Animal Rights

[lucaspa]

Not if he died after the birth of his offspring, and the others (perhaps the one he saved) helped said offspring to survive

 

The problem, iNow, is that your conditions ("if") are not always going to be met. For selection to work, you can't depend on that type of chance: IF the individual had children and IF the ones the altruist saved helped the offspring.

 

So now you are making up "just-so" stories. And ones that obviously are going to be difficult to be met. AND, if they are not met only a small percentage of the time, then the allele disappears from the population rather quickly.

 

The other point was that such action causes strong group bonds and increases the collective well-being of the group. When individuals act for the protection of others in their pack, then that pack is more successful and will all pass on their genes in greater number than those packs composed of individuals who do not help others of their unit.

 

BUT, in order for the alleles to be passed on, the individual HAVING the alleles must pass them on. So yes, you can evolve a behavior to help the group, but that behavior can NOT involve your certain death! Yes, you RISK for the group, but it must be so that the individual will most often survive the behavior. Throwing yourself on a grenade has NO possible survival.

 

 

This works in colony animals like bees and ants. In fact, that's where EO Wilson did the calculations. Yes, a bee can sting an intruder -- sacrificing its life -- because EVERY bee in the colony is its sibling nad shares half its alleles. Not only that, but the reproducing member of the colony -- the queen -- is still alive. This doesn't work the same in human groups where many individuals in the group are not your relatives at all and where you are the reproducing member. Think about it.

[Mr Skeptic]

BUT, in order for the alleles to be passed on, the individual HAVING the alleles must pass them on. So yes, you can evolve a behavior to help the group, but that behavior can NOT involve your certain death! Yes, you RISK for the group, but it must be so that the individual will most often survive the behavior. Throwing yourself on a grenade has NO possible survival.

 

Of course it can involve your certain death. Your death is certain anyhow in the long run. So long as the person you are helping has that gene, the gene will spread. And if you think about it, we are very closely related to each other. Back in the old days, most people you met would be rather close relatives. They lived in smaller tribes and villages; they didn't have megacities and airplanes. Plus, people are likely to take care of your children if you did die saving their life.

[iNow]

The problem, iNow, is that your conditions ("if") are not always going to be met. For selection to work, you can't depend on that type of chance: IF the individual had children and IF the ones the altruist saved helped the offspring.

 

So now you are making up "just-so" stories.

 

<...>

 

This doesn't work the same in human groups where many individuals in the group are not your relatives at all and where you are the reproducing member. Think about it.

 

Yes. You raise some tough points, and to be frank, there are no easy answers. I also acknowledge my overuse of the "just so" situation. As I said, it's been several years, and I've been trying to dust off the cob webs of that week's lectures.

 

Your comment about the bees makes perfect sense, and touches on both interdemic and kin selection, and I agree that these processes apply to humans only in significantly smaller degree and lower frequency (they do, however, still apply).

 

All I can do is offer the following speculation on how altruism would evolve. I do not know if it's true, but it's possible, so take it for what it's worth.

 

Perhaps altruism is an emergent behavior stemming from other behaviors which were selected. Basically, it is possible that altruism itself was not selected for, but other traits which all contribute to altruism (oxytosin based closeness, group association, protection of kin, securing resources and beating competitors, etc.) would have been selected, and when these are all put together in a single organism it is more likely to result in the expression of altruistic behavior.

 

Again, I am speculating, but would welcome (in fact, encourage) discussion on this possibility.

[Donnie Darko]

I'm a full supporter of animal rights. I think they should have the same protection from cruelty humans do.

[Physia]

Probably because PETA stands for 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals'.

 

That should say it all.