"Kevin Aylward"  wrote in
news:bqfu5q$jbl$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> John Edser wrote:

>>The
>> catchword for the right was "selfishness"
>> but for left it remains, "altruism". Both views
>> are wrong but both have managed to dominate
>> and bias evolutionary theory.
 
> Rubbish. True, selfishness is all one needs to explain apparent
> altruism.
 
> ********
> Definition - Selfishness - absolute selfishness is doing whatever is
> necessary to maximize ones own interests, irrespective if doing so
> will also aid another.
> 
> Absolute selfishness does not mean keeping everything to oneself, as
> this will often result, on many occasions in a net detriment due to
> the consequences of such action. The term selfishness automatically
> includes the notion that helping others can, and does often help
> oneself with a net advantage to that which would have been achieved by
> not helping others in the long run. Doing something that results in a
> net detriment simple cannot be referred to as absolute selfishness, if
> another better, i.e. more advantages to it, i.e. more selfish, option
> was available for that individual.

Well I agree (partially) with John Edser - selfishness and altruism have
had a significant discussion in evolutionary theory. And I agree
(partially) with Kevin Aylward  - that selfishness can explain altruism. 

But I am tired of the argument, and I am going to note the following (a
la Godel via Hofstadter): 


    	True selfishness will want to insure the survival of itself, which
    can only be insured by having maximum diversity of the ecosystem,
    which requires the survival of others. 

    	True altruism will want to insure the survival of others, which can
    only be insured by having maximum control of the ecosystem, which
    requires the survival of itself. 

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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 12/24/03 6:15:05 AM