Altruism

[Fluffy]

Do you think it would be equally logical to choose the meme "might makes right?"

Logic has nothing to say on the matter. It would be equally rational to take such a decision if one were predisposed towards that meme. However, most people are predisposed towards impure altruism because this is more advantageous from a selfish point of view.

 

[Random]

"Pure, disinterested altruism". Hmm. Is that like a system without usury, I wonder?

 

[lunamoth]

Logic has nothing to say on the matter. It would be equally rational to take such a decision if one were predisposed towards that meme. However, most people are predisposed towards impure altruism because this is more advantageous from a selfish point of view.

Yes, but now that we realize that altruism is just a meme, a vestigal organ so to speak, are we not free to choose another meme, one that is more directly advantageous to ourself?

 

[painted wolf]

If all altruism is completely for survival purposes, and now we have the intelligence to know this, we should be able to just ignore those unnecessary altruistic feeling that don't directly benefit our specific gene pool.

Why don't we do this?

many people do just that. Look at all the poverty, hate and so on in the world. People have ignored their altruistic social imperatives. We could with the power we have right now rid ourselves of all these plagues... but we don't. Our altruism doesn't extend that far due to genetic biases. "us vs. them"
Its tragic.

So this is the most rational and logical course for our survival. Don't you agree?

absolutely not. It would be in our (species) best interests to never fight another war. The logical and most rational course for our survival would be to find non-violent ways of solving our problems.

We are not a logical and rational species I'm afraid.

wa:do

 

[Fluffy]

Yes, but now that we realize that altruism is just a meme, a vestigal organ so to speak, are we not free to choose another meme, one that is more directly advantageous to ourself?

Yes. But to people who are predisposed towards altruism, the altruistic meme is most advantageous.

 

[lunamoth]

many people do just that. Look at all the poverty, hate and so on in the world. People have ignored their altruistic social imperatives. We could with the power we have right now rid ourselves of all these plagues... but we don't. Our altruism doesn't extend that far due to genetic biases. "us vs. them"
Its tragic.



absolutely not. It would be in our (species) best interests to never fight another war. The logical and most rational course for our survival would be to find non-violent ways of solving our problems.

We are not a logical and rational species I'm afraid.

wa:do

Actually, poverty, disease, war etc. are good for our species as they weed out the weak and poorly adapted.

Why would we want to take care of the weakest among us?

 

[lunamoth]

Yes. But to people who are predisposed towards altruism, the altruistic meme is most advantageous.

I'mnot sure that makes sense. If altruism is advantageous is will be so regardless of our attitude toward it.

 

[Fluffy]

I'mnot sure that makes sense. If altruism is advantageous is will be so regardless of our attitude toward it.

Is chocolate ice cream advantageous regardless of your attitude towards it? Is closing the window advantageous regardless of whether you are cold?

Of course you could talk about what is advantageous to our survival but then, in memetics, the survivability of the meme is key not the survivability of the meme generator. On the other hand, you could be talking about rationality in which case survivability is only rational if we are interested in surviving over all else.

 

[lunamoth]

On the other hand, you could be talking about rationality in which case survivability is only rational if we are interested in surviving over all else.

Isn't that the basis of the selfish gene?

If there is something to our existence beyond the perpetuation of the species, what is it based on?

 

[Magic Man]

absolutely not. It would be in our (species) best interests to never fight another war. The logical and most rational course for our survival would be to find non-violent ways of solving our problems.

We are not a logical and rational species I'm afraid.

wa:do

I would disagree with the idea that complete peace would be the most rational and logical course for our survival. If we achieved total peace, and never fought another war, that would cut down on the number of deaths, increasing the growth of the population, speeding up the overpopulation of the world.

 

[Fluffy]

If there is something to our existence beyond the perpetuation of the species, what is it based on?

The perpetuation of the species can have unintended consequences. For example, if we desire to survive then acting in accordance with our desires will help us to survive. However, it will also make us eat chocolate ice cream which adds nothing to our survivability. Therefore, we can mutate random desires which get along because they do not negatively impact on our survivability. However, now that we are meme generators, our survivability is not relevant to the survivability of the meme. Therefore, we can have a selfish meme which is selfish in the sense that it wishes to be survivable which is not actually selfish for us to believe in.

 

[lunamoth]

The perpetuation of the species can have unintended consequences. For example, if we desire to survive then acting in accordance with our desires will help us to survive. However, it will also make us eat chocolate ice cream which adds nothing to our survivability. Therefore, we can mutate random desires which get along because they do not negatively impact on our survivability. However, now that we are meme generators, our survivability is not relevant to the survivability of the meme. Therefore, we can have a selfish meme which is selfish in the sense that it wishes to be survivable which is not actually selfish for us to believe in.

I don't understand. :sorry1:

Neutral 'memes' may tag along for a while and eventually drop out if they have no consequence at all on survival. Of course, desiring chocolate ice cream comes from our attraction to sweets which gave us an evolutionary advantage when carbohydrates were harder to come by. Now it is a disadvantage because it leads to obesity and all kinds of related diseases.

 

[lunamoth]

To refocus the thread:

Why would Dawkins propose that we should cultivate altruism even when it creates a disadvantage for us personally (like sending aid to other countries) or a disadvantage for humans as a species (like keeping people with genetic diseases alive, or caring for the weak and poor).

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think that individual altruism fosters social selfishness.

 

[Fluffy]

Lunamoth,
There are two separate, independent attributes that are involved here:
1) The survivability of memes
2) The survivability of genes

The survivability of a meme is not dependent on the survivability of a gene. Additionally, memes are spread much faster than genes meaning that their survivability has a different meaning than gene survivability.

If a gene is survivable then it's host will last long enough for it to be passed on to the next generation. If a meme is survivable then its host will last long enough for it to be passed on to the next person. For a gene, there is an inbuilt time limit which guarantees a certain amount of survivability for the host. With a meme this is not the case. Consider a meme that caused the host to commit suicide after 5 seconds but was survivable enough to be transmitted every 2 seconds. Therefore, for every dead host, the meme would be transmitted to 2 other hosts created a population boom before eventually wiping out all hosts and the meme along with it.

So it is not the case that a neutral meme will tag along and eventually drop out if they have no consequence on survival if by survival you mean our survival. This is true if you mean the meme's survival. Why are we even talking about memetics? Because meme is itself a meme with a level of survivability which is totally independent of our survivability.

Our survivability has caused us to have certain desires. Some of these desires are helpful to our survival. One of these is impure altruism. People who are impurely altruistic also desire to be purely altruistic. This creates the pure altruism meme which infects those with impure altruism as it is rational for them to accept it since they are predisposed towards it. They are then purely altruistic.

 

[Michel07]

Despite man's "selfish gene" as it has been coined I do not believe that pure altruism is something that has no place in nature. Primarily because I believe altruism which can and does manifest itself in many different ways is more a byproduct of empathy, than rational self interest even if it is an empathy that is developed. Many species of animals have demonstrated the ability to have empathy and subsequent altruism on their own level of course.. What can be more difficult is exercising altruism in a focused manner and on a collective level though that also is achieved in smaller groups such as charitable organizations.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually, poverty, disease, war etc. are good for our species as they weed out the weak and poorly adapted.

Why would we want to take care of the weakest among us?

actually that is a misapplication of natural selection. "Social Darwinism" has little to do with actual biological reality.

Best adapted has nothing to do with wealth or access to medical care. Strength isn't a matter of who can push who around better.
Humanity can not decide what is or isn't 'adaptive' or 'fit'. We do not have the capability to predict what future generations will face for challenges.

Just because someone has plenty to eat doesn't mean they will be able to survive the next bottlenecking effect. Humanity has already been close to extinction once, the best defense against that is a varied gene pool and lots of social cohesion.

If altruism was so unadaptive it wouldn't be so widespread.

I would disagree with the idea that complete peace would be the most rational and logical course for our survival. If we achieved total peace, and never fought another war, that would cut down on the number of deaths, increasing the growth of the population, speeding up the overpopulation of the world.

actually the logical and rational way to control the population would be to limit reproduction voluntarily. Birth control and education do more to control the population in a healthy way than war does.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

To refocus the thread:

Why would Dawkins propose that we should cultivate altruism even when it creates a disadvantage for us personally (like sending aid to other countries) or a disadvantage for humans as a species (like keeping people with genetic diseases alive, or caring for the weak and poor).

One reason might be that among humanity's best guarantees against extinction is a diverse gene pool.

 

[painted wolf]

Why would Dawkins propose that we should cultivate altruism even when it creates a disadvantage for us personally (like sending aid to other countries) or a disadvantage for humans as a species (like keeping people with genetic diseases alive, or caring for the weak and poor).

I disagree that those things are a disadvantage to us.

Fostering good relations with your neighbors is advantages. (look at North Korea)
Many diseases may have hidden benefits, such as sickle cell anemia. As I said above there are many ways individuals can contribute to society and humans are woefully incapable of predicting the future needs of the species.

Add to that the 'wellbeing' that altruism brings to individuals via brain chemistry and you have no reason not to be altruistic.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

Actually, poverty, disease, war etc. are good for our species as they weed out the weak and poorly adapted.

Why would we want to take care of the weakest among us?

Weakness is a relative term.