Are We Still Animals?

[Vraith]

Yeah .. I remember a thousand millennia ago at University studying Philosophy 101 .. we concluded that Altruism did not exist.

Yea, that sounds about right for Ph-101.
And just like the stuff in Econ-101, it's pretty simplistic and likely false.
One reason [only one, cuz I said different topic, not talking]:
Altruism CANNOT be selfishness-from-a-different-angle.
Because, the mutation that CAUSES it is distinct from the selfishness DNA, AND the mutation occurs BEFORE it is tested for.
The action/behavior saves others FIRST, without any reference or connection to the creatures own survival.

[Skyweir]

So we must be talking about different things.

Yes 101 subjects are by their very description basic, introductory and simplistic


Altruism as exhibited via genetic mutation .. is an interesting concept. You've mentioned this briefly earlier. And there is a selfishness gene?

What is the function of such a mutation? To preserve the young at the expense of the older protector?

[High Lord Tolkien]

Anyone that's used a public bathroom at a rest stop knows the answer.

[Vraith]

So we must be talking about different things.

Yes 101 subjects are by their very description basic, introductory and simplistic


Altruism as exhibited via genetic mutation .. is an interesting concept. You've mentioned this briefly earlier. And there is a selfishness gene?

What is the function of such a mutation? To preserve the young at the expense of the older protector?

/sigh...
It's a whole other topic...
ALL genes are "selfish," in a sense that makes no sense at the people level where selfish means they only care about themselves.
Because genes don't/can't care AT ALL.
But the problem is treating selfish and altruistic as, somehow, CAUSALLY identical.
Suppose you have an egg-laying species of some kind. Bird or Reptile, for instance.
They lay eggs, then go. Eggs hatch or don't. Hatchlings live, or don't.
Then a mutation happens. A critter DEFENDS its eggs. NOTE: there is NO REASON for this mutation. It just happens.
AND the critter is NOT being "selfish," or "defensive." It simply, in some primitive way, "cares."
The critter doesn't KNOW that this behavior is risky, nor that it is beneficial---anything that preys on it will now find it MUCH easier to hunt and eat. It will find it much harder to feed itself, cuz time is spent "at home."
Despite the shortcomings, the total survival rate of those critters lines is higher than the "selfish/non-protecting" line.
Some will argue that the simple fact that it aids survival converts it to selfish.
I say those people are engaging in anthropmorpholinguistic decoherence.
REAL selfishness, and REAL altruism, of course, are both complex and complicated and also emergent properties.
It takes a very high level of awareness/intelligence to even BEGIN to think about them.
And we know, factually, that high intelligence and high altruism are highly correlated with success. We also know that high intelligence and high altruism are almost always conjoined. Love and Marriage.

[[we're talking species/lifeforms here, not people particularly/individually]]

And the "altruism isn't real" schools, in their entirety as far as I've ever seen, rely, in one way or another, for the proof of their arguments, on shit that is so far down that "selfish" and "fuggledesnample" are synonyms.

Which is literally true since I just now invented the second word, and it is defined as "a synonym for any word that describes any thing, process, behavior, etc. that is impossible for the thing it is being applied to."

Squares are not real. Because no squares would exist without triangles.
That is true in its way. But also meaningless. Because, like all reduction, it postulates the bottom is SUPERIOR, and more meaningful than the top.
Whatever. It's really just dung painted gold. It fools fools. [[don't take that too seriously...it's just some stuff that sounded funny in my head. Play time.]]

[Skyweir]

You are without doubt an interesting cracker V




The inclination to protect your young is definitely genetically hard wired into all species.


Interestingly though, all kangaroo "mothers", if injured, will toss their joeys from their pouches to save themselves, so they can live and reproduce another day.

But there are always exceptions, and it doesn't discount your comments re: biological altruism.

[Avatar]

Interestingly though, all kangaroo "mothers", if injured, will toss their joeys from their pouches to save themselves, so they can live and reproduce another day.

Interesting. Makes biological sense...the baby is useless as it is, but the mother can produce more later.

Some species will reabsorb their foetus if there isn't enough food around to sustain offspring, and male lions on becoming dominant, will kill all the cubs in the pride so that only their genetic legacy is preserved.

--A

[Skyweir]

Exactly ...

So where does genetic altruism play a role here .. if it does at all

[Vraith]

Exactly ...

So where does genetic altruism play a role here .. if it does at all

It has a functional range, and is contextual/situational.
And, like pretty much every other attribute, it can go too far.
Like---trees often end up in a competition for height.
But any particular tree that grows TOO tall might tend to fall down while young, and not spread as many seeds. OR it might spend too much energy [compared to its brothers/sisters] growing tall and produce fewer, or less survivable, seeds.
And the whole forest, becoming adapted/competing for height, dies when the weather patterns change and they need to be wind-resistant and use much less water. Evolution causes extinction just as much as it causes survival.

There are many situations when caring for young, caring for family, caring for neighbors, even caring for strangers is beneficial.
This is fairly often true, but is especially true for more-or-less intelligent critters...because learning takes time and experiences. Instincts do not. [[<<<---that's so simplistic. ]]
But it isn't ALWAYS true, of course.
I'd say for humans it is very nearly always true, though. People are constantly talking about "the other," and how much people hate the other, how we intentionally create/define/label "the other."
But if we didn't also care, protect, enjoy "the other" the world we've made---hell, the world the ancient Sumerians made---would be/have been impossible.

[Revan]

Easiest question ever asked on the watch...

Yes, we are still animals.

Glad I could help.

[Skyweir]

The end.

[Avatar]

Easiest question ever asked on the watch...

Yes, we are still animals.

Glad I could help.

Darth! You sticking around a bit or what?

--A

[Skyweir]

I hope so

[Kizza]

Ummm, yes.

[Skyweir]