Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote or quoted:
> Michael Ragland wrote:
> > MR:

> > Comment: I think only a fool would insist good and evil don't exist in 
> > the world. As a "general principle", however, I don't
think Darwinian
> > evolution results in caring and compassionate organisms. 
> > 
> > PR:
> > My take on this is that natural selection is "inadvertently"
> > manufacturing morality (via cultural evolution, i.e., the evolution or
> > rationality) at a faster rate than she can eliminate it via her
> > customary genteel technique of dealing with inefficiency, as explained
> > in my response to a poster to another egroup: 
> > 
> > MR:
> > I don't know what to say Phil except that Darwinian evolution results in
> > life (at least on this planet) that is not caring or compassionate and
> > that includes human beings. 
> 
> I agree that it SHOULD NOT result in caring organisms (excluding
> immediate kin of course).  But that flies in the face of the simple fact
> there acturally ARE organisms that care about things much greater than
> their own interests, and that such organisms currently constitute AN
> EVOLUTIONARY ANOMALY (e.g., concern for the suffering of a bird with
> a broken wing, the plight of the Palestinians, the whales, etc.).

Why can't a human caring for a bird with a broken wing be increasing
their apparent value as a mate by exhibiting maternal-like behaviour
to onlookers?

What if the human is over-generalising a strategy that /usually/
pays off - be nice to those around you - or face reprisals.

What if those on the greenpeace ships, risking their lives on
the ocean are deliberately putting themselves in extreme situations
in close proximity to members of the opposite sex who are demonstrating
a combination of their caring nature and fearlessness to prospective 
mates?

I'm afraid I have difficulty in seeing these behaviours as evolutionary
anomolies...

> > The processes of natural selection work on
> > every organism, not just humans. Yes, we are a different organism and we
> > have cultural evolution and scientific and technological advances but
> > the principles of Darwinian evolution apply nevertheless. 
> 
> They are SUPPOSED TO APPLY.  But we have it on fairly good authority
> that homo sapiens are considerably more "good" than can currently
> be explained employing the mechanics of natural selection:
> 
>    We are "nicer than is good for our selfish genes," and
"we are never
>    allowed to forget the narrow tightrope on which we balance above the
>    Darwinian abyss." (Dawkins, 1996).

Possibly - but maybe that's becuase we are in an unusual environment:

We *evolved* in a environment where we were more surrounded by our 
relatives than we typically are today.  Being nice to those around you 
may have had a bigger pay-off then than it does now.

Similarly, there may have been a few more repeated encounters as
well - due to smaller group sizes - so reciprocal altruism may have
worked a bit better in our formative period as well.

There are sound evolutionary reasons for humans being nice folk ;-)
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
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 9/29/04 10:00:45 PM