This is going to be great working out this issue!!!

Personally, I'm in Wilson's corner. Dawkins seems kind of like a zealot.

"at war"? War? Perhaps this writer should look up the word, or, better, refer to the vicious wars currently being waged on this planet by this not very altruistic species. It sounds, instead, like reasoned debate over an issue on which they disagree. Why must journalists turn everything into a melodrama?

This is interesting, but I don't understand why it's on Common Dreams?

Thanks for pointing that out Oldbadgertoo.

The western world or maybe most of the human race is hung up on war...every dispute is a war and maybe that says something about Human Altruism... or maybe only the insects, birds and other animals have it.

Ps I can't wait until the new debate on the Big Bang Theory hits Common Dreams.

Interesting article, evolutionary theory is a tad sui generis for Commondreams… unless it ties into there being US politicians who think Jesus spoke English and that the Earth is only thousands of years old.

This is on CommonDreams because the debate over evolution is a LARGE constant factor in our politics. Every significant development always matters.

There is nothing wrong with theories and ideas being "at war" with each other in search of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". When the proponents or skeptics of those ideas, however, face off to a "war" between each other as validated persons, insisting on proudly defending their validity through their expounded ideas, well, that's where the arguments can get too loud and spill over to politics, where we, the citizens are sitting ducks to be sacrified in the "collateral damage" from their "war". I believe this applies equally to adamant secular scientists and to the adamant theologian/philosophers.

What children. While the evolutionists and the christian wackos fight in the playground with each other over trivia the Buddhists arent interested because they know the debate is meaningless.

Christianity's great chain of being was used to justify the type of misery that Rene Descartes engaged in(he's the guy who said that when a member of a non human animal species screams in pain its the same as gears in a mechanism clashing together). Darwin's Theory of Evolution was used to justify animal torture and eugenics.

Dawkins is an idiot. He says religion is the root of all evil but forgets that humans invented religion--thus the problem is human nature.

Members of different species have been known to show altruism to members of other species, how do intellectual toddlers like these scientists explain that?

Such children. So many more important issues out there to waste time over this.
Knowledge and wisdom are too different things.

It is an unfortunate sign of the times that a scientific issue appears on Common Dreams due the fact the debate is about an aspect of evolution. Thanks to the nut bag Christian right wing whom have made it a political act to discuss portions of evolutionary theory. This debate should take place in scientific journals and workshops, not in the political arena. Instead, we are witness to a replay of sorts of the Scopes Monkey Trial. All that is missing is the carnival barkers hawking tourist junk.

let's figure this out right here. how many altruists here? raise your hands!

If human altruism wasn't in place then we wouldn't be able to feel the need to go to "war" over our "leaders" needs and wants. Everything would be based on a personal level of defense. I think our leader(s) should be in the "arena" for a war since they are the "chosen few" and talk to "God"(* as so elected) they can personally fight it out.

Kelmer - Remember the story of the monk who looked into the pit to see a mother tiger and her cubs trapped and starving, seeing such pain he instantly threw himself into the pit to provide food? I like your point.

To everyone else taking sides - I know the answer, I know it! I know it! I know it! But, I'm not going to tell you!

Geoff29 is right. kelmer is right. Dawkins is at pains to promote his pet cosmology of a mechanistic material universe which catenates itself into complex structures purely through the agency of inertia and other primitive physical laws. As a scientist he correctly rejects religion (he despises it actually) or any other supernatural agency as explanations for biological phenomena and behaviors, and is thus scornful of anything smacking of teleology or purpose or mystery in the world. He maintains the viability of his robotic vision by a radical reductionism (which he notes but does not address in The Selfish Gene) and a glib speculative facility which assumes that a self serving gene (or combination of genes) exists for every conceivable behavior, notwithstanding that he can not, as a good scientist should, produce empirical evidence of the exact mechanisms he is talking about. Confronted with the apparently contradictory evidence of altruism, he becomes especially creative in defense of his theory, though one wearies of his verbal gymnastics and wishes he would take us to the microscope and show us exactly why these birds chirp the way they do.

He is quite good, but he is not as scientific as he thinks. His blind spot, I think, lies in his zealotry. Every success in the (perfectly sound) science of genetics is, for him, an affirmation of his mechanistic-materialist model and a nail in the coffin of mysticism of any kind. But he is not entitled to go so far. Science and philosophy are two different universes of discourse and one does not contain or invalidate the other except in the minds of ideological crusaders who are somehow threatened by the very existence of other paradigms. One might, for example, question the existence of matter (since they haven't actually found any yet) and say that a molecule, absent the tiny billiard balls it is supposed to be made of, is not much distinguishable from an idea. Compared to the universe of an idealist (or a mathematician or a quantum physicist) Dawkins' world of microscopic windup toys appears very naive and simple minded - without ceasing to be, within its own limited sphere, perfectly true.

According to Dawkins my own DNA is also hellbent on preserving itself into the future. I have often wondered why, given that most of my genetic material ends up in the washing machine, my genes have not yet contrived a way to attract women to my laundry. This argues for group selection I suppose.

In the Dawkins debate scheme, which is for some of us the pinnacle of human absurdity, but let it be, guaranteed if anyone from either way goes into that debate they will be there till, well, kingdom comes.

Oh and Vox, you are not alone. I read your posts always!!!

Well women seem to only be attracted to my laundry and not me, makes it a little weird to bring girls home.

I still don't understand why this article appears in CommonDreams. This is an article that refers to a debate among scientists who BOTH support Evolution, in general, as the best model to explain how life has developed on Earth. Dawkins and Wilson disagree over a particular aspect of a general theory that they both agree upon.

It seem like some people are mistaking this for a debate between "evolutionists" and "creationists"? Did you actually read the article?

(Members of different species have been known to show altruism to members of other species, how do intellectual toddlers like these scientists explain that?)

As one of these 'intellectual toddlers' that you speak of (undergrad at Cal Berkeley, PhD in evolutionary biology at UCD) I can explain, at least to a first level of approximation, why other animals show altruism--it benefits their genes to do so. For instance, we and a particular species of escheria coli evolved together. These bacteria live in your gut and help you digest. By having them, we are able to digest a wider range of foods than we would otherwise be able to. By living in us, the bacteria gain an environment where they are guaranteed a supply of nutrients. These kind of commensal relationships occur not infrequently in nature.

The more complex an entities behavioral repetoire, the easier it is for this behavior to be co-opted to some other purpose. For instance, kin selection explains the origins of altruism. The logic of this is straightforward. If you do something that benefits a close kin, then even if it does not immediately benefit you (or even if it costs you something), then it will be of benefit to some of your genes since you and your close kin will share many of the same genes. Therefore those genes will spread. Once this kind of altruism gets bootstrapped it could *easily* be co-opted to some other purpose. I would suggest that extra-species altruism (which is what you are talking about without offering up any specific examples, but no matter) is a case of kin-selection altruism misfiring with munificent results.

Cheers
lf

(According to Dawkins my own DNA is also hellbent on preserving itself into the future. I have often wondered why, given that most of my genetic material ends up in the washing machine, my genes have not yet contrived a way to attract women to my laundry. This argues for group selection I suppose.)

Because what you *say* Dawkins' has said isn't what he said. Or, a bit more pointedly, you caught half the message but either haven't finished the book (Selfish Gene) or you never read it.

What is really being discussed here is whether the capitalists or the socialists are correct: Are humans motivated always by individual self interest, or are humans motivated by altruism is some cases? In other words, are we as a specie inclined to self interet and greed alone, or does community and cooperation have an evolutionary basis. The idea being that Ayn Rand was entirely wrong in her analysis of why we do things.

This is why essay is on CommonDreams.

Using colony insects as an example is a poor analogy. Though its units appear to be separate life forms, they are not; they are detached, mobile units of one organism -- the colony. It's like asking if it's altruism for a white blood cell to die fighting to protect the blood stream from a bacteria.

To Daran ---- I think you are mis-reading the debate between Dawkins and Wilson. BOTH believe that a tendency towards altruism is "hard-wired" into human nature by evolutionary forces. They simply disagree on the best model for explaining that trait. It is a scientific question, not a moral, ethical or political question that is under debate.

Dawkins and Wilson also agree that these kinds of questions can best be explored using the scientific method and by community inquiry, as opposed to doctrinaire religous types who only seek "truth" in their politically-motivated interpretations of ancient written texts.

At this point in human history, the article above really ought to constitute "war".

I think it's great this article is on common dreams. Everything relates to politics somehow, and what more than our very genetic makeup? Not only that, I come to Common Dreams to read real news, not just more of the same about why Bush and Co suck and newsflashes about who may be the next president.

Let's keep the science writing coming! How can we even try and keep creationism out of schools if we aren't knowledgeable about what's going on in origins science?

If you don't like an article on here, you don't have to read it after all.

ladyfractal

That last paragraph was supposed to be funny. You know - a kind of joke, frequently enjoyed by we lay people. I don't think Dawkins believes that my genes are actually trying to escape from my laundry.

The rest of my post was serious however, and I could go on at some length about the blind spot Dawkins encounters when he gets out of the science that is his proper element. I have no problem with science, or with Darwinism or genetics as he describes it. I'm sure the nuts and bolts of genetic science are complicated, but the theory and ramifications of it, as Dawkins fairly brilliantly describes it. are not difficult to understand.

It was his book about God that I couldn't finish. I made it to about page 20 before I got embarrassed for him and had to put it away. My own postgraduate work is in philosophy, and by his own admission D is not conversant with philosophical systems.

Gotta go now and fish a spider out of the toilet.

the nature of the species, of male and female, and of the different species, and ultimately of the universe, is one of the essential pivotal debates at this period in history. these days proof is required it seems.

in a certain sense, science is working on the same issues that we debate on an ethical level here at CD on a daily basis.

I mean, the issue of spending so much time and resources on war or saving ourselves and the planet, seems to be the debate on the political realm as well.

There is no such thing as altruism. In philosophical terms culture is much too complicated to suggest that an individual has nothing to gain by laying down their life. Now when the word gets applied to genes it becomes misleading. We are talking about genetic "altruism", not in the philosophical sense. In these terms it means that genes are hard wired to destruct before passing on their genetic material through reproduction. As if reproduction were the only drive an organism had. This reductionist theory of organisms behavior is problematic in it's nature. To try and reduce behavior of complex animals, be it humans or incests, to a cellular level is very tricky and dangerous. Often it disregards the complexity, and differences of culture as a driving mechanism behind behavior. Trying to form a universal theory at this time is foolish. I don't think we yet have the tools we need to make such sweeping reductionist statements and am not sure if we will ever be able to untangle it sufficiently. Sociobiologists and Evolutionary Psychologists love to take the complexity of individuals behavior and fit it neatly into little packages called genes. That's quite a mess to present so neatly. Science is an ever changing study but there are many ego's, career's, and life's work wrestling here. This is a great example of how science is internally political and not just socially. Just remember best selling books on science become obsolete very quickly. I think we need to see more science articles on CommonDreams, after all isn't it breaking news and views?

ladyfractal,

"intellectual toddlers". Don't worry about, kelmer always calls people he disagrees with childish. He's done it in other posts. I'd like to see toddlers standing around discussing the nuances of evolutionary theory! Nice to have someone scientifically literate here.

ladyfractal: "animals show altruism–it benefits their genes to do so. For instance, we and a particular species of escheria coli evolved together. These bacteria live in your gut and help you digest."

Perhaps you could explain why this symbiosis is altruism. Maybe I'm wrong, but gut-bugs seem a very indirect example - what behavior do they exhibit that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, or it's host?

Genes don't eat, defend, have sensory organs or tend young. Evolution, since the first primordial soup, cannot be explained solely by chemicals in a large vat. Which mix together more frequently than others? Nonsense. There's obviously a dialectic between genetics and social organization/manifestation/instantiation.

It's clear that many evolutionary thinkers have hampered themselves by writing in their own extreme selfishness. They then spend their whole careers trying to undo and explain aspects of their own extreme viewpoints.

I'm interested in a very special sort of altruism mwhich Aldous Huxley and others have written about -- the person who jumps into traffic to pull out a stranger's child. The soldier who rushes into a raging battlefield to pull out a fallen comrade, etc. These are examples of altruism unrelated to genetic advantage. Purely social, and perhaps not even that. Rescuing a total stranger's child who is about to be killed is probably a knee-jerk reaction in most of us. We've got compassion there, in our makeup. Let's use it at will, deliberately, not just at extreme instances. Huxley touches on this as well.

This debate just goes to show that scientists are like politicians: governed by their egos. When it comes to a debate about finding the truth, who cares about who has or has not been found to be right in the past. These so-called scientists care more about winning and about their reputations than they do about the truth. Just goes to show: science is another branch of politics.

Yes, shame Common Dreams, the "war" headline is tabloid journalism, and feeds into the prejudices of those who believe evolution is just a theory and think their foolishness is confirmed every time there is an academic debate about some detail of the evolutionary process (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Evolution/). Me, I'm probably on the Wilson side in this one. Other examples of altruism among some birds are the "helpers at the nest" - offspring of a pair from previous years who instead of moving out stay to help raise subsequent generations. If they do this successfully then the group, including the genes that promoted this behaviour, is advantaged over a pair trying to raise young by itself. I don't know about the mathematics, but intuitively, advantaging a group that contains other copies of your genes is a route to evolutionary success in the long term (though it may well be a slower process than individual selection).

A: Dawkins is obsessed with being right about EVERYTHING, thus displaying the arrogance and incuriosity he ascribes to religious people.

B: There is a parallel here to less-publicized debates over the genesis and ongoing creation and acquisition of language. Chomsky and his ilk argue that a "language machine" resides in the brain and is responsible for every aspect of language acquisition and use, or at least is the only factor worth studying. This leads him to a disdain for anyone who helps people with autism find alternate means of expression - Chomsky says it is a waste of effort, as "their langauge machines are broken" (no, not kidding, he really said it). Others, including Dell Hymes and many sociolinguists, have persuasively argued - to the point that most of us take this insight for granted without knowing its origin - that language and culture are inseperable, intertwined products of human life. Kids learn language in different wasy in different cultures, language has an interactive relationship with cultural norms (e.g. who gets to talk when, and what about), language creates categories and is created by them. Language is narrative, not mathematics.

Why is this relevant? Because scientists like Dawkins who are obsessed with destroying anything ineffable or mysterious, anything that can't be numerated - these folks are deaf to the music of existence, whether you believe that the universe has intelligence behind it or not. Even if they are right that there is no compassion or intelligence at the heart of existence, they are clearly making false claims of certainty about their own disciplines. This should give pause to those who want to join the chorus of alleged progressives calling religion a "mental illness." If you've listened to Dawkins and Hitchens speak at length, you will wonder what alternate illness they suffer from - it certainly isn't the illness of joy, grace or happiness.

I believe, for reasons of direct experience, not doctrine or religious scripture, that the universe is in fact alive and aware, and that there is more to the picture than any human explanation, religious or scientific, can encompass. I revel in my ignorance, because it means that there is beauty, life, mystery, creative potential. I know many scientists and social scientists who are devoid of arrogance, and who are in love with the complexity and unknowability of the earth. Why do we only seem to hear from the ones who hate uncertainty, who loathe any trace of mystical searching or creative expression? Perhaps it is the same reason we only hear from Christians and Muslims who are sure they have all the answers.

From procreation to co-creation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbOqyDLGa1M

Replace indi-vidual with 'inter-vidual' recognizing the breadth of interactive evolution going on and the picture loses its human hegemonic interpretation value. Its a shame the analysis isn't based on study of human consumption, waste and pollution and education dynamics. Perhaps altruism transcends species, instinct, conditioning and culture and is simply the manefestation of electrobiochemical interviduation of integrated life forms.

I do not "tolerate my children's behaivor."

Does this help explain why the Republicans are "eating their own"?

No, muggles, we are not "deaf to the music of existence". How dare you think that you are superior to me because you have swallowed some particular piece of religious dogma (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/80808/Copyright_on_values.html)? How dare you thnk you have exclusive access to "joy, grace or happiness" because you believe in some mystical nonsense from long ago? And what you believe about the universe? The universe doesn't care. It is simply there, and knowable only through science.

I am not convinced that there really is enough altruism out there to speak of. I mean, when you factor in all the war and other nasty, selfish things we and other creatures do to each other, isn't it a wash? I agree with samski - symbiotic relationships don't count as altruism. Altruism is a much rarer and more selfless act, which is not motivated by expected payoffs (or at least not immediate payoffs). I had an idea once for a website, and I checked out the availability of "altruism.com" It was already owned and up for sale by some outfit which was bragging about the big bucks it had got for some other domain names.

Altruism is not necessarily a choice, instinct, unconscious or otherwise. Everything we do effects the lives of other species and the biological environment. Some actions are good or bad for some species. Over the long term local environmental systems do better and all their inhabitants do better when their cumulative actions enrich the local environment. The individuals of the successful local systems reproduce and spread. Environment trashers like humans may be successful in the short term as long as they can continue to find environments to live in, and can find more resources and victims to exploit. Unfortunately the human environments have gone global, but not because they are near to being long term sustainable, by the reciprocal benefits they do not bestow on the system that still supports them.

So lets give thanks to all those individuals who have by one means or another removed themselves from the human gene pool, to contribute to our success. All of the dead soldiers of all the wars. National Patriotism is altruism, whether you want it or not. And all those colonial countries that have sacrificed their freedoms, comforts and live styles so that the US of I can have a few short centuries of consumptive glory. Wow, thats altruism. And those religious zealots, so good in recognizing the chosen few, and the rest of us to rot in hell. And us social climbers, so aware of whats cool and what isn't, and what constitutes the individual worth to society. We are so altruism transaction aware of reciprocal worth that its not funny, its real money. And the low life get to do the dirty tasks for the cream cakes at the top. Looks like a society of ants to me.

(Perhaps you could explain why this symbiosis is altruism. Maybe I'm wrong, but gut-bugs seem a very indirect example - what behavior do they exhibit that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, or it's host?)

Samski:

It *is* an indirect example, I was talking about how the process gets bootstrapped but this was not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject matter. Merely, I was just trying to illustrate that A> one can get to extra-species altruistic behavior and B> an example of symbiosis where, in fact, the species aren't even really conscious of one another's presence but where they still have a mutually beneficial relationship. This isn't the best forum for highly technical conversations so sometimes, in the name of efficiency, I'll skip over (otherwise necessary) details.

Cheers
lf

Does it really matter what the basis of altruism is (what difference does it make?). For the sake of humanity, the important question is whether we are capable of choosing to be altruistic for our own collective benefit or whether we are destined to always be in some sort of petty conflict.

Can humans collectively work together for the benefit of ALL or not? If not presently, are we smart enough to learn how to or are we destined to always be at the whim of a few "bad apples"?

Anyhow, nobody really knows for sure, but we will soon find out.

Many single celled organisms thrive by virtue of cooperative behavior. Perhaps they are actually more evolved than humanity!! They certainly have been around much longer than we have.

the subject is most interesting. those of us who don't believe human evolution was at any point influenced by divine or extraterrestrial beings must come to terms with altruism and, at a more general level, with the rise of good and evil in a primate species. i associate it with the origins of language, which requires both the invention of symbols and a spirit of cooperation. words are general symbols for specific things and the creators of a language must agree on their meaning and on syntaxis and grammar. by creating a universe of symbols of which we are a part, we parted company with the instinctual world and became human. at the same time, all that which is cooperative became symbolized into what is good and that which is not, especially when it is unnecessary or deceiving, with evil. understanding the cooperative nature of our humanity is key, not just to silence creationists but to find the ultimate common grounds for our common dreams!!!
eduardo.villagran@gmail.com

ladyfractal, anyone: What about a person who decides not to procreate, thereby sacrificing his or her precious genes?

evolutionary fundamentalists are just that, and their debates (?) over what kind of unexplainable animal universe we belong to may be even a little more boring than religious fundamentalsts fighting over what god told them about that world...and possibly as destructive.

big bang theory is like jesus or moses or mohammed theory...fun for any wise-ass who thinks it's the truth, unexplainable for any thinking person, who will be better served to deal with what we can, or should, understand about social systems, economics, ruling powers and working to change them to benefit most, if not all, instead of only some of humanity... dull stuff like that...

fs

The answer seems obvious . ..

Nature is not suicidal ---

And, that's why -- IMO --- there are usually questions raised about the human species which acts so contrary to nature's interests.

And, which, btw, has brought the planet to near death.

In particularly, the questions about humans center on our being a "hybrid" species ---

And, whether the male of the species is legimate or whether an accident of some kind -- a broken X?

eduardov - I appreciate what you say regarding symbols and language.

What about mathamatical language ---- could it be unifying? Of course, then we need to come to "terms" with the concepts of zero and infinity, which I have some personal opinions on myself outside the scope of this topic.

Regardless, I'm glad CommonDreams had this article. Sometimes all of the "political stuff" gets tiresome.

Peace,
Ken

I read The Selfish Gene many years ago and thought it was nonsense then--still do. Perhaps we need a revival of interest in Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution (1902). Kropotkin's book, one of the true classics of anarchist literature, is still in print (ISBN: 1406536555) and is available on-line at http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

Whether kin selection alone accounts for the evolution of altruism, or whether group selection in some form should also be considered a part of the Darwinian selection mechanism that has made us what we are, is a purely scientific question which should not be invested with such ideological significance.

For reasons that have long been well understood, group selection can be at most a very weak mechanism, and one that can't hold against selfish genes spreading within the group. But a naive interpretation of kinship selection does not tell us everything about altruism and the basis of society in insects or humans. Obviously people are often willing to sacrifice themselves for others who are not even distant cousins.

In any case, this ought not to be a Right-Left issue. If kinship selection is true and group selection is false, this does not mean that invading Iraq was a good idea or that single-payer health insurance is a bad one.

here is the difference, frank. truth, as far as i can tell, is that on which a fairly large number of thinking people can agree without raising the pitch of their voices; such as, "the sky is blue." of course, there will always be a loony who insists that the sky is green or that people see colors differently regardless of the nature of light and of the atmosphere and the laws of optics that also rule our eyes. from the sky is blue to the big bang, black holes, relativity, quantum mechanics and the rest is just a matter of degree; of the incremental honing of our physical and intellectual senses and of course, a lot of honest hard work. what is frustrating, at times, is to realize that our primate senses and brains can only take us so far, and that is as far as our nature will allow us to shed light on the amazing universe around us!!
amen.
eduardo.villagran@gmail.com

conscience - as a male, I would like to proclaim legitimacy. Like you said nature is not suicidal and us males are here to stay aren't we?

From the anarchists .... "Mutual Aid" by Petr Kropotkin made this argument over a century ago.

He was hearing the arguments of 'social darwinism', and decided that what he saw in the natural world didn't fit the theory that its all dog-eat-dog and we are all doomed to fight and kill each other to try to survive.

Nice of these guys to finally start to catch up on the 100 year plus learning curve they've obviously missed out on.

What an incredicle collegium. Reminds me of Athens in the day. A "teacher" lays out a text and the students engage each other, or not. Engorge yourselves at the Feast of Minds. No other such forum has ever existed on such a scale in the history of our species. Global. And no calories.

Vox, hope the spider got out ok.

Peace.