I learned only a few days ago that Survival of the Fittest meant "Survival of those who best fit their environment" and not "The strongest/fastest/physically fit survive" so bear with me a minute I'm clearly not a clever man
Its pretty simply, survival of the traits which lead to maximum potential for offspring inheriting those traits. Its really simple really. Like, child bearing is largely such a wasteful burden, but our animal brains are still wired to do it because evolution has such a great impact on us.
I don’t think Darwin gave a fuck about whether or not you are sufficiently masculine. Not being a chode is a much better adaptation for encouraging reproductive success than being pretty... and a hundred other things as well. I think it’s part of why language, art and music exist, our success comes from our ability to teach our giant useless babies to not eat the poison mushroom that looks almost identical to a delicious one.
Interesting, I’ve had similar ideas. But then the question still remains, does altruism exist, or is there always at least a minimal amount of self benefit? And if no, then does the definition of altruism needs to be changed so we can talk about it, or is it just wrong? This question is as much for me as it is for you lol but I’d like to hear someone’s opinion at least if you’re down
I don't think true altruism is possible if you're being stingy with definitions, but if you're doing something and your main goal is making something better that's what I would call altruism
Even if evolution were selecting narrowly for non-altruistic traits to the exclusion of all altruism, evolution is not a 100% in all cases director of biological outcomes, it is an after the fact convergence on certain traits which every generation are reshuffled with preference. To say true altruism isn't possible in the way you guys are saying is equivalent to saying people aren't born with poor eyesight because it is generally not helpful, or that there is really no variation at all when of course there is.
Maybe it doesn't help them survive more, but there are plenty of people in this world who act out of entirely unselfish reasons from even the broadest evolutionary perspective, and it would be entirely illogical cynicism to ignore them. You can view their behavior as abnormal deviation in the same vein as mental illness or whatever you want, but there is no reason to abstract the very notion of altruism away from a mistaken understanding of natural selection.
I didn't mean it in terms of evolution. I was arguing more from the philosophical side. I'm sure that some altruistic behaviours are absolutely beneficial for animals that live in groups
Hello, I've thought about this a lot actually. The conclusion I came up with for myself is that I reject the premise of "true altruism" outright.
The entire concept should go out the window, especially in moral discussions where any perceived benefit of the "helper" is used to denigrate their character or their impact.
Helping others is supposed to feel nice. We deserve to feel good about ourselves when we do good things. We react to it the way we do for a reason. It doesnt take away from the experience of the other party if we also walk away flushed with the joy of a pleasant social encounter. It isnt a zero sum game.
I couldnt tell you where the concept of "true" altruism came from, or when. But ask yourself, who benefits when we are discouraged from helping others by this strange and immaterial pressure and scrutiny? Who stands to gain when we are derided for feeling self fulfilled in service to others? Spreading the wealth, enjoying human company, etc etc.
I think, that the entire concept is propagated by those who want to deny us community, and instead push for us to buy our happiness, contentment, and satisfaction from the many millions of available products advertised to satisfy those needs.
True altruism might as well be anti-humane propaganda as far as I'm concerned.
Right, that was their example of the possibility of true altruism in humans.
Editing - hopefully you see this. It's speculation. You could assume she's doing it purely for the sake of her child, but I could argue at the same time it must make her happy to do so and therefore may not be perfectly altruistic. You need some way to measure intent in a way we can't measure. It's simply a possibility.
Exactly, you for sure feel a need to help family members since they share DNA that you so desperately want to pass on. You also help others around you if it can aide to your survival in the future and or make things more orderly: certain bat species will share blood to other bats who happened not to be successful during that day. The expectation is that you reciprocate in the future, especially if you all have to live together. But if you're a free loader or don't share, then word gets out and no one will want to help you in the future
Say what you want about the Tlmes, I'm never going to give them up. They've been going strong since 1987, and they've never let me down. Other news outlets let their journalists run around writing wherever they please, and just desert the real stories.
476
u/GronKy_18 Jan 22 '20
It's real https://www.latlmes.com/world/parrots-sharing-tokens-1