sue continues with:
"So even though we may feel that our good deeds are purely altruistic, that feeling is actually just part of our own egotism."

Had you read this thread from the beginning you would have seen the statement that altruism, at its heart, is self-serving. Self-serving but not egotism. Few altruistic acts involve sitting back and carefully calculating the celebrity that will come if one rescues a drowning child. And having worked as a lifeguard for a few years I find your comment laughable. The only celebrity I received from 5 or 6 rescues was a sunburn.

the please explain why people join the military. they know they have a good chance of dying, even during peace time. yet they put their lives on the line to protect their nation. soldiers do not value their individual self less than those who do not serve, yet they are more than capable of giving up those lives to protect others.

the same can be said of police, firemen, and others. how many police do you think have given up their lives for the good of the "tribe" they call their city. how many firemen lose their lives running in to fires to save children and adults. this activity is very much non conducive to the health of the individual self. it is vital to the health of the "tribe".

I must confess I started reading this with trepidation given your comments on science topics but you are absolutely correct.

Not one fireman running into the World Trade Center made a calculation about the celebrity that awaited if he got out alive. Not one person on United flight 93 tackled a hijacker out of egotism. I sure as heck didn't become a lifeguard because I expected to be on Shark Week.

Sue's instincts are leading in the right direction but she goes off track and her conclusions are far from the mark.

Sue

As you point out apparently altruistic behaviour in humans may be based on a selfish calculation of self interest. I think you are right up to a point, however the development of consciousness puts humans in an unusual position when talking about evolution and I think it's probably true that there are genuine cases of altruistic beaviour among humans. I'm sure we've all heard of individuals who have entered burning houses to rescue complete strangers. Among some groups of people at least there is a culture of altruistic behaviour, it remains to be seen if natural selection will allow this behaviour to survive over millions of years!

Doug

Hi Dougalbod,

What is the "unusual position" that humans are placed in because of "the development of consciousness"?
-
Sue

Blacknad wrote:
[QUOTE]Can you point to something that confirms what you write? I not, then it is just philosophy and I'm free to disagree.

Are you really saying there is no such thing as an altruistic act and that all actions are mercenery? [QUOTE]

The definition of altruism is ?selflessness?, but because each individual has an ego commanding his every action, the concept of selflessness is thereby rendered absurd.

[QUOTE]Just because there is always a reward for altruistic actions (a positive feeling, for example) it does not automatically follow that the act was self serving.[QUOTE]

As you say, ?there is always a reward? ? therefore the concept of altruism is a fantasy.

[QUOTE]Is it not possible that we can simply come to a reasoned decision that acting in another's interest is simply the right thing to do?[QUOTE]

Choosing to ?do the right thing? over ?not doing the right thing? comes down to how attached we are to things.

[QUOTE]Are you saying we would not act altruistically if there was no reward for us? I feel that even if there was no reward whatsoever (no gooey feeling etc.) then I could still act in another's interest, even at cost to myself.[QUOTE]

Unless you are egoless, you are selfish. Any act by the ego is to serve itself. We may place ourselves in harms way, but we do so because to do otherwise would not give us the self-satisfaction we desire.

[QUOTE]At one stroke you rid humans of altruism, goodness, kindness and nobility, and make them all calculated acts designed to do nothing else but benefit the supposed altruist.[QUOTE]

Yes. But as I said in my earlier post, the fantasy that is altruism has been of great service for our bonding.

[QUOTE]I don't go for it - we are better than that.[QUOTE]

Yes we are better than that, but whilst we live lives based on fantasies, we will remain as we are.
-
Sue

Blacknad wrote:
[QUOTE]And again the two following definitions of altruism are being used interchangeably:

1. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

2. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.[QUOTE]

As an animal, humans herd together for protection, food and sex. To get those things, some individuals are forced to place their lives on the line to prove their value to the herd. Risking death ensures acceptance and appreciation from the herd.
-
Sue

Hey.. Blacknad did not write that.

Blacknad

I wrote: "Donating organs, giving blood, helping the poor, going to the aid of another - are in no way examples of altruistic behaviour, as they are instead examples of selfishness."

DA Morgan replied:
[QUOTE]Hardly. When you donate a kidney you put yourself at risk. In fact you are not allowed to be a donor without having the risks explained to you. This is definitely true with bone marrow. [QUOTE]

Yet to refuse to donate organs, or give bone marrow may bring more ?risks? than if you had. For example: if you live in a culture, family or couple where the other member/s value donating a kidney, etc, and you decide you don?t want to take the risk of becoming ill or dying; you may find yourself shunned by your culture, disowned by your family, lose the love and respect of your partner ? and all because you went against their values.

Most people would prefer to risk death, than to risk losing the love and respect of their loved ones.

[QUOTE]But then I doubt you have any personal experience with living in a tribal society so I wonder upon what basis you would make such an absolutist statement.[QUOTE]

The ?tribe? I was referring to was ?Society?.

[QUOTE]Had you read this thread from the beginning you would have seen the statement that altruism, at its heart, is self-serving. Self-serving but not egotism. Few altruistic acts involve sitting back and carefully calculating the celebrity that will come if one rescues a drowning child. And having worked as a lifeguard for a few years I find your comment laughable. The only celebrity I received from 5 or 6 rescues was a sunburn. [QUOTE]

Egotism, which depends entirely on the emotions for its existence, is so tightly and intricately woven into the fabric of Society that most people consider it as ?normal behaviour?.

People serving the community in ways that Society values, rarely get public acclaim. What they do get is the deep emotional satisfaction that comes from also holding these same values. Some people find emotional pleasure in raging against the values of their community. By doing this they gain happiness from being ?different? and ?individualistic?. Either way, both are acting according to their egos.
-
Sue

Dehammer wrote:
[QUOTE]the please explain why people join the military. they know they have a good chance of dying, even during peace time. yet they put their lives on the line to protect their nation. soldiers do not value their individual self less than those who do not serve, yet they are more than capable of giving up those lives to protect others.

the same can be said of police, firemen, and others. how many police do you think have given up their lives for the good of the "tribe" they call their city. how many firemen lose their lives running in to fires to save children and adults. this activity is very much non conducive to the health of the individual self. it is vital to the health of the "tribe".[QUOTE]

Yes soldiers, firemen, police and other people who serve the community are much valued by society because they do the jobs that others aren't prepared to take on.

If it wasn't for these people, who find their greatest happiness in these sorts of high-danger jobs, we'd never have evolved the way we have.
-
Sue

DA Morgan wrote:
[QUOTE]Not one fireman running into the World Trade Center made a calculation about the celebrity that awaited if he got out alive. Not one person on United flight 93 tackled a hijacker out of egotism. I sure as heck didn't become a lifeguard because I expected to be on Shark Week. [QUOTE]

All of the above once again shows how easily we accept the fantasy of altruism. The firemen called to the World Trade Center didn?t have to think about whether or not they should do their job ? they just did it. Years before, they had already made the decision to take on the job of ?fireman?, knowing full well the risks and dangers. So, years before, they had already weighted up all the pros and cons, and had decided that their greatest satisfaction and happiness lay in this job.

The people who did tackle the hijackers on United Flight 93 also acted on deeply rooted instincts ? and yes, those instincts were egotistical.

When people feel threatened, some people fight back, whilst others surrender - fight or flight. You see this everyday, in all walks of life. Whichever way you end up acting, depends on your emotional attachments.

The people that fought back did so, because their greatest emotional satisfaction was to try to change what was happening, or to die in the trying. There would have been other people on that flight that did nothing to alter the situation, as they didn?t possess the same egotism as the ones that did act. If the plane had been saved, the ones who acted would have been pronounced heroes. And the ones that did not act would have been mostly ignored. As you can see, this is an entirely unfair situation, as both groups could only act from their different egotistical positions: that is, from their different emotional attachments. And these emotional attachments are as old as our species itself, and very hard to alter in any way.

[QUOTE]Sue's instincts are leading in the right direction but she goes off track and her conclusions are far from the mark.[QUOTE]

In what way do you think I've gone ?off track??

How are my conclusions ?far from the mark??

-
Sue