By Dr. Lee Alan Dugatkin
"As long as there have been scientists, they have been interested in goodness. Why are some people good, and others not?
In fact, we can cast the net more generally, and ask about goodness in non-humans, as well as humans, and examine whether the process of evolution by natural selection can explain such actions. I talk about this at length in my new book, The Altruism Equation: Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness (Princeton University Press, 2006), but here is a condensed version of the story.
Evolutionary biology's interest in goodness can be traced back at least as far as Charles Darwin. It is hard to image that anyone could think of goodness as a problem, but Darwin did. He saw the little worker bees that sacrificed themselves to protect their hives─the ultimate example of animal altruism─as especially troubling to his theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin said the bee's behavior drove him "half mad." If his ideas on natural selection were correct (and, of course, they were and are), then this sort of altruism should be extraordinarily rare in nature. How could sacrificing one's life ever be favored by natural selection? If increased reproductive success is what drives the evolution of behavior, then altruists should disappear─and fast. But, in the case of the bees, they didn't disappear, and Darwin was so puzzled by this that he spoke of altruism as "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me to be insuperable, and actually fatal to my whole theory."
And then a solution to this nasty conundrum hit Darwin like a ton of bricks. Worker bees weren't being altruistic for just any old bunch of bees, they were protecting individuals in their hive. And their hive contains a special class of individuals─blood relatives. Blood relatives are by definition genetically similar to one another, and so even though worker bees may have been giving up their lives, they were potentially saving the lives of hundreds of blood relatives by doing so. Darwin didn't know about genes per se, but he did know that something like what we'd call genes were passed from parents to offspring and shared by blood relatives, and that this was enough to solve the problem of altruism. In modern language, we'd say that the workers bees were indirectly saving copies of their own genes─copies that just happen to reside within their blood kin.
Darwin wasn't the only 19th century scientist who was enamored with the question of the evolution of goodness. His dear friend, Thomas Henry Huxley--arguably the most famous scientist in all of Europe--was as well. Huxley, in fact, got himself into quite a heated argument over whether blood kinship could or could not explain altruism. His opponent was Peter Kropotkin, a former chief page to the Czar of Russia, naturalist, and the most famous anarchist of the 19th century. Huxley argued that all goodness could be traced to blood kinship, while Kropotkin proposed that goodness and blood kinship were completely divorced from one another─one had absolutely nothing to do with the other. Of course, neither was right, but it would take almost a hundred years before a shy, reserved, and brilliant British biologist named William D. Hamilton would settle all the arguments about blood kinship and altruism with a nifty little mathematical equation.
Hamilton, an evolutionary biologist by training, came at the question of altruism and blood kinship the way that an economist would; indeed his Ph.D. in biology was done in part at The London School of Economics. He began by defining three terms─the genetic relatedness between individuals (labeled r), the cost of an act of goodness (c), and the benefit that a recipient obtained when someone was nice to him or her. Then, using some eloquent--in fact, beautiful-- mathematics, in 1963, Hamilton found that altruism and blood kinship are not linked by an all-or-nothing relationship. Instead, what is now known as "Hamilton's Rule" states that altruism evolves whenever r times b is greater than c. In other words, if the cost of altruism is made up by enough genetic relatives receiving benefits, then altruism spreads; otherwise it does not. Phrased in the
cold language of natural selection, relatives are worth helping in direct proportion to their genetic relatedness.
Literally thousands of experiments in both nonhumans and humans show the power of Hamilton's Rule. This little equation is evolutionary biology's version of e = mc2.
Over and over, we see that an analysis of the costs and benefits of altruism, along with genetic relatedness, allows us to predict the presence or absence of altruism.
This is a truly remarkable finding.
Hamilton's Rule, of course, does not explain all altruism, nor did Bill Hamilton think it did. Another large chunk of goodness falls under the category of reciprocity--you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. Individuals are sometimes willing to be altruistic to someone now in the expectation that they will, in turn, be helped when they need it. Evolutionary biologists have been almost as interested in this type of altruism as in kinship-based altruism. And, amazingly enough, it was Bill Hamilton, along with political scientist Robert Axelrod, who formalized the models behind the evolution of reciprocity. Following up on some work done by Robert Trivers in the early 1970s, in 1981 Axelrod and Hamilton used a mathematical technique called game theory to predict when "reciprocal altruism" should evolve. Again, scores of empirical studies
followed up the model. Reciprocity can be complex, but an evolutionary perspective has cleared the haze here the same way it did when it came to blood kinship and altruism.
If goodness is a problem, then the answer─or at the very least, part of the answer─can be found in evolutionary biology."
~http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-lee-alan-dugatkin/the-evolution-of-goodness_b_44330.html
{Drawing from this article and your personal experience, say why you believe human beings are willing to do good to others.}
-
Dr. Lee Alan Dugatkin in the [The Evolution of Goodness] had wrote about a controversial topic on whether goodness or altruism, is not as simple as it looks to be; of sudden compulsions or upholding personal morals, but something more of cold hard logic that fits quite snugly into the theory of evolution.
-
Altruism as defined by Wikipedia, is the "...deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest". Charles Darwin, the famous evolutionist biologist who formulated numerous theories of how did we evolve into what we are now and why do we evolve in such a way. The origin of that famous catchphrase, "Survival of the Fittest" could also be attributed to him and his works. In short, he was a very influential man who changed the world by seeking for an explanation to why we simply are what we are, and so in his recorded observations, there was a observation that could imply the true nature of humans, and our essential moral being.
And then a solution to this nasty conundrum hit Darwin like a ton of bricks. Worker bees weren't being altruistic for just any old bunch of bees, they were protecting individuals in their hive. And their hive contains a special class of individuals─blood relatives. Blood relatives are by definition genetically similar to one another, and so even though worker bees may have been giving up their lives, they were potentially saving the lives of hundreds of blood relatives by doing so. Darwin didn't know about genes per se, but he did know that something like what we'd call genes were passed from parents to offspring and shared by blood relatives, and that this was enough to solve the problem of altruism. In modern language, we'd say that the workers bees were indirectly saving copies of their own genes─copies that just happen to reside within their blood kin.
Darwin wasn't the only 19th century scientist who was enamored with the question of the evolution of goodness. His dear friend, Thomas Henry Huxley--arguably the most famous scientist in all of Europe--was as well. Huxley, in fact, got himself into quite a heated argument over whether blood kinship could or could not explain altruism. His opponent was Peter Kropotkin, a former chief page to the Czar of Russia, naturalist, and the most famous anarchist of the 19th century. Huxley argued that all goodness could be traced to blood kinship, while Kropotkin proposed that goodness and blood kinship were completely divorced from one another─one had absolutely nothing to do with the other. Of course, neither was right, but it would take almost a hundred years before a shy, reserved, and brilliant British biologist named William D. Hamilton would settle all the arguments about blood kinship and altruism with a nifty little mathematical equation.
Hamilton, an evolutionary biologist by training, came at the question of altruism and blood kinship the way that an economist would; indeed his Ph.D. in biology was done in part at The London School of Economics. He began by defining three terms─the genetic relatedness between individuals (labeled r), the cost of an act of goodness (c), and the benefit that a recipient obtained when someone was nice to him or her. Then, using some eloquent--in fact, beautiful-- mathematics, in 1963, Hamilton found that altruism and blood kinship are not linked by an all-or-nothing relationship. Instead, what is now known as "Hamilton's Rule" states that altruism evolves whenever r times b is greater than c. In other words, if the cost of altruism is made up by enough genetic relatives receiving benefits, then altruism spreads; otherwise it does not. Phrased in the
cold language of natural selection, relatives are worth helping in direct proportion to their genetic relatedness.
Literally thousands of experiments in both nonhumans and humans show the power of Hamilton's Rule. This little equation is evolutionary biology's version of e = mc2.
Over and over, we see that an analysis of the costs and benefits of altruism, along with genetic relatedness, allows us to predict the presence or absence of altruism.
This is a truly remarkable finding.
Hamilton's Rule, of course, does not explain all altruism, nor did Bill Hamilton think it did. Another large chunk of goodness falls under the category of reciprocity--you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. Individuals are sometimes willing to be altruistic to someone now in the expectation that they will, in turn, be helped when they need it. Evolutionary biologists have been almost as interested in this type of altruism as in kinship-based altruism. And, amazingly enough, it was Bill Hamilton, along with political scientist Robert Axelrod, who formalized the models behind the evolution of reciprocity. Following up on some work done by Robert Trivers in the early 1970s, in 1981 Axelrod and Hamilton used a mathematical technique called game theory to predict when "reciprocal altruism" should evolve. Again, scores of empirical studies
followed up the model. Reciprocity can be complex, but an evolutionary perspective has cleared the haze here the same way it did when it came to blood kinship and altruism.
If goodness is a problem, then the answer─or at the very least, part of the answer─can be found in evolutionary biology."
~http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-lee-alan-dugatkin/the-evolution-of-goodness_b_44330.html
{Drawing from this article and your personal experience, say why you believe human beings are willing to do good to others.}
-
Dr. Lee Alan Dugatkin in the [The Evolution of Goodness] had wrote about a controversial topic on whether goodness or altruism, is not as simple as it looks to be; of sudden compulsions or upholding personal morals, but something more of cold hard logic that fits quite snugly into the theory of evolution.
-
Altruism as defined by Wikipedia, is the "...deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest". Charles Darwin, the famous evolutionist biologist who formulated numerous theories of how did we evolve into what we are now and why do we evolve in such a way. The origin of that famous catchphrase, "Survival of the Fittest" could also be attributed to him and his works. In short, he was a very influential man who changed the world by seeking for an explanation to why we simply are what we are, and so in his recorded observations, there was a observation that could imply the true nature of humans, and our essential moral being.
In his observations, he recorded that "...the little worker bees that sacrificed themselves to protect their hives...drove him "half mad." He concluded that if his theory was true, then "this sort of altruism should be extraordinarily rare in nature".
-
Why would altruism be so rare in an uncultivated and wild environment? It is wholly explained by this excerpt from the commentary written by Dr. Lee Alan Dugatkin. "How could sacrificing one's life ever be favored by natural selection? If increased reproductive success is what
drives the evolution of behavior, then altruists should disappear─and fast. But, in the case of the bees, they didn't disappear, and Darwin was so puzzled by this that he
spoke of altruism as "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me to be insuperable, and actually fatal to my whole theory." And of course, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was fundamentally correct. Then it leads us to our next question.... then why did the worker bees not die out as a species if they were so willing to die for the sake of others?
-
William D. Hamilton, described as "...an evolutionary biologist by training, came at the question of altruism and blood kinship the way that an economist would; indeed his Ph.D. in biology was done in part at The London School of Economics." Thus by a mathematical equation, he implied that all forms of altruism are in self-interest only, and not for some higher ideals or morals. It could be clearly seen here in this excerpt:
-
Why would altruism be so rare in an uncultivated and wild environment? It is wholly explained by this excerpt from the commentary written by Dr. Lee Alan Dugatkin. "How could sacrificing one's life ever be favored by natural selection? If increased reproductive success is what
drives the evolution of behavior, then altruists should disappear─and fast. But, in the case of the bees, they didn't disappear, and Darwin was so puzzled by this that he
spoke of altruism as "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me to be insuperable, and actually fatal to my whole theory." And of course, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was fundamentally correct. Then it leads us to our next question.... then why did the worker bees not die out as a species if they were so willing to die for the sake of others?
-
William D. Hamilton, described as "...an evolutionary biologist by training, came at the question of altruism and blood kinship the way that an economist would; indeed his Ph.D. in biology was done in part at The London School of Economics." Thus by a mathematical equation, he implied that all forms of altruism are in self-interest only, and not for some higher ideals or morals. It could be clearly seen here in this excerpt:
-
"...by defining three terms─the genetic relatedness between individuals (r), the cost of an act of goodness (c), and the benefit that a recipient obtained when someone was nice to him or her...in 1963, Hamilton found that altruism and blood kinship are not linked by an all-or-nothing relationship. Instead, what is now known as "Hamilton's Rule" states that altruism evolves whenever r times b is greater than c. In other words, if the cost of altruism is made up by enough genetic relatives receiving benefits, then altruism spreads; otherwise it does not. Phrased in the cold language of natural selection, relatives are worth helping in direct proportion to their genetic relatedness...thousands of experiments in both non-humans and humans show the power of Hamilton's Rule...over and over, we see that an analysis of the costs and benefits of altruism, along with genetic relatedness, allows us to predict the presence or absence of altruism. This is a truly remarkable finding."
-
Of course, there are alternatives to Hamilton's Rule, but that instead supports my stand further. The excerpt below will clearly illustrate my points further:
-
"Hamilton's Rule, of course, does not explain all altruism, nor did Bill Hamilton think it did. Another large chunk of goodness falls under the category of reciprocity--you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. Individuals are sometimes willing to be altruistic to someone now in the expectation that they will, in turn, be helped when they need it...used a mathematical technique called game theory to predict when "reciprocal altruism" should evolve. Again, scores of empirical studies followed up the model. Reciprocity can be complex, but an evolutionary perspective has cleared the haze here the same way it did when it came to blood kinship and altruism."
-
Now back to the statement, are human beings truly and wholly altruistic and charitable?
-
I nearly cried out in utmost derision at such a deluded, ridiculous and assuming; such a naïve statement.
-
Pure goodness is nigh impossible to find in this mortal world. By "pure", I define it as by the characteristic of a single-tracked mind thinking and acting upon a certain ideal. With this definition, "pure" altruism could be defined as a whole-hearted pursuit of a better life for others without any thinking of self. How possible could it be?
-
Do not tell me the Vatican Pope XXYY, Messiahs of the Venerated Mosque, Elder Monks of the Holy Pagoda or Recluses Of The High mountains have attained that state of enlightenment and purity; thinking that is pure idiocy. As long as they are human in body, they will never have a "pure" altruistic mindset. Unless of course, they are unshackled from the irons of reality and ignores all reason and thought, slavering like a bug. But even then in the madhouse of their own creation, they are still bound by an irrevocable fact, which we will discuss with further progression.
-
It is simply the nature of humans to have many differing views and opinions on a single subject matter. For an example, even the simple act of donating a quarter to the roadside beggars will undergo a thorough cross-inspection unknown to the majority of us before we give out that measly coin. Think back and scrutinize your memory of a charitable act, you will either instantly or vaguely recall a series of thoughts before donating, on whether that quarter could be spared for the beggar, whether you yourself by donating that quarter will be compromised, whether there will be benefits if you donate the quarter, and also whether that quarter had some vital use in the future that you could foresee. All these subliminal thought processes call seriously into attention, whether humans really do have an altruistic heart and are willing to be charitable without any strings attached.
-
One pretty common example that comes to mind is of course the scums and the stars of this world--celebrities. Often appearing like a magic act at the sites of either disasters or dereliction, they will smile and tuck into their pockets to donate a seemingly huge sum, while in reality the amount are just worth a whole day's supply of Brunello's to them. Their ulterior motive is to either further elevate their celebrity status and moral reputation, or just to show the world that their pockets are literally strapped with bundles of greens; their wealth and superiority compared to the world's other denizens.
-
One pretty common example that comes to mind is of course the scums and the stars of this world--celebrities. Often appearing like a magic act at the sites of either disasters or dereliction, they will smile and tuck into their pockets to donate a seemingly huge sum, while in reality the amount are just worth a whole day's supply of Brunello's to them. Their ulterior motive is to either further elevate their celebrity status and moral reputation, or just to show the world that their pockets are literally strapped with bundles of greens; their wealth and superiority compared to the world's other denizens.
-
So it seems that all boils down to machinations of self-interest and emotionless logic. You help me, thus I will help you, and so our chances of survival will be higher. I will sacrifice myself, so that you could carry on the genes for our species, so to ensure our survival. These all are akin to neon signs pointing to the true nature of beasts of humans alike: that we are selfish and treasure ourselves more than others, or other species, and all that is done in our lives is simply, to survive.
-
Humans are fundamentally the same as the trees and vermin that is all around us, except for our rationalization and thoughts, but does it truly make us "humans"? Whatever intellectual prowess we might have over the other beasts, we still function in the simplest and most basic level: to survive using whatever means necessary, and to ensure our species survive as a whole.
Humans are fundamentally the same as the trees and vermin that is all around us, except for our rationalization and thoughts, but does it truly make us "humans"? Whatever intellectual prowess we might have over the other beasts, we still function in the simplest and most basic level: to survive using whatever means necessary, and to ensure our species survive as a whole.
-
A third of our lives are dedicated solely to education, and what for? So that we might find a job and survive in this fast-paced modern world. Why do we marry, love and bear children? To ensure the survival of our species. Why do mothers love their children more than their lives and willing to sacrifice so much for them? Because their functions had been fulfilled, and the children are the future, and so what is a little sacrifice of the old for the new?
-
It is true that all those statements sound cold, inhuman and twisted, but it is true. To think that we are under the demonic control of such an irrevocable subconscious, hard-coded directive is unbearable. There is truly, no freedom in this mortal plane; we are all shackled the moment we were born to slavery of our basest instincts. Forget all the optimistic, romantic and beautiful ideas you have of our morals and ideals, our race and species, and of Mother Nature. The beautiful and sacred morals and way of life we hold so dear are no more than a farce for a much simpler and bestial inclination. This is, what we and all other beings created by a extraordinary coincidence, truly are.
-
*The author explicitly state that he does not believe in any kind of higher being/s, as such a thought would lead to the realization that the All Benevolent And Almighty created us humans in such cruel fashion, and thus leading to gloom and madness knowing that either a frivolous child or a sadistic madmen rules and governs over us and every other move that we make. The typing of this critique further proves the point. Or He Whose Name Is Sacred does not care much for a puny, pathetic and powerless bespectacled human of insignificant renown writing about Him. Or He Who Could Cast Down A Thousand Mountains could not see this small postscript blending into the background.........
No comments:
Post a Comment