|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: altruism [Re: Broly]
#24004309 - 01/12/17 02:30 PM (7 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
then again even altruism has limits, which we often see when dealing with those who are severely limited
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Well, let me give an example of altruism from a biological perspective. From https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-natural-altruism-in-the-animal-world :
Quote:
Scientists have only begun to study this behavior in animals, and naturally, they started with rats. They quickly discovered that rats appear to be very altruistic - going out of their way to save a fellow rat in distress--not only with no reward, but even giving up food to do so. The rats were aware of the choice presented to them, and deliberately chose to help the other rat instead - this is true altruism.
Granted, these rats are not wild animals. They are domesticated. But there is no logical reason to believe that wild rats would not behave in the same fashion.
Quote:
Elephants live in herds for survival, and when any of their colleagues dies, they pay him their homage by burying him. Elephants and Neanderthals, apart from humans, are the only creatures known to do so. They would bury their deads under branches and leaves using their mighty trunks and try to hide the body beneath them. When a wandering herd comes across a stranger dead elephant, they would do the same with it too!
This altruistic behavior in these creatures is due to their advanced hippocampus. The hippocampus is that part of the brain which enables creatures to comprehend emotions and respond to them. It's due to the same reason they can even feel advanced emotions like sadness and regret!
Stories of safari elephants saving the lives of people who fell into dangerous circumstances is also quite common. (italics mine)
So, clearly, there is this phenomenon in nature of animals engaging in behavior that does not benefit them in any way, and is not related to the propagation of genes. We know this because there is inter-species altruism. (Someone posted a link about whales of one species attacking whales of another species, on behalf of yet another species, earlier in the thread). So my question: How to account for this?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Check out naked mole rats.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
|
Neanderthals may have buried their dead but they've also recently been discovered to cannabalise the dead too.
Quote:
Now an international team led by Helene Rougier, an anthropologist at California State University Northridge in the United States, has proved from the bones found at Goyet that the Neanderthals there were cannibals.
The bones show traces of cutting, "to disarticulate and remove the flesh," said Christian Casseyas, who also leads tours for the public at the caves.
The Neanderthals "broke these bones in the same way that they broke those of the reindeer and horses found at the entrance of the cave, certainly to extract the marrow", he adds.
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-caves-neanderthals-cannibals.html
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: So, clearly, there is this phenomenon in nature of animals engaging in behavior that does not benefit them in any way, and is not related to the propagation of genes.
Clearly? I don't see it from those quotes. Nature and the ecosystem are staggeringly complex. The ramifications of a behavior are very hard to follow through to the end.
If the behavior didn't facilitate propagating genes then it arose as a fluctuation. The fact that its pervasive implies that it is not a fluctuation. I think the better question to ask is "How does this odd behavior facilitate gene propagation?" rather than "I don't see how this could facilitate gene propagation, so why odd behavior?". Let nature tell you what does or doesn't facilitate gene propagation. We are not in any position to tell nature otherwise.
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Don't worry about the deck chairs, the ship is sinking. I'm just astounded at the animal die off over the last 2 years. Pretty discouraging. Having a property that is in the woods may make this more obvious, but I don't know how anyone not asleep can not see this one.
Here's just one example. The bugs aren't hitting your windshield, like they used to.
Altruism in this case would be collective action, yet people can't even agree it's ongoing, so why bother?
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: So, clearly, there is this phenomenon in nature of animals engaging in behavior that does not benefit them in any way, and is not related to the propagation of genes.
Clearly? I don't see it from those quotes. Nature and the ecosystem are staggeringly complex. The ramifications of a behavior are very hard to follow through to the end.
If the behavior didn't facilitate propagating genes then it arose as a fluctuation. The fact that its pervasive implies that it is not a fluctuation. I think the better question to ask is "How does this odd behavior facilitate gene propagation?" rather than "I don't see how this could facilitate gene propagation, so why odd behavior?". Let nature tell you what does or doesn't facilitate gene propagation. We are not in any position to tell nature otherwise.
Point taken, so, fine. The purpose of this thread has been to explore how such a behavior might facilitate gene propagation, or whether it has some other purpose altogether. Admittedly, the experts say they are stumped at present, so it's anyone's guess. But there have been some interesting ideas shared and I have appreciated them. This is just brainstorming.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
here's another reason why altruism persists:
people don't know what they want.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
in the case of rats and elephants we sympathisize as they are mammals but no mention is made of ants or bees where, I think, sacrifice happens for the sake of the colony in some animals the male is canibalized after mating it is perhaps easy to pick out one behavior and put it on a pedestal while many others remain unexplained
perhaps behaviors that are valuable in one context may generalize to other contexts without any purpose
incidentally burying the dead is not altruistic as it does the dead no good
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Burying the dead may keep predators and human hunters away from the elephants which helps elephant genes survive. Or it could be a side effect of a different beneficial trait... This is a problem of trying to ascribe intent to nature. The idea that a trait which propagates a gene is "beneficial" is philosophically dubious from the beginning.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
any animals, that can tell one individual from another, and especially those animals that have social groups where alliances are formed have an incentive to develop a good reputation as one never knows who is watching good behavior as a habit pays off (for example: others are more likely to form alliances with team players, and help them in their hour of need) eventually this trait is selected for hence they are called "social animals" what's the big deal?
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Kinship is demonstrated in nature, and there are clearly great acts of kinship. Mark Rowlands argues philosophia in its aspect of love (philia), is a love in kinship. Isn't that love in kinship something even if it is not technically altruism? And what is the boundary of kinship of what one would do? Does kindness to another have to be self neglect, or does it have to demonstrably hurt me to help another or to stand for something? Why? Nietzsche anyone?
It is interesting how the formal divide between "nature and nurture", is often being reconsidered. The traditional empiricist's conception of a "blank slate" of human conscious and social existence, (the basis where humanism is understood as something artificial and as seperate from nature and instinct) is itself questioned in the self correcting way of science.
See any studies on "propensities of learning" in higher primates. There are observed cases of nurturing (in the formal sense) in biological mechanisms. This may relate to a line of question about human or animal nature.
This is a decent article, on a book about propensities of learning.
|
Broly
eat more lsd



Registered: 11/11/14
Posts: 649
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
Re: altruism [Re: Kurt]
#24005584 - 01/12/17 09:07 PM (7 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: Kinship is demonstrated in nature, and there are clearly great acts of kinship. Mark Rowlands argues philosophia in its aspect of love (philia), is a love in kinship. Isn't that love in kinship something even if it is not technically altruism? And what is the boundary of kinship of what one would do? Does kindness to another have to be self neglect, or does it have to demonstrably hurt me to help another or to stand for something? Why? Nietzsche anyone?
It is interesting how the formal divide between "nature and nurture", is often being reconsidered. The traditional empiricist's conception of a "blank slate" of human conscious and social existence, (the basis where humanism is understood as something artificial and as seperate from nature and instinct) is itself questioned in the self correcting way of science.
See any studies on "propensities of learning" in higher primates. There are observed cases of nurturing (in the formal sense) in biological mechanisms. This may relate to a line of question about human or animal nature.
This is a decent article, on a book about propensities of learning.
Animals are very intelligent and wise , of course the ones with a good sized brain.
even smaller animals are fascinating.
God programmed nature perfectly , the environment and how the animals coexist is phenomenonal , God did it in a humble fashion.
Nature is the epitome of trippy
-------------------- *Disclaimer* Everything written from this account are meant for amusement purposes ONLY. Everything written or posted from this account are NOT TRUE.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: altruism [Re: Broly]
#24005615 - 01/12/17 09:18 PM (7 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
most animals are parasites fact
many eat other animals alive many eat other animals alive, from the inside out fact
|
Broly
eat more lsd



Registered: 11/11/14
Posts: 649
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said: most animals are parasites fact
many eat other animals alive many eat other animals alive, from the inside out fact
I wouldn't say most animals are parasites that's quite a statement to make....
Yes so what there are carnivores and they must eat other animals , they kill every 4 days to week ... sometimes they almost go starving if they can't catch or find prey. Like cats hunting near desserts.
don't we humans eat meat? Do we not chop animals up in slaughterhouses from the inside out?
when prey kills it's sometimes swift , slaughterhouses are inhumane , more inhumane then nature. Nature is whoever wants to live survives , whoever has the most heart.
Perspective is very important in life
-------------------- *Disclaimer* Everything written from this account are meant for amusement purposes ONLY. Everything written or posted from this account are NOT TRUE.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: altruism [Re: Broly]
#24005686 - 01/12/17 09:42 PM (7 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
i should have said "species"
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/aug/cover
"...Every living thing has at least one parasite that lives inside or on it, and many, including humans, have far more. Leopard frogs may harbor a dozen species of parasites, including nematodes in their ears, filarial worms in their veins, and flukes in their kidneys, bladders, and intestines. One species of Mexican parrot carries 30 different species of mites on its feathers alone. Often the parasites themselves have parasites, and some of those parasites have parasites of their own. Scientists have no idea of the exact number of species of parasites, but they do know one fact:
Parasites make up the majority of species on Earth.
Parasites can take the form of animals, including insects, flatworms, and crustaceans, as well as protozoa, fungi, plants, and viruses and bacteria. By one estimate, parasites may outnumber free-living species four to one. Indeed, the study of life is, for the most part, parasitology."...
|
|