Posted on 12/07/2006 2:24:36 PM PST by blam
Why altruism paid off for our ancestors
19:00 07 December 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Richard Fisher
Humans may have evolved altruistic traits as a result of a cultural “tax” we paid to each other early in our evolution, a new study suggests.
The research also changes what we knew about the genetic makeup of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
The origin of human altruism has puzzled evolutionary biologists for many years (see Survival of the nicest).
In every society, humans make personal sacrifices for others with no expectation that it will be reciprocated. For example, we donate to charity, or care for the sick and disabled. This trait is extremely rare in the natural world, unless there is a family relationship or later reciprocation.
One theory to explain how human altruism evolved involves the way we interacted as groups early in our evolution. Towards the end of the Pleistocene period – about 12,000 years ago – humans foraged for food as hunter-gatherers. These groups competed against each other for survival.
Group dynamics
Under these conditions, altruism towards other group-members would improve the overall fitness of the group. If an individual defended the group but was killed, any genes that the individual shared with the overall group would still be passed on.
Many researchers reject this model, however. One reason is that competition between individuals is likely to increase if a group becomes isolated, and any altruistic behaviour would then decrease an individual’s level of fitness compared with other members.
Biologists also assume that hunter-gatherer groups around this time period would have been insufficiently genetically related to favour altruism. In other words, die when defending the group and your genes die with you.
Ancient ways
Now a new study by Samuel Bowles at the Santa Fe Institute...
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
GGG Ping.
It's sort of disgusting how some atheistic scientists try to reduce things such as morals (in this case) to either natural selection or chemical reactions.
I think this sort of thing helps explain why real conservatives are far more generous helping others than leftists or professed atheists. If you wait for your genes to prompt you before giving to charity or helping someone out without expecting something in return, you might wait for a good long time.
Altruism is in the eye of the beholder.. I imagine Eve thought she was being polite when she offered Adam a bite of the apple.
I think this sort of thing helps explain why real conservatives are far more generous helping others than leftists or professed atheists.
I'm an atheist. I'm sure that I could be more generous, but I know that I act in a far more altruistic way than some of my relatives and acquaintances who claim to be believing Christians.
I'm not going to say that religion has nothing to do with altruism; I was raised in a Christian home. But one can be an atheist and still believe in the Golden Rule.
See #6.
Why? Altruism is present in lesser primates as well.
Monogamy would also level the playing field within the group..... “Monogamy limits the ability of the stronger or more aggressive males to monopolise copulation,” says Bowles.
His genetic data suggests that the stronger, more-aggressive males were monopolizing copulation, so why infer monogamy?
Of course there are good & generous atheists. As you suggest, growing up in a Christian family, or in a society that has been shaped by a long tradition of Christian morality, tends to shape our attitudes.
Natural law theory further suggests that, as St. Paul says, "The law of God is written in the heart." He specifically adds that even the pagans have that imprinted in them.
Aristotle further argues than man is a "social animal." So we have a natural inclination toward family, friends, and city-state. But even that sort of natural inclination is hard to derive only from evolutionary theory.
Just as long as I am not forced to be altruistic by a statist government
But one can be an atheist and still believe in the Golden Rule.
Sure, but why bother?
Why? Altruism is present in lesser primates as well.
Non of us hold a candle to ants.
Here is a board certified forensic psychiatrist commenting on it:
"A competent individual always remains a unique and lifelong cause of his own experience, with innate capacities for awareness, choice and initiative that serve him in his quest for self-fulfillment. This pole of his human nature justifies a life lived in freedom, one that reflects his exercise of personal sovereignty. Depending on his level of maturity, however, he will also commit himself voluntarily to the well-being of others and find that commitment rewarding in its own right. When not lost in the torment and dysfunction of mental disorder or discouraged by the oppressive hand of government, charitable service to others feels inherently gratifying and even fulfilling, not burden-some, to the mature adult. This altruistic pole of human nature, a rational expression of a biologically determined nurturing instinct, is one of the pillars of social order. " ......
More: http://www.libertymind.com/index.php?page_id=257
~ LYLE H. ROSSITER, JR., M.D. BOARD CERTIFIED FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST http://www.forensicpsychiatrist.com/
Sure, but why bother?
1. The Golden Rule already contains one answer to that question.
2. Based on your response, you apparently feel that people (including yourself) are held in check from the most base actions only by the fear of God. It's not necessary to believe in a supernatural being in order to have a moral compass. Would you trust a sociopath who believed in God?
Based on your response, you apparently feel that people (including yourself) are held in check from the most base actions only by the fear of God. It's not necessary to believe in a supernatural being in order to have a moral compass.
No but you either have to believe in some god in order to have a moral compass that isn't whatever you feel like at the moment or you have to borrow morality from religion. Either way it's hard to hold a civilization together without religion.
Many researchers reject this model, however. One reason is that competition between individuals is likely to increase if a group becomes isolated, and any altruistic behaviour would then decrease an individual’s level of fitness compared with other members.To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
Biologists also assume that hunter-gatherer groups around this time period would have been insufficiently genetically related to favour altruism. In other words, die when defending the group and your genes die with you.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
"One can be an atheist and still believe in the golden rule."I agree.Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.That is decency-belief in a higher power is not a requisite.
Bull.
Everybody wants payback. Everybody.
Altruism is a fraud.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.