| Author |
 Topic  |
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
 Posted - 07/30/2004 : 10:23:34
|
Judgmental I don't mean to be, It just seems to be a two way debate for the most part between erebus and yourself, I don't find what either of you have to say boring and would not wish either of you to stop at all, much of what both of you say isn't stuff I get to hear about over here.
And by war of intellectualism and ideals I didn't mean the evolutionary stuff, I meant the big grown up wordy posts, it's like reading "will self does american politics" on here! I was kind of teasing, I think sometimes it's hard to get the point being made because of it's pretty packaging is all!
Don't think I'm being down on either of you, that was not my intention really, and I'm sorry if I jumped right in on your debate but I would like to know more and I am trying to throw a non US spin on it a bit.
And sort of a biologist, biomolecular really.
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
 |
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 14:16:37
|
apl, I like what you have to say about the distinction between compassion as evolved and the compassion as legislated that would serve as the former’’s surrogate. My own emphasis has been on a different disjunction, that between reciprocal altruism as it is theorized to have evolved, in relatively small groups of tens to hundreds to thousands, and altruism as practiced in the “global village”. Under the former view, reciprocal altruism would have been selected and retained as a set of behavioral dispositions simply because it enhanced the persistance of the genes underlyng that behavior. In other words, the sacrifices involved in reciprocal altruism paid off. They were cost effective. The disjunction I mention arises because altruistic dispositions and the genes underlying them, which were still evolutionarily appropriate as recently as thousands or even hundreds of years ago, are today being triggered by events and needs all over nation and even world, far beyond the ability of recipients of that altruism to ever respond. In this age of mass media and round the clock cable we are constantly bombarded by images of suffering and need that trigger the still active mechanisms of reciprocal altruism. Many would say “And quite rightly too! We all share responsiblity and obligation to do whatever we can to address such conditions and their underlying causes!” [Reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan as an example of an early attempt to extend the reach of reciprocity. JC as evolutionarly subversive.] Regardless of the moral merits of such a stance, it forgets that the very impulse to altruism that is being championed was selected and retained within the human repertoire of behavior precisely because it enhanced replication of the genes of those who practice it. One helps and the other helps back, as the need arises, and, most importantly, because we are talking relatively small groups here, and not a global village, the helper and the helpee share similarities of DNA. Helping the other is much akin to helping the self, just as helping members of one’s biological family, with the high degree of genetic overlap, amounts to helping oneself, or, if you will, helping copies of one’s own DNA. By the model I’m attempting to sketch, under today’s regime of universal, global altruism, given a relative lack of genetic similarity between helper/provider and helpee/recipient, and given a relative inability of recipient to reciprocate, we would henceforward expect the altruistic disposition to evolve to become more discriminating. Those who continue to exercise help universally will reduce their genetic replication simply because it involves use of resources without adequate payback. Conversely, those who are able to discriminate between cases where it evolutionarily behooves and where it does not, will do better at replicating their DNA, which will become relatively more represented in the gene pool.
Sure is hard to discuss such things, as language has developed to express in terms of individuals and groups of organisms, and not at all in terms of analysis of selection of behavior at the level of the genes themselves.
On another note, I am sympathetic with your concern that the two political parties are substantially the same. I too believe that, especially considering that there is simply too much at stake, financially speaking and otherwise, for the power brokers to willingly field candidates who are not already signed on as members of the club. (Jimmy Carter may have been something of an exception, a renegade as it were, who upon election had no choice to deal with the club when he really wanted to get something done, and who was, as an outsider, otherswise ineffective.) However, even if we do face a simple choice between insiders, as I see it there are still two types of differences. First, the Dems seem inclined to quicker spread of social welfare policies and to greater multinationalism and appeasement on foreign policy. Secondly, the differences of candidate personalities certainly can mean differing styles of governance and decision making, resulting in significantly different policy outcomes.
Oh yeah, I like the long view you take in noting that civil war or similar will not solve the problem, due to the creep back that would occur. Nice. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 14:23:22
|
quote:
Sure is hard to discuss such things, as language has developed to express in terms of individuals and groups of organisms, and not at all in terms of analysis of selection of behavior at the level of the genes themselves.
Your laymans language maybe ( )
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Kerry-Edwards ticket
