Screw you, you don't know me, and you have absolutely no idea how long and hard I've looked for God. So nice of you to trivialize a lifelong spiritual quest. Sorry, but your God has disappointed me, not the other way around.
Oh man, do people foe you for being Christian here? That sucks. I give religious types a hard time sometimes, but I'm against dogma, not God. I just think one's relationship with the divine is an intensely personal matter and categorically is not the province of organized religion, which seeks to mediate your own relationship with God through their power structure.
So that Genesis quote, the key is the "after his kind" part? Do you know what was originally meant? I'm sure Bible scholars have put that quote into its proper cultural framework.
I want a clear quote that mentions genetic engineering specifically, not just your interpretation of some obscure passage. I mean, seriously, where do you so-called Christians get off making shit up and then claiming, "God said so?" Just because you get creeped out by human-sheep hybrids doesn't mean that God does.
I'm agnostic. I think if there is a God, he doesn't give a rat's ass what we do. If he did, he would have made it a whole lot clearer. He wouldn't have just had humans write what he said in a book, because that is so easy to fake. not to mention, everyone seems to have their own book. Which one is right?
Assuming you are Christian, didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals? Heck, that's pretty much license to do whatever we want to nature, don't you think? But no, of course not. You know God better than anyone else, right?
Well, I'm not an MA resident, so I wouldn't know about the corruption. But according to the article, Diebold specifically says there was no corruption involved, that someone just made a bad choice and should be forced to pick them.
RTFA. Diebold isn't claiming corruption. They are saying that Massachusetts made a mistake. They are honestly claiming that in a fair competition, there is no way anyone could have possibly picked AutoMARK, and that the people who made the choice were simply wrong and should be forced to pick them. Nothing about corruption at all. In fact, they specifically say it isn't about corruption.
If it were as you say, it would almost make sense.
Jeez, defensive much? I can understand, given all the abysmal failures and outright crimes committed by the right wing recently, how you might feel that way, but really, why bring politics into this?
I think the guy asking the question probably knows more about the culture at his company than you do. You sound as though you are claiming that management never plays CYA and never makes inane decisions. Something along the lines of, "Shut up and do what your boss asks without question, wage-slave. Don't you know your place, peon?"
Right, but this is about morality as well as evolution, and from that perspective it is insightful to see how altruism to those outside your own family, when it occurs in nature, is not very different from enlightened self-interest. If we want to construct an ethics, we could follow our instincts to altruism, and feel like fantastic altruists while doing it, but if we're serious about altruism we're going to figure out that it turns out to be in our best interest, and that by constructing an ethics of enlightened, mutual self-interest we can get to the same place more honestly.
Ah, well, that's exactly what I was trying to say! Damn language, never works the way I want it to.
P.S. Sorry about being a dick. Thanks for sticking with me nonetheless, turns out we weren't really saying anything that different after all.
First, I was really trying to have a discussion, and you seemed to be the type who was trying to win an argument. I get fed up with the later type individual. But maybe I was wrong.
The hard thing about this discussion is that no kinds of altruism would ever have been selected for if they don't in fact increase fitness. Yes, even kin selection, because the individual passes on their genes, increasing the frequency of their genes in the population. They just don't do it through breeding. So the definition you are choosing to use doesn't technically apply to ANY of the mentioned behaviors. In fact, the definition you choose to use is entirely inappropriate for a discussion about how altruism might arise through evolution. Based on that definition, it is logically impossible for altruism to have arisen through evolution. Yet scientists still talk about altruism arising through evolution.
Encouragement of reciprocity, when it fails, decreases an individual's fitness because it amounts to giving away something for nothing. The handicap principle, when it fails to attract a mate, decreases the individuals fitness as well. Again, giving away something for nothing. Yet both these strategies actually tend to increase fitness and so the behavior of 'giving something away for nothing' is selected for.
As for kin selection, going by the frequency of an individual's gene in the population, it DOES increase the individuals capability to reproduce, if you take 'reproduce' to mean 'increase the frequency of one's own genes in the population.' It's just not sexual reproduction.
Well, that's one argument any way. As I said before, I do understand the distinction you've made. It just isn't a distinction that is important in an evolutionary framework, which is all about the frequency of certain genes in the population. If kin selection did not increase the frequency of kin-selecting genes in a population, it would not exist.
You know, people have the impression that people in government are lazy, doing nothing but posting on Internet message boards all day. Well, I for one am not going...
Oooh! Somebody brought donuts! BRB
Anyways, as I was saying... ah, you know what? All that sugar made me sleepy. I could use a little nap. Hell, it's Friday, I'll finish this post next week.
Are you staying 'till five? Can you clock out for me?
I like what I do, but not all aspects of it, and I don't love it more than the many other aspects of my life. However, I have known a few lucky souls who did exactly what they loved and they loved every minute of it. These are people who would be doing their work AS downtime if they weren't getting paid for it. Your post is certainly sensible advice for the vast majority of people who aren't in that situation. I just wanted to point out that a few people do have another viewpoint.
I like to think that some time in the future, no one will have to distinguish between work and play. But I'm guessing we'll have to work very hard to get there.;-)
Okay, you keep telling yourself that. "Look mommy, I won a debate on slashdot!" This entire discussion has been a waste of time. It added nothing to anyone's understanding of anything. It clarified nothing. It was pure textual masturbation and I feel dirty even having taken part in this little circle jerk.
You've discredited nothing by redefining altruism to suit your ends. I have been talking about altruism in the same words used by the scientific community. Please use this wiki page as a starting point and see if you can find any scientists who agree with your terminology. I know, it's wiki, which is why I said use it as a starting point.
What I've been saying is that people give to others without conscious expectation of return, that kin-selection, as a theory, does not explain all instances of that behavior, and that other theories do. As I said, it doesn't matter what you call it, the behavior exists, it isn't covered by kin selection theory, and other theories do explain the behavior, whatever you want to call it.
I don't know how much simpler I can make this. I think you are one of those people who hates to "lose" an argument. I'm not here to win or lose, I'm here to discuss. You don't seem to want to discuss, you seem to want to use misdirection, semantics, clever redefinitions, and other argumentative tricks to "win" the argument.
You haven't. First, definitions don't matter, it is observed behavior and existing theories I am talking about, and you haven't disproven a thing I've said because you haven't talked evidence, you've only talked definitions. Anyone can claim the sky is green by redefining the word green to mean what I want it to mean. Second, and perhaps more tellingly, the rest of the world does not use your definition of altruism. The scientific community uses the term exactly as I have been using it, and the theories I have mentioned are part of a body of work collectively known as "Altruism in ethology and evolutionary biology."
See, when I see people like you, people who like to argue just to look clever, I like to let them paint themselves into a corner. I don't bring out my best argument until they have absolutely no escape route. I could have shown you the scientific definition and proved you wrong four posts ago, but it was far more fun this way. It's like a pin or a fork in chess, you really have no moves left to make, and you've put yourself in that position. But I know that people like you can never accept the fact that you've been beaten, so I look forward watching you try to wriggle out of an impossible situation. Will you say the wiki is wrong? That all the scientists in the world are? Will you try to redefine your argument again, or claim that we were talking about something different? Who knows, but I'm sure it will be entertaining.
I'm just hoping you won't see how futile it is, how anyone else reading this can only come to the conclusion that you have lost very badly, and you will continue to provide some sport.
I don't define tit-for-tat as altruism. I define the opening move of tit-for-tat as altruism, and I use that as a demonstration of why giving things away can be selfish. Meaning, it can often lead to a productive and reciprocal relationship.
As for the handicap principle, look it up. You might not believe it but it is a well accepted theory that happens to cover certain kinds of altruism that aren't explained by kin-selection and the opening moves of a reciprocal relationship.
Good point about the whole is-aught trap I appear to have fallen into. Only I don't think I have, of course. I'm not saying that nature should define what is right, only that we should acknowledge what is in our quest for what should be. That means looking at the parts of our nature that correspond with our desired morality and enhance those, as well as looking at the parts that don't and working to overcome those. If our systems make false assumptions about the good parts of our nature, they will be doing more harm than good.
Sorry about the quips. You'll find I can be a bastard sometimes, but I always cop to it and apologize if called out in a reasonable manner like you did.
Okay, and the final question is, so what? What have you proven exactly? What were you trying to communicate, what point were you trying to make? This has all just been about semantics, definitions of words. I was trying to communicate an idea, and you have not even addressed the idea, but have gone off on a tangent.
AGAIN, I don't care what you call it. There is observed behavior of people giving away resources to NON-KIN, kin-selection does not explain it, the theories that I mentioned do. It DOES NOT MATTER what you call that behavior! I can not believe how pointless this has all been.
Is it altruism when someone gives away something with nothing expected in return? If not, why does nearly every other person in the world call that altruism?
This is pointless semantic quibbling about definitions, and I sense that you are not going to even acknowledge my point. Go ahead and call it purple monkey dishwasher if you like, the fact of the observed behavior remains, and kin-selection does not cover it.
I will repeat, I don't care what you call it. This was never about semantics and definitions. This is about theories to explain certain types of behavior that look, on their surface, to be self sacrificing in some way.
I think you are too focused on the individual. The concept of "individual" is as real as the concept of altruism. A nice fairy tale, that's all.
Interesting, and I do understand your point of view but I disagree. Altruism is a behavior. When people see others giving away resources with nothing expected in return, do they not call that altruism? Evolutionarily speaking, how did that sort of behavior emerge? It is not always based on kin-selection. You can talk semantics and definitions all you like, but that doesn't help explain the origins of the behavior.
It looks like you are denying that giving away resources with nothing expected in return is altruistic. I doubt you'd get many people to agree with your definition, even if you explained that those people were ACTUALLY getting something out of it.
But that is beside the point, we were discussing the origins of morality. Did it evolve genetically or socially? I mentioned theories regarding a component of altruism that helped fill in the gaps left by kin-selection. They are valid theories and have explanatory and predictive power. You can't just magic away the fact that kin selection does not explain all instances of observed behavior that the common person would call altruism. You certainly can't do it by redefining altruism in a way the common person would find confusing.
So, not to be a bastard but you only have three valid options: agree with me, redefine altruism to mean only what you say it means, or come up with a better explanation for the observed behavior.
If you choose to redefine altruism, I would then argue that even your definition is not strict enough, because kin-selection is not a net negative sacrifice. It is entirely and only what that individual desired to do. It is no sacrifice if done for selfish reasons. People do it because it feels good. Few people rescue relatives from burning buildings feeling forced into it, all sad and mopey because they are going to die. They do it because, in the moment it is the thing that feels the best, that gives them the most pleasure.
It's only altruism if someone dies? People die for unrelated strangers all the time, as I said before, I think genes have a much looser working definition of "kin" than you seem to.
I do see your point though. There is a difference, but commonly people still speak of behaviors motivated to encourage cooperation but not yet reciprocal, and the handicap principle based action of giving away resources in order to impress a mate with one's fitness as altruistic. Or rather, those kinds of behavior have always been labeled as altruistic, and the theories were developed to explain observed instances of altruism that could not be explained by kin-selection.
I probably couldn't be less clear if I tried. Let me try again. Altruistic behavior has been observed. Kin-selection was one theory used to explain it, but it didn't cover all observed cases of altruism. Other theories such as encouragement of reciprocity and the handicap principle were developed to explain these other cases. There, I think that's pretty clear.
This is what I don't get: why are you classifying circumstances where other people have your genes differently, and why is THAT, of all things, the only one that gets the stamp of "altruism" in your book? It's still just, as you put it, "good business sense on the part of evolution."
By the strictest definition, there is no such thing as altruism. I think the word does have meaning, and I think it relates to how the person doing the act feels. We know they aren't REALLY acting selflessly, but there is a difference between what FEELS like selflessness and what is calculated selfishness.
Lenin's communism proves Proudhon was right. Communism failed the day they decided on violent revolution as a means to an end. Funny and true insight on Chinese communism!
Marx's original plan was that communism was a transitional government on the road to real anarchy and self governance. But it was criticized by true anarchists from day one. Anarchists such as Proudhon said that communism would invariably lead to a concentration of power, just the same as capitalism.
In any case, I think the post you were responding to was not raising a critique on that level. I think it was more along the lines of "They wants to take mah propurtai!"
Slashdot Mirror
Screw you, you don't know me, and you have absolutely no idea how long and hard I've looked for God. So nice of you to trivialize a lifelong spiritual quest. Sorry, but your God has disappointed me, not the other way around.
Oh man, do people foe you for being Christian here? That sucks. I give religious types a hard time sometimes, but I'm against dogma, not God. I just think one's relationship with the divine is an intensely personal matter and categorically is not the province of organized religion, which seeks to mediate your own relationship with God through their power structure.
So that Genesis quote, the key is the "after his kind" part? Do you know what was originally meant? I'm sure Bible scholars have put that quote into its proper cultural framework.
I want a clear quote that mentions genetic engineering specifically, not just your interpretation of some obscure passage. I mean, seriously, where do you so-called Christians get off making shit up and then claiming, "God said so?" Just because you get creeped out by human-sheep hybrids doesn't mean that God does.
I'm agnostic. I think if there is a God, he doesn't give a rat's ass what we do. If he did, he would have made it a whole lot clearer. He wouldn't have just had humans write what he said in a book, because that is so easy to fake. not to mention, everyone seems to have their own book. Which one is right?
Assuming you are Christian, didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals? Heck, that's pretty much license to do whatever we want to nature, don't you think? But no, of course not. You know God better than anyone else, right?
Well, I'm not an MA resident, so I wouldn't know about the corruption. But according to the article, Diebold specifically says there was no corruption involved, that someone just made a bad choice and should be forced to pick them.
RTFA. Diebold isn't claiming corruption. They are saying that Massachusetts made a mistake. They are honestly claiming that in a fair competition, there is no way anyone could have possibly picked AutoMARK, and that the people who made the choice were simply wrong and should be forced to pick them. Nothing about corruption at all. In fact, they specifically say it isn't about corruption.
If it were as you say, it would almost make sense.
Tell me how to get on Oprah's Book List!
You have to, ah, 'service' Oprah. Candidates are advised to bring a snorkel. Trust me, you really don't want to know what it's for.
Jeez, defensive much? I can understand, given all the abysmal failures and outright crimes committed by the right wing recently, how you might feel that way, but really, why bring politics into this?
I think the guy asking the question probably knows more about the culture at his company than you do. You sound as though you are claiming that management never plays CYA and never makes inane decisions. Something along the lines of, "Shut up and do what your boss asks without question, wage-slave. Don't you know your place, peon?"
Ah, well, that's exactly what I was trying to say! Damn language, never works the way I want it to.
P.S. Sorry about being a dick. Thanks for sticking with me nonetheless, turns out we weren't really saying anything that different after all.
First, I was really trying to have a discussion, and you seemed to be the type who was trying to win an argument. I get fed up with the later type individual. But maybe I was wrong.
The hard thing about this discussion is that no kinds of altruism would ever have been selected for if they don't in fact increase fitness. Yes, even kin selection, because the individual passes on their genes, increasing the frequency of their genes in the population. They just don't do it through breeding. So the definition you are choosing to use doesn't technically apply to ANY of the mentioned behaviors. In fact, the definition you choose to use is entirely inappropriate for a discussion about how altruism might arise through evolution. Based on that definition, it is logically impossible for altruism to have arisen through evolution. Yet scientists still talk about altruism arising through evolution.
Encouragement of reciprocity, when it fails, decreases an individual's fitness because it amounts to giving away something for nothing. The handicap principle, when it fails to attract a mate, decreases the individuals fitness as well. Again, giving away something for nothing. Yet both these strategies actually tend to increase fitness and so the behavior of 'giving something away for nothing' is selected for.
As for kin selection, going by the frequency of an individual's gene in the population, it DOES increase the individuals capability to reproduce, if you take 'reproduce' to mean 'increase the frequency of one's own genes in the population.' It's just not sexual reproduction.
Well, that's one argument any way. As I said before, I do understand the distinction you've made. It just isn't a distinction that is important in an evolutionary framework, which is all about the frequency of certain genes in the population. If kin selection did not increase the frequency of kin-selecting genes in a population, it would not exist.
You know, people have the impression that people in government are lazy, doing nothing but posting on Internet message boards all day. Well, I for one am not going...
Oooh! Somebody brought donuts! BRB
Anyways, as I was saying... ah, you know what? All that sugar made me sleepy. I could use a little nap. Hell, it's Friday, I'll finish this post next week.
Are you staying 'till five? Can you clock out for me?
I like what I do, but not all aspects of it, and I don't love it more than the many other aspects of my life. However, I have known a few lucky souls who did exactly what they loved and they loved every minute of it. These are people who would be doing their work AS downtime if they weren't getting paid for it. Your post is certainly sensible advice for the vast majority of people who aren't in that situation. I just wanted to point out that a few people do have another viewpoint.
;-)
I like to think that some time in the future, no one will have to distinguish between work and play. But I'm guessing we'll have to work very hard to get there.
Okay, you keep telling yourself that. "Look mommy, I won a debate on slashdot!" This entire discussion has been a waste of time. It added nothing to anyone's understanding of anything. It clarified nothing. It was pure textual masturbation and I feel dirty even having taken part in this little circle jerk.
You've discredited nothing by redefining altruism to suit your ends. I have been talking about altruism in the same words used by the scientific community. Please use this wiki page as a starting point and see if you can find any scientists who agree with your terminology. I know, it's wiki, which is why I said use it as a starting point.
What I've been saying is that people give to others without conscious expectation of return, that kin-selection, as a theory, does not explain all instances of that behavior, and that other theories do. As I said, it doesn't matter what you call it, the behavior exists, it isn't covered by kin selection theory, and other theories do explain the behavior, whatever you want to call it.
I don't know how much simpler I can make this. I think you are one of those people who hates to "lose" an argument. I'm not here to win or lose, I'm here to discuss. You don't seem to want to discuss, you seem to want to use misdirection, semantics, clever redefinitions, and other argumentative tricks to "win" the argument.
You haven't. First, definitions don't matter, it is observed behavior and existing theories I am talking about, and you haven't disproven a thing I've said because you haven't talked evidence, you've only talked definitions. Anyone can claim the sky is green by redefining the word green to mean what I want it to mean. Second, and perhaps more tellingly, the rest of the world does not use your definition of altruism. The scientific community uses the term exactly as I have been using it, and the theories I have mentioned are part of a body of work collectively known as "Altruism in ethology and evolutionary biology."
See, when I see people like you, people who like to argue just to look clever, I like to let them paint themselves into a corner. I don't bring out my best argument until they have absolutely no escape route. I could have shown you the scientific definition and proved you wrong four posts ago, but it was far more fun this way. It's like a pin or a fork in chess, you really have no moves left to make, and you've put yourself in that position. But I know that people like you can never accept the fact that you've been beaten, so I look forward watching you try to wriggle out of an impossible situation. Will you say the wiki is wrong? That all the scientists in the world are? Will you try to redefine your argument again, or claim that we were talking about something different? Who knows, but I'm sure it will be entertaining.
I'm just hoping you won't see how futile it is, how anyone else reading this can only come to the conclusion that you have lost very badly, and you will continue to provide some sport.
I don't define tit-for-tat as altruism. I define the opening move of tit-for-tat as altruism, and I use that as a demonstration of why giving things away can be selfish. Meaning, it can often lead to a productive and reciprocal relationship.
As for the handicap principle, look it up. You might not believe it but it is a well accepted theory that happens to cover certain kinds of altruism that aren't explained by kin-selection and the opening moves of a reciprocal relationship.
Good point about the whole is-aught trap I appear to have fallen into. Only I don't think I have, of course. I'm not saying that nature should define what is right, only that we should acknowledge what is in our quest for what should be. That means looking at the parts of our nature that correspond with our desired morality and enhance those, as well as looking at the parts that don't and working to overcome those. If our systems make false assumptions about the good parts of our nature, they will be doing more harm than good.
Sorry about the quips. You'll find I can be a bastard sometimes, but I always cop to it and apologize if called out in a reasonable manner like you did.
Okay, and the final question is, so what? What have you proven exactly? What were you trying to communicate, what point were you trying to make? This has all just been about semantics, definitions of words. I was trying to communicate an idea, and you have not even addressed the idea, but have gone off on a tangent.
AGAIN, I don't care what you call it. There is observed behavior of people giving away resources to NON-KIN, kin-selection does not explain it, the theories that I mentioned do. It DOES NOT MATTER what you call that behavior! I can not believe how pointless this has all been.
Is it altruism when someone gives away something with nothing expected in return? If not, why does nearly every other person in the world call that altruism?
This is pointless semantic quibbling about definitions, and I sense that you are not going to even acknowledge my point. Go ahead and call it purple monkey dishwasher if you like, the fact of the observed behavior remains, and kin-selection does not cover it.
I will repeat, I don't care what you call it. This was never about semantics and definitions. This is about theories to explain certain types of behavior that look, on their surface, to be self sacrificing in some way.
I think you are too focused on the individual. The concept of "individual" is as real as the concept of altruism. A nice fairy tale, that's all.
Interesting, and I do understand your point of view but I disagree. Altruism is a behavior. When people see others giving away resources with nothing expected in return, do they not call that altruism? Evolutionarily speaking, how did that sort of behavior emerge? It is not always based on kin-selection. You can talk semantics and definitions all you like, but that doesn't help explain the origins of the behavior.
It looks like you are denying that giving away resources with nothing expected in return is altruistic. I doubt you'd get many people to agree with your definition, even if you explained that those people were ACTUALLY getting something out of it.
But that is beside the point, we were discussing the origins of morality. Did it evolve genetically or socially? I mentioned theories regarding a component of altruism that helped fill in the gaps left by kin-selection. They are valid theories and have explanatory and predictive power. You can't just magic away the fact that kin selection does not explain all instances of observed behavior that the common person would call altruism. You certainly can't do it by redefining altruism in a way the common person would find confusing.
So, not to be a bastard but you only have three valid options: agree with me, redefine altruism to mean only what you say it means, or come up with a better explanation for the observed behavior.
If you choose to redefine altruism, I would then argue that even your definition is not strict enough, because kin-selection is not a net negative sacrifice. It is entirely and only what that individual desired to do. It is no sacrifice if done for selfish reasons. People do it because it feels good. Few people rescue relatives from burning buildings feeling forced into it, all sad and mopey because they are going to die. They do it because, in the moment it is the thing that feels the best, that gives them the most pleasure.
In MY day, we toggled programs into the front panel with SWITCHES, and we LIKED IT! Now get off my lawn, you damn kids.
It's only altruism if someone dies? People die for unrelated strangers all the time, as I said before, I think genes have a much looser working definition of "kin" than you seem to.
I do see your point though. There is a difference, but commonly people still speak of behaviors motivated to encourage cooperation but not yet reciprocal, and the handicap principle based action of giving away resources in order to impress a mate with one's fitness as altruistic. Or rather, those kinds of behavior have always been labeled as altruistic, and the theories were developed to explain observed instances of altruism that could not be explained by kin-selection.
I probably couldn't be less clear if I tried. Let me try again. Altruistic behavior has been observed. Kin-selection was one theory used to explain it, but it didn't cover all observed cases of altruism. Other theories such as encouragement of reciprocity and the handicap principle were developed to explain these other cases. There, I think that's pretty clear.
This is what I don't get: why are you classifying circumstances where other people have your genes differently, and why is THAT, of all things, the only one that gets the stamp of "altruism" in your book? It's still just, as you put it, "good business sense on the part of evolution."
By the strictest definition, there is no such thing as altruism. I think the word does have meaning, and I think it relates to how the person doing the act feels. We know they aren't REALLY acting selflessly, but there is a difference between what FEELS like selflessness and what is calculated selfishness.
I also like the old African proverb, "Only free people can make a strong tribe. Only a strong tribe can make people free."
Lenin's communism proves Proudhon was right. Communism failed the day they decided on violent revolution as a means to an end. Funny and true insight on Chinese communism!
I thought it said, "Nude Monkey Species Founded Ubuntu," and I was like, "Duh. Of course humans founded Ubuntu."
Marx's original plan was that communism was a transitional government on the road to real anarchy and self governance. But it was criticized by true anarchists from day one. Anarchists such as Proudhon said that communism would invariably lead to a concentration of power, just the same as capitalism.
In any case, I think the post you were responding to was not raising a critique on that level. I think it was more along the lines of "They wants to take mah propurtai!"
I think that was more a demonstration of the "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" principle.