[FRIAM] Enlightened Self Interest: was Help for texas

[gepr ⛧]

Just for a little backup:

https://evolution-institute.org/article/richard-dawkins-edward-o-wilson-and-the-consensus-of-the-many/

> What prompted the 137 co-authors to respond to the Nature article was not based on what Nowak et al. said about group selection, but their denial that it could also be framed in terms of inclusive fitness theory or that ideas framed in terms of inclusive fitness theory had ever proven to be useful.


On September 10, 2017 2:42:09 PM PDT, "gepr ⛧" <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On September 10, 2017 12:28:41 PM PDT, Steven A Smith
><sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>>it is built into us as humans/mammals/vertebrates/life-itself to be
>self-centered, to look after our own personal well-being before we look
>to that of others.   Our tribal/clan dunbar-number-scale affinities may
>cause us to be locally altruistic at times and look after
>family/friends/neighbors/tribe before ourselves, but beyond that our
>instincts are xenophobic.
>
>I couldn't disagree more. It's a common kind of social Darwinism to
>think that we are innately wired to be selfish. And as we've seen going
>round and round on this mailing list our understanding of evolution is
>childish at best. So there's no convincing evidence, that we can
>coherently package, that proves your assertion: that it is built into
>us to be self-centered.
>
>To be clear I'm not claiming one way or the other, that we are innately
>wired to be altruistic or that we are innately wired to be
>self-centered. I just think it's reasonable to let biologists continue
>to study the issue(s) and if they come up with the biological
>explanation for altruistic behavior then great. If they don't and we
>demonstrate that we're all ultimately self-centered then great. But I
>think it's a stretch to say that we've settled all of that science at
>this point.

-- 
⛧glen⛧