Altruism
- Thread starter notb665
- Start date
It might look like it but it isn't really.
You are doing something for somebody with whom you feel an affinity.
For example, if you save your own child from a burning building, you are doing it because you are genetically programmed to protect your genes.
If you live in a small Welsh village which is attacked by Vikings, you fight to protect it for the same (but diluted) reason.
If you live in a country which is at war with another, the genetic pool you are defending is more remote from your own, but there is still an affinity (remember that your genetic programming is inbuilt and your brain does it to you without you working out a rational argument). Same thing if your religion is in conflict with another, or even a slightly different branch of the same religion. Or if you are a Serb and the other guy is a Croat. Or someone else's child is attacked by a tiger - you have more affinity with the child than with the tiger.
You are doing something for somebody with whom you feel an affinity.
For example, if you save your own child from a burning building, you are doing it because you are genetically programmed to protect your genes.
If you live in a small Welsh village which is attacked by Vikings, you fight to protect it for the same (but diluted) reason.
If you live in a country which is at war with another, the genetic pool you are defending is more remote from your own, but there is still an affinity (remember that your genetic programming is inbuilt and your brain does it to you without you working out a rational argument). Same thing if your religion is in conflict with another, or even a slightly different branch of the same religion. Or if you are a Serb and the other guy is a Croat. Or someone else's child is attacked by a tiger - you have more affinity with the child than with the tiger.
Yes.
Yes.
What's better for the population - ten men and two women, or ten women and two men? Does this mean women are more valubale then men? Is this where chivalry comes from?
Two females and ten males will produce about 2 off spring every year.
Ten females and two males can produce about 10 offspring per year.
You chose which is the better option for continuation of the species.
<< numbers corrected, it was quins and failures before >>
Ten females and two males can produce about 10 offspring per year.
You chose which is the better option for continuation of the species.
<< numbers corrected, it was quins and failures before >>
Surely you have that the wrong way around................
Those 2 females will be very busy............
Edit....To late gotcha..................
I have corrected it........ The thought of it confused my brain....
S
Shutpa
The Salvation Army, the Red Cross, those who run the 'Soup Kitchens' etc must be as near to genuine altruism as one can get.
Add the St John Ambulance and Red Cross volunteer first aiders.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,280
- Reaction score
- 1,999
- Country
Many animal species will eat their young to survive during famine but the reason behind it is that the adults can have a new set of cubs next year whereas if they all starved then the genes wouldn't be passed on.
Barn owls and many hawks turn on the runt of the roost and eat it. It's sort of a living larder for when food is scarce, but better that than both chicks dying.
I also agree with what JohnD said, that was spot on.
Barn owls and many hawks turn on the runt of the roost and eat it. It's sort of a living larder for when food is scarce, but better that than both chicks dying.
I also agree with what JohnD said, that was spot on.
S
Shutpa
Nothing altruistic about that lot joe! Seriously though, I think that a line can be drawn between human altruism, the selfless concern for the well-being of others (eg the Salvation Army), and Zoological altruism, the behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense ( eg the cat looking after the dogs pups). The survival of the species (eg your owls etc ), is altogether an entirely different issue is it not?
I think it possible that the cat looking after the dog's pups, is like the person who looks after their pet cat or budgie. It seems to be forming a "parental" affection for an infantile creature and bonding with it (to a greater or lesser extent) as if it were one's own baby.
many pet owners seems to relate to their pets in this way.
Domestic cats and dogs have been bred to be dependent and infantile which aids the bonding process.
Having established the parent/child relationship, the genetic programming that makes you look after your own sprogs then kicks in.
A slightly different program causes children to be fond of small animals. this prevents them (usually) killing or injuring younger children or siblings, which are comon in primate family groups, and also makes them like pets. We feel tremendous shock and revulsion when children kill toddlers or pets as it seems an abnormal and unnatural act. the reaction is ingrained, not learned.
Can't selfless devotion to others be an expression of the need to protect and nurture the social group? Remembering that people have been around for a very long time, the chances were that the people you came across in your settlement, cave or village would often be your aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews etc, so looking after each other would protect the family (genetic) group. Your family would more likely survive if you helped it. The human brain has been moulded into favourable protective behaviours long long ago.
many pet owners seems to relate to their pets in this way.
Domestic cats and dogs have been bred to be dependent and infantile which aids the bonding process.
Having established the parent/child relationship, the genetic programming that makes you look after your own sprogs then kicks in.
A slightly different program causes children to be fond of small animals. this prevents them (usually) killing or injuring younger children or siblings, which are comon in primate family groups, and also makes them like pets. We feel tremendous shock and revulsion when children kill toddlers or pets as it seems an abnormal and unnatural act. the reaction is ingrained, not learned.
Can't selfless devotion to others be an expression of the need to protect and nurture the social group? Remembering that people have been around for a very long time, the chances were that the people you came across in your settlement, cave or village would often be your aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews etc, so looking after each other would protect the family (genetic) group. Your family would more likely survive if you helped it. The human brain has been moulded into favourable protective behaviours long long ago.
Similar threads
