Is Altruism Darwinistic?

[painted wolf]

Can you please provide evidence for anything that you have said in this post. Can you positively show that altruism was part of human culture before agriculture surpassed hunter gatherer? Indeed, many hunter gatherer cultures that exist today are fiercely territorial when it comes to their hunting grounds (human and animal) and altruism is conspicuous by its absence outside the group. Your idea of sharing kill surplus is pure supposition, indeed I would suggest that the opposite could well be true and is still alive and well in the population today. And what is this revenge gene?

Altruism doesn't have to extend beyond the peer group... be that clan, tribe or nation.

Sharing food is very well documented among hunter-gatherers from the San to the Inuit.

It remains an important part of hunter-farmer cultures and semi-nomadic agriculturalist cultures.
Sharing - Hunter-Gatherer Wiki

Behaviors are polygenic thus there is no single gene that controls them.... rather it's a combination of genes and environmental influences.
Behavioral Genetics

wa:do

 

[Noaidi]

For a brief overview of non-human morality (inluding altruism), see:

Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals: Amazon.co.uk: Marc Bekoff, Jessica Pierce: Books

Amazon.com: Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (9780226041636): Marc Bekoff, Jessica Pierce: Books

 

[crocusj]

Altruism doesn't have to extend beyond the peer group... be that clan, tribe or nation.

But if altruism is genetic then surely it does. Does hunter gatherer altruism have borders? I don't doubt group sharing but this would be social group co-operation which is crucial to a social animal like a human whether hunter or farmer and therefore it would be more likely that "co-operative" genes are passed on than "altruistic", indeed that the two are confused. Since 99% of our history is hunter then why has it disappeared so quickly. This must be due to environment and not genetics.

Sharing food is very well documented among hunter-gatherers from the San to the Inuit

.
Tribal wars also.

It remains an important part of hunter-farmer cultures and semi-nomadic agriculturalist cultures.

I don't doubt it, but remember, true altruism is selfless. Sharing a kill is one thing, giving it away and starving yourself is another and as such that particular gene would die out. Co-operation is not altruism and survival of an individuals genes is more likely through co-operation than sacrifice and therefore I would suggest that what we see as altruism is actually social behaviour common among groups and therefore inherited.

Behaviors are polygenic thus there is no single gene that controls them.... rather it's a combination of genes and environmental influences.

Revenge?

 

[Autodidact]

..then Why did Humanity label itself as "Civilized?"

civ•i•lized (sivÆà l#zdÅ), adj.
1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.
3. of or pertaining to civilized people: The civilized world must fight ignorance.
4. easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered: The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.

or is it that we are "Civilized-Hunter-Gatherers?"

In effect, yes. Let me explain. For 99% of our existence as a species, we were hunter-gatherers. For .9%, we were nomadic shepherds and primitive farmers. We have been "civilized" for .01% of our existence as a species, not enough time to evolve much beyond our hunter-gatherer biology. Biologically, we are the exact same as our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Civilization is the way we live now, that is all. It has not had time to change our Biology.

Shortage for the Billionaire?.....You mean the unthinkable $ 2,000,000,000 LOSS!....from the $ 53,500,000,000 ? Man! My eyes are getting 'wooly' here...how many zeroes...? where is my calculator?....can a calculator HANDLE such big numbers...should I go to my computer...?

No, shortage for an able hunter.

By the way, do you mean there are only hunter-gatherers in the US?
...that the best of the hunter-gatherers there are called by the term homobillionicus..?

It doesn't matter. Biologically, that is what we are.

Here's an image that may help. Take a hunter-gatherer from 100,000 years ago and plop that individual down in modern Denver. That's who we are, biologically.

I don't quite follow this statement:
1. Do you mean a billionaire became one because he is altruistic?
or that Altruism is closely related to Billionairism?

Neither. I mean that all of us humans have inherited genes for altruism, because being altruistic conferred an evolutionary advantage on our ancestors, and this trait persists in us.

2. You mean altruistic behavior of 'His' Ancestors!

Yes, and his genes.

So taking your estimate at face value, can we say that
Evolution works 50% of the time by the Law of Survival of the Fittest
and 50% of the time by the Law of Altruism?

It always works by survival of the fittest. Being altruistic adds to individual fitness, as I have explained.

Tell me how many people on Earth have interpreted Darwin this way...or
whether this is what Darwin actually meant.

This is the current thinking among evolutionary psychologists.

 

[Autodidact]

Can you please provide evidence for anything that you have said in this post. Can you positively show that altruism was part of human culture before agriculture surpassed hunter gatherer?

I think I have shown how altruism could be beneficial to an individual in this environment.

Indeed, many hunter gatherer cultures that exist today are fiercely territorial when it comes to their hunting grounds (human and animal) and altruism is conspicuous by its absence outside the group.

Yes, this is very true and important to understanding humans. Again, this is us today. We are territorial. We are kind to our neighbors and often attack our enemies. Again, we are living out our evolutionary heritage. Our tendency is to be kindest to those closest to us, and to fight against people of other "tribes" that we see as threatening our resources.

Your idea of sharing kill surplus is pure supposition,

Doesn't it make sense.?

indeed I would suggest that the opposite could well be true and is still alive and well in the population today. And what is this revenge gene?

Again, we see that people all over the world have a tendency to seek justice and revenge. It has been shown we would rather keep fewer dollars ourselves, if it deprives someone whom we think has treated us badly. This is part of what keep humans accountable to each other in society.

 

[Autodidact]

But if altruism is genetic then surely it does.

Not at all.

Does hunter gatherer altruism have borders?

Yes, it does. People share their plenty with the others in their clan or tribe, not with outsiders.

I don't doubt group sharing but this would be social group co-operation which is crucial to a social animal like a human whether hunter or farmer and therefore it would be more likely that "co-operative" genes are passed on than "altruistic",

They're not mutually exclusive.

indeed that the two are confused. Since 99% of our history is hunter then why has it disappeared so quickly. This must be due to environment and not genetics.

It hasn't. People today often behave altruistically.

I don't doubt it, but remember, true altruism is selfless. Sharing a kill is one thing, giving it away and starving yourself is another and as such that particular gene would die out.

Yes, it is and always been rare for people to give away all they own. But they do give away. Collectively, we give away billions every year.

Co-operation is not altruism and survival of an individuals genes is more likely through co-operation than sacrifice and therefore I would suggest that what we see as altruism is actually social behaviour common among groups and therefore inherited.

It's not sacrifice. Remember, I killed an impala. I can't eat it all. What do I do with it? I give the extra to my friends, just as we are kind to our friends today. Just as people who grow too many zucchinis today give away the excess to their friends and neighbors. This creates a bond between us. We like each other. Then when we need help, we ask our friend, who helps us. If we each help each other when we need it, both of us, and our offspring, are more likely to survive.

 

[crocusj]

I think I have shown how altruism could be beneficial to an individual in this environment. Yes, this is very true and important to understanding humans. Again, this is us today. We are territorial. We are kind to our neighbors and often attack our enemies. Again, we are living out our evolutionary heritage. Our tendency is to be kindest to those closest to us, and to fight against people of other "tribes" that we see as threatening our resources. Doesn't it make sense.? Again, we see that people all over the world have a tendency to seek justice and revenge. It has been shown we would rather keep fewer dollars ourselves, if it deprives someone whom we think has treated us badly. This is part of what keep humans accountable to each other in society.

I may have to admit to being on softish ground here (don't post on what you don't know!)...I thought I should go off and read a bit about this. I remember years ago reading something about altruism being "merely" a by-product of intelligence and not genetic in itself. However, there now appears to be screeds more stuff on this and advances in genetics seem to be indicating this may not be the whole story. I'm not sure about how the influences of genes and culture/environment and intelligence all balances out for our perceived altruism and whether that altruism is more or less than self serving. But there does seem to be evidence for much of what you said (which is what I asked for!) so I will eat some crow and read some more...

 

[painted wolf]

But if altruism is genetic then surely it does. Does hunter gatherer altruism have borders? I don't doubt group sharing but this would be social group co-operation which is crucial to a social animal like a human whether hunter or farmer and therefore it would be more likely that "co-operative" genes are passed on than "altruistic", indeed that the two are confused. Since 99% of our history is hunter then why has it disappeared so quickly. This must be due to environment and not genetics.

Why when the people you are most closely related to and thus share the most genes with you are in your group?
We are limited by our monkeysphere... aka. Dunbar's nummber. Dunbar's number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

Tribal wars also.

Yep... Dunbar's number. We are limited in our altruism to people we can identify with.

I don't doubt it, but remember, true altruism is selfless. Sharing a kill is one thing, giving it away and starving yourself is another and as such that particular gene would die out. Co-operation is not altruism and survival of an individuals genes is more likely through co-operation than sacrifice and therefore I would suggest that what we see as altruism is actually social behaviour common among groups and therefore inherited.

True altruism is essentially a myth.

Revenge?

A perfect tool to maintain altruism.

wa:do