Because in kin-selection, evolution will often lead the individual to fully sacrifice himself--to die for her children or his sisters. It's selfish on the part of the gene, perhaps, but not on the part of the individual. And since we're discussing the behavior of individuals as influenced by evolution...
I don't really care how you choose to define terms. To me, "altruism" implies that your main concern is to help others instead of yourself or even at your expense. It also implies that it's something different from selfishness--after all, we don't call the businessman altruistic for calculating how to increase his own profit, even if by doing so he ends up providing us fresh bananas and laundry detergent. Except for circumstances where you're damn sure the other people have your genes, all of your supposed examples of "altruism" sound more like good business sense on the part of evolution.
No, you miss the "pint". Natural selection is about the survival of the fittest gene. It doesn't care about individuals, families, groups, or species per se. All it cares about is genes. If the best way for a gene to perpetuate itself is to better the individual who carries it, it will. If the best way for the gene to perpetuate itself is to better the kin of the individual who carries it, it will. Species and populations only come into question when we recognize that evolution is a change in the frequency of certain genes within a given population.
You see a situation and then imagine what a "hero" would do in that situation. So in the case of running away from battle, you may ask yourself "Would Hercules run away?" So you'd stay and fight. Perhaps the most pop form is the Christian form, which is "What would Jesus do?"
And what basis, pray tell, do we have for selecting heroes?
All versions of civilization -- and there is but one civilization -- adhere to the same first principles. None, really, go against the basics of not murdering, or not stealing, or not lieing.
The individual bee protects his hive because his hive consists of his kin. He never seeks to benefit all of bee-kind, only his hive, because in that hive is a queen bee related to him, and for the queen bee to continue making baby bees he needs to protect the hive.
Evolution doesn't favor altruism. It favors kin-selection, in which people closely related to you are important to you. A mother will sacrifice for her children, and a brother will sacrifice for a large enough group of other brothers, but when it comes to "your fellow man", evolution favors no such thing.
Iterated prisoner's dilemma has shown the 'tit-for-tat' strategy to be quite effective, and other research has shown the general case that cooperation is the most effective strategy unless there are no local surpluses or no local scarcities.
That's not altruism--that's cooperation, which is selfish because it pursues mutual self-interest instead of pure others-interest.
Altruism is the same. By sacrificing resources you prove your worth to the opposite sex.
That's like saying by sacrificing $1500, I prove my worth to possess a black MacBook. If you still wanted the sex more than the resources, you're still being a selfish bastard and you're still getting a good deal. Evolution favors enlightened self-interest in every situation other than kin selection.
NAND isn't an acronym, it doesn't stand for anything. It's just capitalized because logical operators are usually capitalized. NOT, AND, and OR aren't acronyms either.
Rehabilitation is nice. It's also difficult, expensive, and unlikely to succeed. It also turns people into a sink for society's resources, making them into net negative contributors. Restitution is better. It turns these people into net neutral contributors if full restitution is possible. And, if it's at all possible, investing in these people's training not only increases the value of their labor (making them more valuable indentured servants), it also rehabilitates them and prepares them to reenter the working world. So I don't think our two positions are all that contradictory.
So the professor is decrying the falling interest in Computer Science. How would enrollment look in a "Factory Science" department at his university, I wonder....
I think that's called "operations management" at most universities. They try to apply a lot of that to service industries, although things like statistical quality control and process improvement are clearly better suited for factories.
The only morally and ethically sound basis for slavery is where the individual knowingly and in an informed manner submits to such a role in return for what they consider sufficient compensation. For example, perhaps a person who has no way to educate their children would exchange a number of years of slavery in exchange for a trust fund, the purpose of which is to educate those children.
That's indentured servitude. If you substitute "no desire to spend the rest of their life in the continental European underclass" for "no way to educate their children" and "passage to the New World" for "a trust fund", you have a pretty good account of how a lot of people got over here.
However, indentured servitude makes for a fair means of restitution for victimed crimes. If you burn my house down, you owe me a goddamn house. In a just world, you should be my indentured servant until you earn enough to buy me a new house. For practical reasons, prison factories or labor camps are the best way to facilitate this, especially with provisions for skilled labor.
And we couldn't beat Hitler and Mussolini without Stalin, Churchill, and an insanely war-powers-dictatorial Roosevelt making decisions on their own, or delegating them to people like Eisenhower.
Some women like to be wrestled down and pinned. Other women like to be hit. Make sure your woman falls into one of these categories before trying this out.
Anonymous action is out, obviously. (Anonymous murder, anonymous theft, anonymous money laundering, etc. are situations where anonymity is not your right anymore.) What about anonymous speech? (assuming it's "free speech" in the generally accepted sense, and not "speech" in terms of "coded signals to terrorists" or "instructions for your colleagues in the Mafia").
Slashdot Mirror
Because in kin-selection, evolution will often lead the individual to fully sacrifice himself--to die for her children or his sisters. It's selfish on the part of the gene, perhaps, but not on the part of the individual. And since we're discussing the behavior of individuals as influenced by evolution...
I don't really care how you choose to define terms. To me, "altruism" implies that your main concern is to help others instead of yourself or even at your expense. It also implies that it's something different from selfishness--after all, we don't call the businessman altruistic for calculating how to increase his own profit, even if by doing so he ends up providing us fresh bananas and laundry detergent. Except for circumstances where you're damn sure the other people have your genes, all of your supposed examples of "altruism" sound more like good business sense on the part of evolution.
I used one male example and one female example. I assumed you were intelligent enough to fill in the rest by yourself.
No, you miss the "pint". Natural selection is about the survival of the fittest gene. It doesn't care about individuals, families, groups, or species per se. All it cares about is genes. If the best way for a gene to perpetuate itself is to better the individual who carries it, it will. If the best way for the gene to perpetuate itself is to better the kin of the individual who carries it, it will. Species and populations only come into question when we recognize that evolution is a change in the frequency of certain genes within a given population.
Clever. What does "AND" stand for? An acronym of "Not And" would be "NA". A portmanteau of "NOT' and "AND" could be "NAND", however.
And what basis, pray tell, do we have for selecting heroes?
In other words, it's a ripoff of Second Life, which is a glorified chat room.
To your own.
The individual bee protects his hive because his hive consists of his kin. He never seeks to benefit all of bee-kind, only his hive, because in that hive is a queen bee related to him, and for the queen bee to continue making baby bees he needs to protect the hive.
Evolution doesn't favor altruism. It favors kin-selection, in which people closely related to you are important to you. A mother will sacrifice for her children, and a brother will sacrifice for a large enough group of other brothers, but when it comes to "your fellow man", evolution favors no such thing.
That's not altruism--that's cooperation, which is selfish because it pursues mutual self-interest instead of pure others-interest.
That's like saying by sacrificing $1500, I prove my worth to possess a black MacBook. If you still wanted the sex more than the resources, you're still being a selfish bastard and you're still getting a good deal. Evolution favors enlightened self-interest in every situation other than kin selection.
Maybe to others--definitely not to myself.
NAND isn't an acronym, it doesn't stand for anything. It's just capitalized because logical operators are usually capitalized. NOT, AND, and OR aren't acronyms either.
You've never heard of the "express written consent of Major League Baseball"?
Rehabilitation is nice. It's also difficult, expensive, and unlikely to succeed. It also turns people into a sink for society's resources, making them into net negative contributors. Restitution is better. It turns these people into net neutral contributors if full restitution is possible. And, if it's at all possible, investing in these people's training not only increases the value of their labor (making them more valuable indentured servants), it also rehabilitates them and prepares them to reenter the working world. So I don't think our two positions are all that contradictory.
By your reasoning, we shouldn't imprison people at all. Is confining people to prisons with nothing to do any better than putting them to work?
I think that's called "operations management" at most universities. They try to apply a lot of that to service industries, although things like statistical quality control and process improvement are clearly better suited for factories.
That's indentured servitude. If you substitute "no desire to spend the rest of their life in the continental European underclass" for "no way to educate their children" and "passage to the New World" for "a trust fund", you have a pretty good account of how a lot of people got over here.
However, indentured servitude makes for a fair means of restitution for victimed crimes. If you burn my house down, you owe me a goddamn house. In a just world, you should be my indentured servant until you earn enough to buy me a new house. For practical reasons, prison factories or labor camps are the best way to facilitate this, especially with provisions for skilled labor.
You're afraid of Batman fundamentalists?
Then I won't point out that the Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes, making it redundant to list "Germanic tribes" separately.
And we couldn't beat Hitler and Mussolini without Stalin, Churchill, and an insanely war-powers-dictatorial Roosevelt making decisions on their own, or delegating them to people like Eisenhower.
Some women like to be wrestled down and pinned. Other women like to be hit. Make sure your woman falls into one of these categories before trying this out.
Or virtual money. Although if you create a female avatar you can get virtual money with enough hard work.
Ancient Anglo-Saxon tribes had no conception of the potato--it is a New World crop.
Anonymous action is out, obviously. (Anonymous murder, anonymous theft, anonymous money laundering, etc. are situations where anonymity is not your right anymore.) What about anonymous speech? (assuming it's "free speech" in the generally accepted sense, and not "speech" in terms of "coded signals to terrorists" or "instructions for your colleagues in the Mafia").
Fifth Amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."