Slashdot Mirror
The Drive For Altruism Is Hardwired
Dekortage writes "The Washington Post is reporting on recent neuroscience research indicating that the brain is pre-wired to enjoy altruism — placing the interests of others ahead of one's own. In studies, '[G]enerosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex... Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.' Such research 'has opened up a new window on what it means to be good,' although many philosophers over recorded history have suggested similar things."
Apologies in advance for what is about to be a match to an evolution vs. creation flamewar, but I'm in a bit of a cheeky mood and feel like "getting some back" in this old argument.
Specifically, I've been getting a bit tired of hearing the old "science disproves the existence of a higher being" B.S. that's constantly thrown around. I recall it starting with the baseless Human Genome Confirms Evolution (archive) story a few years back. The author of the article was quick to jump to the conclusion that finding fewer genes than expected *proved* that man must have evolved. (Too bad we never saw his formal proof of that. Would have been fascinating to see how well it stood up to scrutiny.)
Now that's not to say that the theological side of the argument hasn't made some pretty dumb steps itself. e.g. Intelligent Design can't be a true scientific theory, because science can only deal with that which is inside our universe. If we are positing the existence of an extra-universal being who set the universe in motion, then science does not have the reach to make that determination. Science is restricted to the laws of the Universe in which we inhabit. It would be very poor form for a being who trancends time to be an inhabitant of a universe that would forcably constrain Him. Therefore "God" is a concept that must be dealt with in Theology, not the investigation of the laws of nature. (Even Newton was smart enough to know this!)
However, this argument usually gets a "thinking logically, if X happened, is it not more likely that it was a natural occurance rather than the hand of an almighty being?" Which, of course, completely misses the point. (And spurs quite a few eyerolls.) If we are in a Universe put in motion by an extra-universal being, then the laws of nature are *His* laws of nature. They work according to how He says they should work.
Again, since I'm feeling cheeky, I figured it would be fun to respond with a similarly goofy argument:
It seems to me that if man is hardwired with an sense of altruism and a desire to believe in a super-being, there can be no other answer to this question than the existence of a Creator.
Ok, go have fun tearing each other up over that. I guarantee that you'll get nowhere, but it might be fun to watch. Lame noodly-appendage references and ID arguments, HO!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Socialism is violence, plain and simple, which causes poverty by definition of focrcing tranferances of physical material wealth that is not voluntarily forthcoming. Where are the calls for ending "looks" inequality? How is it "fair" or not "violent crime inducing" for one person to have exclusive access to a subjectively "prettier" woman? Because people should be free to be and give what is their's to whom they want when they want? Is "rape with representation" justified to "share the wealth"? You can vote someone into sexual servitude because that's a "positive externality that would benefit everyone"? People should be free to associate sexually when and with whom they want but not be granted the same respect with their other property? People only act, only charitably donate, when by definition it benefits them. That's why they choose particular charities and exclude other particular charities. This is a good thing, as it prevents waste and increases wealth for all who freely trade. How ironic for a "socialist" to talk about ending poverty, when absolutely every free exchange by definition makes people wealthier, ends poverty. When you use violence to rape, or violence to vote/take others property through taxation you are by definition *causing* poverty, in absolutely every instance. But sure, universal ownership works perfectly in the non-scarce realm of ideas. Banish all copyright/patent protection. Nobody can produce more quality music then they receive for free in return (least of all not "rip off" the ideas of others).
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
Obviously, people who are altruistic shouldn't give their time to actually act on their belief, they should be helpfull cogs, working more overtime for no money. What kind of fascist wet dream is that?
P.S. If you're ever in need of first aid at a public event, ask if the respondent is employed or volunteering. Refuse treatment if he's a volunteer.
P.P.S. Don't worry, if you pass out we'll place your inert body so you don't suffocate in your own vomit, we're allowed to do that even if you refused treatment before your condition became life-threatning.
You can't take the sky from me...