Hi all,

I just wanted to let all of you know about the release of my new book,
"The Invisible Matrix: The Evolution of Altruism, Culture, Human
Behavior and the Memory Network."
......

I just wanted to let all of you know about the release of my new book,
"The Invisible Matrix: The Evolution of Altruism, Culture, Human
Behavior and the Memory Network."

There are two important parts to the evolutionary altruism/cooperation
puzzle.
1. What is the survival benefit to the individual who is willing to
sacrifice?
2. How do altruistic individuals manage to outcompete selfish
individuals over time? (The free-rider problem)

The answer to the first question, I argue, is information. A careful
analysis of human evolution reveals the emergence of a network
mechanism that enables a group of individuals to pool information. When
an altruist acts to help a groupmate, he is also acting to protect this
network of pooled information. This reservoir of information acts as a
crucial resource benefiting all the individuals who make up the
network.

I just wanted to let all of you know about the release of my new book,
"The Invisible Matrix: The Evolution of Altruism, Culture, Human
Behavior and the Memory Network."

snip
Clearly there is altruistic behavior in animals. Many different
kinds of animals from ants to wolves will defend members of
their group at great risk to themselves. That's in addition to
the obvious sacrifices made by animal parents to defend their
own young.

Would you argue that human altruism springs from the same
sources as animal altruism? If it does, how does the information
protection theory work with non-human animals?

On the other hand, if human altruism is different and has to
do with special characteristics of human intelligence, then
are survival value and natural selection still the primary factors?
In other words, could it be that altruism is not selected for by
evolution but instead is a byproduct, as it were, of being a
rational and emotional human being and living in social
relationships with other human beings?

Another way I think about these things has to do with our
understanding of the world. I know that 2+2=4, E=mc2,
water is made of two hydrogens and one oxygen, etc.
Evolution didn't instill this knowledge into my head. What
evolution did was provide me with a brain capable of
absorbing, organizing, and remembering these pieces of
information. Perhaps it also equipped me with a brain
capable of objectively evaluating my own worth as no more
than that of another human being.

I know these are unfair questions. You summarized a whole
book in one page and if I read your book, I'm sure I would
find a lot that bears on these questions that didn't make it
into your one page summary.

But this is Usenet after all and these are interesting questions
that are fun to discuss.

Alan

... Only one rule applies here: the individual cost must remain less than
the individual gain over a life span. The problem is that these gains are
hardly ever equal so that the wolf which gains the less compared to the wolf
that gains the most only _superficially_ appears fitness "altruistic". ...

JE:-
... Only one rule applies here: the individual cost must remain less
than
the individual gain over a life span. The problem is that these gains
are
hardly ever equal so that the wolf which gains the less compared to the
wolf
that gains the most only _superficially_ appears fitness "altruistic".
...

John,
I'm not at all sure that I followed your argument - not because
I think it's wrong, but because you have a sophisticated way
of expressing yourself that I don't always feel equipped to
follow.

But, leaving that aside, I'd like to focus on the single statement
quoted above.

Is the individual always the correct unit to observe here?

Before
taking up the complex issues of wolves and people, let's consider
ants - animals for which some scientists question just what
the "organism" is.

Presumably, ant behavior is highly conditioned by genetic coding.
There aren't a lot of neurons for the ant to think with. We might
imagine that, for two queen ants, the one whose offspring are more
devoted to the colony, more willing to sacrifice themselves for it,
that's the one whose genes will survive. If that is right, then in the
case of ants, natural selection operates at the colony level and
there is no problem with the individual ant's getting less than she
gives.

Compared with wolves and people, ants are an extreme case.

But perhaps the principle is not entirely inapplicable to wolves
and people. It may be that parents whose offspring defend
them leave a larger set of descendents than those whose
parents do not, and communities whos members defend them
leave a larger set of offspring than communities whose members
do not. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

I'd also like to return to my original argument with the original
poster, which I'll restate in a different way.

Certain capabilities may evolve that improve the fitness of a
species.

Two such capabilities are social behavior and
intelligence. There isn't any question that both of those are
fitness enhancers.
But those capabilities may, themselves, create certain behaviors
that aren't directly conducive to survival of the individual.

Social
behavior may cause a wolf to form a bond with members of his
pack and a man to form a bond with members of his family,
tribe or community. Those social bonds condition our behavior
in many ways. If I saw someone attack my wife or my children,
it is possible that I would jump in without regard for my own
safety - without ever even thinking about it. [I can't be sure
about that unless and until it actually happens - which I hope
it never does.] Ditto for the wolf. You can't have social behavior
unless the individuals in the group form a strong attachment to
the group.

Intelligence may also condition our behavior in ways that don't
contribute to survival. A man living in a brutal dictatorship may
join a resistance movement. He knows that he is putting himself
at great risk. He may even believe that his actions are futile
and that his movement will be crushed. But he does it anyway
because the code of ethics he has developed for himself
requires this of him.

snip

JE:-
Survival of the individual is not all that concerns nature! In the end she
is only concerned with maximizing the total number of fertile forms each
parent reproduces into one population. Survival and reproduction have to
compete for the same finite resources available to each individual. Nature
cuts this loaf so that survival costs become minimized allowing
reproduction
to be maximized. Nothing else can be selected for. Nature ends up
selecting
for the leanest and meanest survival option available.

And, when populations of individuals are 'sifted' by evolution-producing