tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post4117167472849356743..comments2024-03-14T08:38:46.219-07:00Comments on Biophilia: Altruism through genocideBurkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08135758421220520531noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-77582367625781233892012-02-23T08:13:10.579-08:002012-02-23T08:13:10.579-08:00Thank you amazing blog, do you have twitter, faceb...Thank you amazing blog, do you have twitter, facebook or something similar where i can follow your blog<br /><br />Sandro HecklerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-48071790456463942642009-07-07T06:54:20.831-07:002009-07-07T06:54:20.831-07:00Hi Simon!
Thanks for the clarification. Although...Hi Simon!<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. Although I "understand" the algorithm of selection - basically that what reproduces is what continues for whatever reason (called fitness), it still seems to me that the plasticity of human psychology can trump almost anything. Of course psychology is the product of selection to, so I always feel that there is a chicken/egg loop when self-awareness and selection are considered together.<br /><br />Interesting to think about!<br /><br />Another interesting thought - the religion most committed to practicing compassion is Buddhism - but typically Buddhist monks (the most intense practitioners) do not reproduce. Yet the monks have continued for two millennia. <br /><br />Of course, the American "Shakers' did not believe in reproduction so they no longer exist.Steven Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677314285938844360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-51433971003602587682009-07-07T01:18:42.989-07:002009-07-07T01:18:42.989-07:00I enjoyed the way you assessed this paper, thanks....I enjoyed the way you assessed this paper, thanks. <br /><br />On Steven Stark's question, Bowles refers specifically to altruism as bearing a cost for actions that don't benefit you personally, or which jeopardize your inclusive fitness. Alternatively, you could think of another trait, 'Parochial Altruism' (elucidated in 'Parochial Altruism and War' Choi and Bowles (2007), also see 'Group competition, reproductive leveling and the evolution of human altruism' Bowles (2006)) in which altruism combines with disliking members of other groups. <br /><br />Also, Steve on your comment about culture, following work by Boyd & Richerson, altruism (and the coevolution of parochial altruism and war) could be explained by cultural evolution, and thus cultural transmission of particular behaviours through imitation or other learning rules. Bowles comments on this in a footnote in the paper.Simon Hallidayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04289994368497331598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-15973136674872914122009-07-06T20:34:29.136-07:002009-07-06T20:34:29.136-07:00Hmmm. Interesting. I agree with the basic drive...Hmmm. Interesting. I agree with the basic drive of your conclusions - bring on the Star Trek age! No more money and everyone is open-minded. Prime Directive, baby.<br /><br />I wonder about labeling those who are courageous in battle as altruists. What about Vikings, Huns, Cossacks, Visigoths etc. - the violent cultures? Couldn't changes in environment be more of a factor in all this? Were the Nazis so different genetically than Quakers? I know that selection is probably more concerned with the last several hundred thousand years, more than recent history, but still, it's a point to think about. I mean, if the Nazis had developed the atom bomb first, they may have won and then how would that change successive generations - for thousands of years perhaps? And through an indeterminate "chance" that we beat them before they figured it out. I realize that selection works through indeterminate chance as well - so finding patterns to fitness seems problematic. We only have one history to view and what we define as fit is what has survived, for whatever reason.<br /><br />Evolution is obvious - but our attempts to explain traits via natural selection often rubs me more as human desire for order, than as obviously true. But I suppose it's still worth pursuing. And what I don't know about it could fill a library - but I'm learning.Steven Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677314285938844360noreply@blogger.com