Moral Dilemma Explained By Evolutionary Biology. Do You Agree ?

[lucaspa]

First of all, when I said that we could use the available knowledge of evolutionary biology to understand our behaviour and hopefully improve it, I mean it in individual terms ( therefore not necessarily as way to formulate new social moral rules though I don’t dismiss this possibility).

 

There's two problems here:

 

1. evolution works on populations, not on individuals.

2. What do you mean by "improve it [out behavior]"? Define "improve". Do you see that you are outside of science here when you start making moral judgements about which behaviors are "better" and which "worse"?

 

Evolution provides an explanation why we choose to save one of the kids without thinking about it. Evolution does NOT say we "should" save the kid. In fact, in evolutionary terms the decision to risk your life to save ANY of the people is the wrong decision now. Since none of those people are your relatives, you are risking your alleles for no possible gain. The correct evolutionary decision now is to simply watch.

 

Humans created moral codes based mostly on total ignorance about human nature and also on the capricious whims and assumptions of leaders who enforced them either by force or indoctrination.

 

Not entirely true. Observation gives us a lot of information about "human nature". It may not be scientifically codified as we know it, but that does not mean people were in "total ignorance" about it.

 

And we still enforce morals by indoctrination. We indoctrinate our children to share, play "nice", not to lie, be polite, etc. We punish them (use force, even if the force is mild such as a "time out") if they do not adhere to our moral code.

 

I think you have made the Naturalistic Fallacy. This fallacy states that what "is" in nature is what "ought" to be in human society. That is not true. Yes, evolution explains why we try to save one of the people, but wouldn't you argue that we ought to try to save one of those? Since that no longer makes sense in evolutionary terms, you have to find another reason outside of science to justify the decision to risk your life for another's.

 

Therefore, how can our current moral code ( already based mostly on ignorance ) become worst if some ammount of reliable scientific knowledge is added to it ?

 

Easy. What we ought to do is not necessarily what "is" in nature. Also, anyone can distort the scientific knowledge. Remember, Spencer, Virchow and others distorted the scientific knowledge of evolution to make Social Darwinism and make a moral code that justified war!

 

Do buses, cars, trains, airplanes, home devices, etc are based on omniscient and perfect science ? Obviously not.

 

Not "omniscient science" in terms of the ENTIRE universe. But they are based on established theories and hypotheses in the LIMITED part of the universe that applies to them. You are confusing the entire universe and that we don't have "perfect" knowledge about ALL of it to saying we don't have knowledge about part of the universe.

 

Ironically, that is the same argument used by creationists against science. Creationists argue that, since we don't know about ALL the universe, we don't know enough about life on earth to say that evolution happened. You consider religion a "folly". Isn't it then a folly to use one of the fallacious arguments of one sect of religion?

[lucaspa]

Adding to that it will be beneficial in an another way if he saves the child he will be a hero and opposite sexes will be attracted towards him and this will increase his reproductive success. During courtship the females select the strong male because he can maintain a large territory so lots of food for the females to hunt. It can get complicated in humans.

 

Theoretically, this is correct. However how many males do you know that have NO "reproductive success"? Yet none of them have saved anyone.

 

In a thought experiment, this should be correct. In the real world of population genetics, I have severe doubts it applies.

[immortal]

This is the prisoner's dilemma problem applied to evolutionary biology (i.e game theory). At the end of the day you have to prevent the worst outcome and you have to be selfish. In this case the worst outcome would be that you die along with the other three trying to save one of them. You might have read these kind of cases on newspapers. Its very rare that a person will come forward to save the child may be in movies like Cellular.

 

Well the better thing to do as lucaspa said is to watch the incident. But I would rather save the 50 year old lady for the following reasons -

 

1. In terms of reciprocal altruism I would save the old lady because she will be the best person to help me in the future. The 5 year old boy may forget this incident.

 

2. You can say that the old lady is incapable of producing offsprings but what's in it for me those are not my genes so why bother.

 

3. You can save some resources because the 5 year old boy has to survive for another decade or so to produce offsprings you can save some food.

 

This is called ruthless selfishness.

 

Lot depends on the situation what do you do if the old lady is carrying the 5 year old boy.

 

Everyone has different strategies if it works you are lucky if it does'nt you die.

[immortal]

Theoretically, this is correct. However how many males do you know that have NO "reproductive success"? Yet none of them have saved anyone.

 

In a thought experiment, this should be correct. In the real world of population genetics, I have severe doubts it applies.

 

 

Well quite a few but I don't think it is because they could'nt find a mate or they weren't attractive may be because of personal reasons.

When do you say whether a person has reproductive success or not? Is it when he has one child or has many children with different mates.

[Paralith]

This is the prisoner's dilemma problem applied to evolutionary biology (i.e game theory). At the end of the day you have to prevent the worst outcome and you have to be selfish. In this case the worst outcome would be that you die along with the other three trying to save one of them. You might have read these kind of cases on newspapers. Its very rare that a person will come forward to save the child may be in movies like Cellular.

 

Well the better thing to do as lucaspa said is to watch the incident. But I would rather save the 50 year old lady for the following reasons -

 

1. In terms of reciprocal altruism I would save the old lady because she will be the best person to help me in the future. The 5 year old boy may forget this incident.

 

2. You can say that the old lady is incapable of producing offsprings but what's in it for me those are not my genes so why bother.

 

3. You can save some resources because the 5 year old boy has to survive for another decade or so to produce offsprings you can save some food.

 

This is called ruthless selfishness.

 

Lot depends on the situation what do you do if the old lady is carrying the 5 year old boy.

 

Everyone has different strategies if it works you are lucky if it does'nt you die.

 

I don't think prisoner's dilemma** really applies here; in the scenario from the OP, there really isn't much the people about to get run over could do to significantly betray the person helping them; ok, so they could not reciprocate in the future, but it's no gaurantee the situations will ever be reversed. Also in a single-occurence prisoner's dilemma, each party is unaware of the other's actions, and that's also clearly not the case in the OP.

 

Also, as far as not caring that any offspring to come out of the five year old wouldn't be related to you, this might not have been the case in the environment in which our morals may have been evolutionary shaped. Evidence suggests that early humans often lived and/or traveled in large family groups, so most of the time, if you're going to risk your neck to save someone, they will probably be related to you. This is also part of a hypothesis about adoptions - why go to all the expense and effort to raise a child that's not yours? In this model of early human life, a stranded child in your group is probably related to you in some way, so our genes evolved to encourage the adoption instinct.

 

 

**for people who might be unfamiliar with prisoner's dilemma: two criminals who work together are caught by the police, and put in separate interrogation rooms. If they both stay silent, the police only have enough evidence to put them both in prison for 5 years. If one gives up his partner, he will get 1 year of prison and his partner will get 10. If they both give each other up, they both get 15 years. In most studies, when put in this situation once, both parties often end up betraying each other. But other studies found that if this interaction happens repeatedly, that the partners will learn to work together. A real life example of this is trench warfare in WWI - groups of enemy soldiers stationed in opposite trenches for long periods of time began to cooperate with each other - only bombing each other at certain times every day and the same place every time, etc, so both groups could still act like they were fighting, but nobody would die. Generals had to regularly move units around to prevent this from happening.

[immortal]

My apologies I should'nt have mentioned about prisoner's dilemma but the game theory certainly applies to the OP. It does'nt always mean that more than one person should be invovled in the game. Its all about making quick strategies only thing is you don't work this out on a piece of paper but its already preprogramed in the genes. Game theory is about making decision.

 

 

Always the selfish choice is better. If you think everyone are related then all the diversity on earth is related. The fact that all the organisms present today arosed from a last universal common ancestor(LUCA). There are 60 common genes present in organisms which duplicted to adapt to the natural environment.

[Paralith]

Always the selfish choice is better. If you think everyone are related then all the diversity on earth is related. The fact that all the organisms present today arosed from a last universal common ancestor(LUCA). There are 60 common genes present in organisms which duplicted to adapt to the natural environment.

 

I'm not saying that people can be unselfish because we're all related somehow. I'm saying that one hypothesis for why humans can be so altruistic with each other is that during our evolution, we lived in family groups. In more recent times, this has changed, but there is usually a lag time between the change in the structure in the environment and the evolution of populations to have genes optimized for the new environment. Saving a five year old over an 80 year old would have been evolutionarily favored in the family-group environment, and so we have the genes to encourage us to do so. Today it might not be evolutionarily favored, but the genes are still there, as they haven't had time to adapt or otherwise change.

 

(I'm not forgetting that the human consciouness can overcome their genetic moral suggestions if they want - just discussing the genetic aspect alone at this moment.)

[lucaspa]

When do you say whether a person has reproductive success or not? Is it when he has one child or has many children with different mates.

 

When the person has children. Period. Number of mates has nothing to do with it. It's all about preserving alleles to the next generation, and that depends on having children, not on number of mates.

 

So ... in this society (with common birth control) the best evolutionary strategy is to have one mate with whom you agree to have children vs lots of mates, all of whom use birth control and will never get pregnant.

[lucaspa]

Its all about making quick strategies only thing is you don't work this out on a piece of paper but its already preprogramed in the genes. Game theory is about making decision.

 

I agree.

 

Always the selfish choice is better.

 

You need some documentation for this, as well as a definition of "selfish". The whole point of Wilson's work with altruism is that what is altruistic from one perspective is selfish from another.

 

If you think everyone are related then all the diversity on earth is related. The fact that all the organisms present today arosed from a last universal common ancestor(LUCA). There are 60 common genes present in organisms which duplicted to adapt to the natural environment.

 

Several important conceptual errors here:

 

1. The difference between genes and alleles. Alleles are forms of genes. So yes, all life has a gene for cytochrome c, but each species has it's own alleles of that gene. In natural selection it is the alleles that count. So, saving a different allele from your own doesn't help you. For instance, saving a horse at the cost of your own life doesn't save your alleles; they still die -- including the allele that caused you to make the sacrifice! No, it's only when your alleles are saved does the evolutionary idea work.

 

2. "duplicted to adapt to the natural environment" is not what happens. Natural selection is a two-step process: variation and selection. Duplication won't produce adaptations. After all, all you are doing is duplicating (faithfully) one allele and that may not be the best adaptation. What you need are variations on that allele and then selection among the variations. Actually, natural selection works on traits and whole organisms, not on alleles. It is the individual that is the unit of selection, not the allele. Most traits are due to more than one gene, and thus to more than one allele. It is the trait that is selected, so if the allele doesn't help the trait, it won't be selected.

 

The "duplication" comes from the idea that the selected individuals will have more children than the non-selected individuals. Therefore there will be more copies of the allele in the next generation than there were in this generation.

[lucaspa]

Also, as far as not caring that any offspring to come out of the five year old wouldn't be related to you, this might not have been the case in the environment in which our morals may have been evolutionary shaped.

 

Paralith, I think you have lost track that Immortal and I were replying to a specific challenge: find a logical way to justify saving the old woman. This was John Cuthbert's challenge on 5-26. Immortal and I took different paths for that logical justification. Neither logic involved evolution. Mine involved economics and Immortal's game theory.

 

You are correct -- as the video pointed out -- that humans evolved in small extended family groups where everyone was a relative to you. This is necessary in order for the evolutionary explanation of this morality to work.

[foodchain]

I agree.

 

1. The difference between genes and alleles. Alleles are forms of genes. So yes, all life has a gene for cytochrome c, but each species has it's own alleles of that gene. In natural selection it is the alleles that count. So, saving a different allele from your own doesn't help you. For instance, saving a horse at the cost of your own life doesn't save your alleles; they still die -- including the allele that caused you to make the sacrifice! No, it's only when your alleles are saved does the evolutionary idea work.

 

What about for instance ants or other highly social organisms. The current word or term I think I am trying to imply is superorganism. Now our ancestors at some point in ancestry were social creatures right? I just don’t fully understand the scope of evolution per say in human behavior, which leads to many complex questions that will take a great amount of time to resolve which goes back to my caution as you put it in regards to application rather then research currently with evolutionary psychology. I mean what if evolutionarily speaking, my common dreams of always losing my homework has some grounding in my biology as provided by evolution, what is the degree of causality or causation there and how is such measured?

[immortal]

When the person has children. Period. Number of mates has nothing to do with it. It's all about preserving alleles to the next generation, and that depends on having children, not on number of mates.

 

So ... in this society (with common birth control) the best evolutionary strategy is to have one mate with whom you agree to have children vs lots of mates, all of whom use birth control and will never get pregnant.

 

I think more than preserving alleles its about providing variety which is the raw material for evolution. If your child does'nt adapt to a particular environment you always have an alternative child from a different mate who can easily adapt to the environment and go on to do the samething what you did.

 

 

Yes I accept it that our culture and society play a major role in this.

[Paralith]

Paralith, I think you have lost track that Immortal and I were replying to a specific challenge: find a logical way to justify saving the old woman. This was John Cuthbert's challenge on 5-26. Immortal and I took different paths for that logical justification. Neither logic involved evolution. Mine involved economics and Immortal's game theory.

 

Whoops. My apologies. I did miss that.

 

I think more than preserving alleles its about providing variety which is the raw material for evolution. If your child does'nt adapt to a particular environment you always have an alternative child from a different mate who can easily adapt to the environment and go on to do the samething what you did.

 

That's not necessarily true - it depends on the environmental context. If the environment in which you live is relatively stable, then variety is not immediately necessary to the propagation of your alleles. Especially if it is easier to have more children with one mate then it is to maintain two mates. Unless having varied offspring increases the number of your alleles that ultimately remain in the population more so than having offspring from only one mate, then this behavior won't be worth the effort and will not be selected for. For the majority of time in the majority of places, a relatively stable environment is the case. And besides, even with just one mate, there will still be some variation among your offspring due to the nature of sexual reproduction.

 

This is assuming, of course, that the ONLY benefit one can gain from multiple mates is an increase in the genetic variety of your offspring. There are plenty of other possible benefits one can gain by having multiple mates, but usually variety is not the driving force behind them.

[lucaspa]

What about for instance ants or other highly social organisms. The current word or term I think I am trying to imply is superorganism.

 

It's a question whether ants are a superorganism. http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Superorganism

 

Being social doesn't necessarily mean being related. In the case of ants, all the worker ants are sisters. Thus they share half of their alleles. So if a worker ant sacrifices for the colony and saves more than 2 of its sisters, it is saving more copies of its alleles that is lost by the sacrifice of the individual. That's the calculation being run by Wilson and others looking at "altruism" as being evolutionarily sound.

 

Since humans evolved in small extended family groups, the individuals in the group are either parents, grandparents, uncles/aunts, nieces/aunts, cousins, etc. That means that they have more or less the same alleles you do. So saving the group means saving more copies of your alleles than is lost by losing you.

 

I just don’t fully understand the scope of evolution per say in human behavior,

 

No one does. It's very difficult to separate behaviors that are hard-wired by evolution from those that are cultural. It's an area of very active research and even more active argument.

 

my caution as you put it in regards to application rather then research currently with evolutionary psychology.

 

I've also urged caution, but the work with altruism is pretty solid. We can confidently (provisionally) accept that altruism is a product of natural selection.

 

I mean what if evolutionarily speaking, my common dreams of always losing my homework has some grounding in my biology as provided by evolution, what is the degree of causality or causation there and how is such measured?

 

Is their evolutionary causality at all? Evolutionary psychology would start by looking to see if dreams about losing homework are constant across all cultures. I suspect they are not. But their may be fear dreams that are analogous in all cultures. But then there has to be a reasonable selective advantage to such dreams. I can't think of one at the moment. Once you have a reasonable selective advantage, you have to do some calculations using the mathematics of population genetics to confirm that such a trait could propagate thru the population.

[lucaspa]

I think more than preserving alleles its about providing variety which is the raw material for evolution. If your child does'nt adapt to a particular environment you always have an alternative child from a different mate who can easily adapt to the environment and go on to do the samething what you did.

 

There isn't that much more variety gained from different mates. The reason the founder effect works (where 2 individuals are able to found an entirely new, viable population) is that over 75% percent of the genetic variability in the species is present in the 2 individuals.

 

You are going to get variety in the kids by recombination.

 

Bottom line, the beneficial alleles is just as likely to come out with multiple kids by the same mate as multiple kids by different mates.

 

Also, remember, differential reproduction is the number of kids that SURVIVE to adulthood. Especially in humans, infants are extremely vulnerable. Having kids by one mate whom you stick to and protect the kids is more likely to result in adults than having kids by lots of women who you then abandon both them and the kids. Remember, we are talking our evolutionary history, where survival is constantly on a knife edge from trying to find food and avoiding predators without adequate weapons.

 

We have had a myth in our society that males have the evolutionary drive to have sex with lots of women while women have the evolutionary drive to have sex with only one male so that he will stick around and help with the kids. Looked at carefully, this myth doesn't jive with evolution.

 

The tendency of men to avoid settling down may be more cultural than evolution. Or, if from evolution, it may stem from having an alpha male that tries to monopolize the women. This happens in chimps. BUT, most of the kids are not descended from the alpha male. This means that the other males are sneaking off with the females to have sex. In order for this to work for the subordinate males, the subordinate males must want to mate with any of the females that will take them. If they stick to just one female, the alpha male would notice and then drive the subordinate from the group.

[foodchain]

It's a question whether ants are a superorganism. http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Superorganism

 

Being social doesn't necessarily mean being related. In the case of ants, all the worker ants are sisters. Thus they share half of their alleles. So if a worker ant sacrifices for the colony and saves more than 2 of its sisters, it is saving more copies of its alleles that is lost by the sacrifice of the individual. That's the calculation being run by Wilson and others looking at "altruism" as being evolutionarily sound.

 

Since humans evolved in small extended family groups, the individuals in the group are either parents, grandparents, uncles/aunts, nieces/aunts, cousins, etc. That means that they have more or less the same alleles you do. So saving the group means saving more copies of your alleles than is lost by losing you.

 

 

 

No one does. It's very difficult to separate behaviors that are hard-wired by evolution from those that are cultural. It's an area of very active research and even more active argument.

 

 

 

I've also urged caution, but the work with altruism is pretty solid. We can confidently (provisionally) accept that altruism is a product of natural selection.

 

 

 

Is their evolutionary causality at all? Evolutionary psychology would start by looking to see if dreams about losing homework are constant across all cultures. I suspect they are not. But their may be fear dreams that are analogous in all cultures. But then there has to be a reasonable selective advantage to such dreams. I can't think of one at the moment. Once you have a reasonable selective advantage, you have to do some calculations using the mathematics of population genetics to confirm that such a trait could propagate thru the population.

 

 

I know, but sticking to what’s more objective and physical such as genes, where is it programmed, such as what’s responsible for say a protein, to make such behavior come about? I mean they way you phrase it, it sounds almost automatic, that X will occur because Y is true for instance. Well then, that would have to derive from our biology, and our biology is molded but evolutionary processes. So for instance, I am only 1.7% or such different genetically then my closest living ancestor, but say 98% different then a bacteria. So for behavior of an organism, its probably much easier to discern the behavior of a bacteria from a molecular point of view then it is to do such to say a mammal or reptile. The other idea though is that molecular speaking, we do have organs, such a brain which is somewhat a composite of structures per say, now not everything a brain does for every thought such as word selection in my writing is pre ordained genetically. The ability for me to do this of course does derive biologically, but just as you pointed out with cultures the actual manifestation of say language is very broad and dynamic.

 

So to what extent can you apply evolution to behavior then? Such as in my dream example, I mean it relies on fear and success both in the sense in my perception of something social. I simply just don’t understand exactly how evolutionary biology is really in a position to take on such an analytical approach really. I mean you can look at the molecular sense, obviously, I mean when a person digests a drug, the behavior they can come to express can be altered radically, but such can change on a case by case basis. So simply put I don’t think simply the molecular basis alone is enough, there is more to it physiologically then just that approach is all.

[lucaspa]

I know, but sticking to what’s more objective and physical such as genes, where is it programmed, such as what’s responsible for say a protein, to make such behavior come about?

 

The genes do program proteins. BUT, thought is controlled by the cells and by proteins. The issue is making the link between alleles (forms of proteins) and the biochemical process of thought.

 

Yes, it is easier to relate behavior to the molecular for bacteria than for vertebrates. However, that does show that behavior IS linked to the molecular -- which means to evolution.

 

However, vertebrates learn. So not all behavior is directly controlled by genes -- which is often the case among insects. The ability to learn, though, is something that has evolved.

 

I mean they way you phrase it, it sounds almost automatic, that X will occur because Y is true for instance.

 

For SOME behaviors. I didn't say for all. And evolutionary psychologists don't say that all human behaviors are hard-wired by genes. Altruism is one of the few that can be discerned to be. A challenge for evolutionary psychology is figuring out how much of behavior is due to "nature" and how much to "nurture".

 

The other idea though is that molecular speaking, we do have organs, such a brain which is somewhat a composite of structures per say, now not everything a brain does for every thought such as word selection in my writing is pre ordained genetically. ...So to what extent can you apply evolution to behavior then?

 

That's the question that evolutionary psychologists are trying to answer. Right now, the answer is "they don't know". We are just going to have to be patient and wait while the question is answered. Foodchain, when you deal with science, you must learn to live with unanswered questions. Most people don't like waiting for answers. They want to know NOW! Therefore they jump to conclusions. One of the first lessons you learn in training to be a scientist at the Ph.D. level is patience and not jumping to conclusions. You have to be content with "I don't know" until such time as you have data to know.

 

The idea right now is that the brain is composed of "modules" that do specific thinking tasks. These "modules" are not discreet areas but rather networks of neurons that are genetically controlled during development. Evolutionary psychologists are confident they have found a "module" to detect cheating. This is an obvious necessity in a social animal depending on reciprocal behavior of other individuals. You have to detect the cheaters who always take but never give. One reason evolutionary psychologists concluded the module exists is that problems to test detection of cheaters work across all cultures.

 

I simply just don’t understand exactly how evolutionary biology is really in a position to take on such an analytical approach really.

 

I can give you a reading list to give you a start on how evolutionary psychologists are tackling the problem. It's too complex to give you a simple answer. And many of the techniques are still being worked out and argued over.

 

Are We Hardwired? by WR Clark and M Grunstein "The number of genes involved in most behaviors would certainly be in the range of dozens, and perhaps hundreds." But variations in serotonin levels are associated with behaviors ranging from agression or depression, and there are known genes controlling serotonin levels.

The Origin and Evolution of Intelligence by AB Scheibel and JW Schopf

1. N Williams, Evolutionary psychologists look for roots of cognition. Science 275 (3 Jan): 29-30, 1997.

2. R Plomin and JC DeFries, The genetics of cognitive abilities and disabilities. Scientific American, 278: 62-69, May 1998.

3. G Vogel, DNA suggests cultural traits affect whale's evolution.Science 282: 1616, Nov. 27, 1998. Primary article is H Whitehead,Cultural selection and genetic diversity in matrilineal whales. Science282: 1708-1710, Nov. 27, 1998.

4. M Morange, The Misunderstood Gene. Harvard University Press, 2001. "the genes involved in learning are not specific to this process; they code for ordinary proteins that are involved in intercellular interactions and intracellular signaling pathways. There are no proteins specific to learing and memory but rather proteins that, through their function as relays or transmitters, have been harnessed by evolution in the development of cognitive processes."

1. GM Edelman and G Tononi, A Universe of Consciousness How Matter Becomes Imagination, Basic Books, 2000. Argue that a Darwinian model can be applied to neural activity to explain consciousness. In this "neural Darwinism", selective mechanisms on various scales arise, favoring certain neuronal firing patterns over others.

2. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/294/5544/1030 Review of memory and learning as chemical processes.

3. JG Nicholls, AR Martin, BG Wallace, PA Fuchs From Neuron to Brain, 2002

[immortal]

Here are studies which suggests that moral decision making is automatic.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html

[Paralith]

Here are studies which suggests that moral decision making is automatic.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html

 

The important thing you have to keep in mind about studies like this is that they don't say that decisions are made "automatically." They say that when confronted with certain problems or situations, your brain, in essence, encourages you towards certain conclusions. Rewards you if you make certain decisions by making you feel good. But just because we are offered encouragement or awards doesn't mean that we're bound to follow them. We can still choose to make a different decision, even though it might make us feel bad. (And when I say "we," I mean humans. I don't know if other animals have this same capacity - I would guess that less intelligent animals simply follow the rewards their brains give them.)

 

In general, the fact that we are encouraged to be altruistic in some ways does not suprise me. In a species where social standing can be key to reproductive success, it pays to behave in ways that make you look good to others. And if it feels good to be nice to others, then that behavior is more likely to happen.

[blue_cristal]

I basic evolutionary biological terms ( purpose of a living organism is to perpetuate its genome ( & establish it into the next generation ) , the answer is obvious -- save the kids . But is this still true in an era of exlosive uncontrolled relentless population growth ?

 

May be you missed my post, but I already said that genes have no mind and nor eyes. They continue blindly to instruct our brains to react as if we were still living in small tribes.

 

Genes do not know that we live in an era of huge cities and super-population.

 

Secondly, genes do not just try to perpetuate themselves, they also try to spread in the entire population.

[blue_cristal]

My apologies, but I had just listened to the video when I wrote that and could swear that MMM made the generalization I said.

 

I think you and I may have different parts of the talk. I said "morals" and you say "moral decisions". Those are very similar but not quite the same thing.

 

After all, the "moral" can be one thing but our "decision" can be something else -- something that even goes against the moral.

 

 

Yes, but moral decisions only take place if obviously there is a moral code ( innate or cultural ) that influence them.

 

 

As I said, our cognitive abilities can override the predisposition of our genes.

 

Surely, but when you have to react in a split second, if you have not time to think. In these situations it is usually the genetic instructions "engraved" in your brain what will control your actions.

[blue_cristal]

As an aside, you have Punctuated Equilibrium wrong here. What is "abrupt" in PE is abrupt in geological terms. It is still gradual and involves thousands of generations. But an average bedding plane in geology is 60,000 years. At 20 years per generation in humans, this still works out to 3,000 generations.

 

That was what I meant by "abrupt".

 

However, besides "punctuated equilibrium" there are some (seemingly) rare cases of Saltationism, where a new species can emerge very abruptly in just one generation like in the case of polyploidy and also by horizontal transfer of genes from one species to other through viruses and other vectors.

 

Since a significant portion of our genomes have a viral origin, then perhaps saltationism is not so rare.

[blue_cristal]

Philosophy and science are different disciplines and usually look at different aspects of human existence. I would disagree that philosophy ends up "being almost just inconsequent mental masturbation". It can do that, and some of philosophy is that way. However, the same charge can be leveled at parts of science. In any scientific sense, No Boundary and quantum splitting are useless. They start from imaginary assumptions.

 

Well, I am not too familiar to Quantum Theory, but I agree that part of physics looks more philosophy than science ( particularly the String Theory ).

Regarding to philosophy I did not meant to say that all of it is mental masturbation. But from what I read in the past I have the impression that most of it is.

 

Science departs from imaginary assumptions when it tries to elaborate a range of candidate hypotheses to explain a phenomenon. But, to start with, these hypotheses have to be tested by experiments and most of them and sometimes all of them will fail and will be discarded.

 

So imaginary assumptions in science do not have the status of “certainties” that foolishly philosophers claim when they build their systems.

 

Secondly these imaginary conjectures in science are not simply random guesses. They are educated guesses based on previous knowledge which is based on real facts and evidence. And even so they have to be tested empirically.

 

 

In fact, ALL of science starts from "imaginary assumptions" in that hypotheses are statements derived from human imagination. Science then tests those hypotheses to see if they are right or wrong. But then, philosophers check their hypotheses, too.

Did Aristotle checked the assumption that all objects of the world are made from a combination of air, water, fire and earth ?

 

Did Marx checked his assumption that communism is a consequence of “historic determinism” ?

 

Science is successful because it is very limited and because it uses only a subset of evidence: intersubjective. It is the intersubjectivity that causes you to say "reliable evidence". What you state as "solid facts" is another limitation of science: it deals only with the physical universe. Philosophy deals with abstract ideas.

Abstracts ideas are products of a physical brain.

[blue_cristal]

The same applies to human behaviour determined partially by genes. You don’t need to know everything in order to make use of this knowledge.

True. But if you don't have the entire picture, you must take lots of care in how you "make use of this knowledge". You have 2 different things here:

1. The knowledge itself.

2. Making use of the knowledge.

 

Lucaspa, have you addressed this comment to the right person ?

 

Because I don’t recall ever saying that knowledge should be used carelessly.

 

 

Let's take one example of incomplete knowledge bringing human tragedy. Science knew how to make atom bombs. It did NOT know about the residual effects of radiation released from those bombs. Therefore tens of thousands of US military personnel were exposed to atomic bomb blasts as part of their training in the late 1940s and early 1950s. As a result, these people had very high rates of cancer later in life.

 

So, I would urge lots of caution in "making use of the knowlege" of evolution in terms of human behavior.

 

Risks can be minimized but cannot be eliminated. Even manipulating a ordinary, simple and well known tool like a knife can have tragic consequences.

 

There is an inherent danger on knowledge but there is, perhaps, a far bigger danger on lack of knowledge.

[lucaspa]

Here are studies which suggests that moral decision making is automatic.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html

 

You inadvertently exemplified going overboard on the subject. Note that you said "moral decisions" and "automatic". Paralith addressed the "automatic" part.

 

The article is talking just about altruism and, specifically, donating money.

 

"Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable."

 

There are more "moral decisions" than altruism. The research doesn't address those.

 

It also doesn't really address "superior moral faculty". After all, someone has to define altruism. In our society, giving money is defined, as we are taught by our parents and others, as part of altruism. BUT, what if we taught that keeping money was altruism? Would the brain fire the same way? The study didn't look at that.

 

"The more researchers learn, the more it appears that the foundation of morality is empathy. Being able to recognize -- even experience vicariously -- what another creature is going through was an important leap in the evolution of social behavior. And it is only a short step from this awareness to many human notions of right and wrong, says Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago."

 

Yes, some studies have explored this:

10. MD Hauser, Morals, apes, and us. Discover 21: 50-55, Feb. 2000.Summarizes some studies in monkeys to determine if they have "moral" behavior.

11. CD Frith and U Frith, Interacting minds -- a biological basis, Science 286:1692-1695, Nov. 26, 1999. Describes studies locating ability to "mentalize" -- understand and manipulate other people's mental states. "These studies indicate that the ability to mentalize has evolved from a system for representing actions."

 

It is VERY tempting to reach beyond what the data says and make conclusions broader than you have data for. This story -- and the researchers and you -- did that. I caution you to be more careful in the future.

 

Also, be VERY careful about taking research results from news articles. Be sure to check the peer-reviewed paper because you will usually find that the more sensational claims in the news article are not present in the paper.