I'm too tired to lay my thoughts out completely and coherently, but I'll try to say what I'm wondering about. I was reading an article in the New Yorker about biologists and mathematicians wrangling over a formula to describe the evolutionary function of altruism when I read that, [paraphrased badly], "...within a group individuals without altruism have an advantage but between groups the altruistic group has the advantage over the non-altruistic group."
I thought, "Hmmm, well to me that means an altruistic group's makeup would gradually move to the non-altruistic side through genetics and mimicry and that a tipping point would be reached eventually where the group itself turns non-altruistic - then the seesaw would move in the opposite direction." Then I wondered if that explained the rise and fall of nations. As the creep burden increases in the government the nation's overall suckage would increase.
Labels: Cogitation
posted by
- 11:13 PM
Comments:
very related to this...coincidentally i just watched this yesterday. if you feel up to it you will surely find it interesting. http://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/
"How Do Conservatives and Liberals See the World?
February 3, 2012
Bill talks with social psychologist Jonathan Haidt about the moral underpinnings of our contentious culture."
"How Do Conservatives and Liberals See the World?
February 3, 2012
Bill talks with social psychologist Jonathan Haidt about the moral underpinnings of our contentious culture."
I don't think it's as basic as that. It seems to me that if there is a genetic bias toward survival by engaging in "self" which I think is the opposite of alturism...then maybe there is also a genetic disposition toward the group and alturism because humans best survive via mutual benefits of living in groups. Those who live in groups have many advantages and then through mating continue that genetic predisposition. Of course, I haven't read the article so I may be all wet.
Post a Comment
PLZ LEEVE A MEZZAGE KTHNXBAI