"Michael Ragland"  wrote in message 
news:cjmoer$1bg3$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> "Michael Ragland"  wrote in message
> news:cjk7g5$hlj$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics
> How can a trait that was developed under the pressure of natural
> selection explain moral actions that go far beyond reciprocal altruism
> or enlightened self-interest? How can, for instance, the action of
> Maximilian Kolbe be explained from a biological point of view? (Kolbe
> was a German priest who starved himself to death in a concentration camp
> to rescue a fellow prisoner.)
>
>
> David Sloan Wilson began to broach this topic in his book, "Darwin's
> Cathedral."
> Altruism and selfishness are crossed-purposes, so-to-speak, nested
> within each other, creating an evolutionary oscillation between the two,
> witnessed by the paleontological and anthropological record which shows
> the rise and fall of many large communities over time
>
> Response:
> I would have to read more of Wilson's work. My understanding of
> biological altruism is based on kin selection/group selection.
> Apparently the two forms of selection aren't the same but in kin
> selection altruism is based on sacrificing one's self to insure the
> propagation of "kin" genes. At least that is my superficial
> understanding. In this way biological altruism= genetic selfishness. A
> mother may sacrifice her life in rescuing her child but in doing so she
> is selfishly making sure her "genes" are propagated. I could
be mistaken
> but I don't think kin selection has been proved in humans. It is usually
> used as a model for certain insects. In any event, in human society
> there are many examples of altruism which are not specifically kin
> related such as police, firefighters, paramedics, soldiers, etc. I
> suppose in a relatively "ethnically" homogeneous country such as Japan
> or some of the European countries and other countries elsewhere these
> aforementioned professions could be subsumed under "kin selection" or
> some form of "group selection". Not immediate family kin but
ethnic kin.
> I think group selection has operated both positively and negatively. I
> think Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan represented  seriously negative
> forms of group selection. In such examples of group selection there is
> an "ingroup" and an "outgroup" the latter being targeted for
> discrimination, persecution and extermination.

Beyond kin-bonded benefits, there are also synergistic relationships which 
can benefit both parties, regardless of genetic similarity. Symbiosis 
between different organisms is, in fact such an arrangement. Social groups 
can form for mutual benefit; cooperatives are a good example in the human 
sphere.


>
> You write, "Altruism and selfishness are crossed-purposes, so-to-speak,
> nested within each other, creating an evolutionary oscillation between
> the two, witnessed by the paleontological and anthropological record
> which shows the rise and fall of many large communities over time. I
> think you are right. Do you have any examples from the anthropological
> record which shows the rise and fall of many large communities over time
> and this being a result of the crosses-purposes of altruism and
> selfishness?

Yes, all of them.  More specifically, it is easy to see more altruism being 
displayed in the early Roman republic, as opposed to the later Roman empire, 
where selfish individuals had managed to subvert Rome to serve their own 
selfish purposes.

>
> Reason:
> In a population of largely selfish individuals, the formation of
> altruistic groups within it have a distinct set of advantages; mutual
> protection, self-sacrifice and forethought (eg. preparing stores for the
> winter) all serve the greater interests of the group, and therefore such
> groups begin to predominate the area due to their survival advantages of
> strength through numbers.
>
> Once these large, predominantly altruistic groups begin to dominate an
> area, the field is clear for selfish individuals to begin to prosper
> within those groups by cheating and preying on the good-will of the more
> altruistic individuals in the group. Once the selfish individuals
> predominate again, the community is destroyed and the field is clear for
> the formation of altruistic groups again.
>
> Response:
> What is the evolutionary explanation for this?

I would have a hard time rephrasing any better than I did the first time.

>
> Reason:
> This oscillation between selfish and altruistic populations continues
> until another permutation of traits creates a balance which allows the
> two purposes to co-exist without diminishing each other.
>
> Response:
> I don't think such a permutation of traits has occured. Do you?
>
> "It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
> Bacteria do quite well without it."
> Stephen Hawking
>
>
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/3/04 6:07:27 AM