Not always.
GJDS
Thank you for your comment. You are correct that we need to be critical and cautious. Thanks for interacting.
The existence of carnivores. The existence of viruses. In short, “defection” is the one-word answer to why “maximum cooperation and selflessness” is not a stable strategy.
1 Like
Marvin,
Thanks for your comments. I certainly agree that Jesus calls us to a lofty ethic of selfless love for others. But our study of nature (God’s other book?) seems to suggest that some level of self-care is part of the paradigm. I guess my question is how we reconcile these so we can find our (the?) way. I earlier suggested a kind of moderate self-love combined with generosity. Perhaps that’s not quite right. In any case, the answer is probably not simple.
I confess my reluctance to derive moral principles from evolutionary history as you seem to be doing in your comment about symbiosis and sexual reproduction. As mentioned earlier, while we probably can show how our moral capacities emerged in the course of evolution, the content of morality must come from other sources, such as theology. I have read a few people who have undertaken to derive moral content from biology and evolutionary history, but they did so with great care and complex arguments. I’m not smart enough myself to attempt it.
Regarding your comment, “The law that governs evolution is to love thy neighbour like thyself,” there is a recent book that I am finishing now that you might be interested in: Michael Tomasello, A Natural History of Human Morality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016). I found it a difficult and complex book, but from what I was able to understand, it seems to avoid some of the reductionism that dogs other evolutionary accounts of morality.
Again, thanks for sharing.
I think of various species of bird where the parents are really only able to take care of one chick to adulthood, and the strongest of the chicks to hatch systematically eradicates his rivals in the nest!
I take it you believe that morality is what favours the individual over the system, but such a principle is flawed by selfish thinking. What is in fact moral is the sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of the whole.
Evidence fail.
As a carnivore or herbivore you sacrifice a live organism for the sake of your own survival. With predators the eradication of the weak elements of a herd is actually beneficial for the herd efficacy. The same can be said for viruses or bacteria, that for example in the case of sexually transmitted disease destroy the sexually promiscuous. Apart from that, viruses actually be very useful to transfer genetic information as we have found out.
You might want to consider thinking about the concept of material death of the individual as a survival strategy. You just have to think outside the box that is your coffin.
Once you understand Christ you will know that your material death is not the end of your life - unless of course you are stuck in your materialism like Dawkins.
What? Tobacco helps eliminate weak people who become addicted. Ditto for alcohol. And heart disease helps to eliminate people who commit the sin of gluttony.
I never wrote a word about morality. I was writing about evolutionary stability. And I was referring to actual biology, not to simplistic myths about “the herd efficacy.”
[content deleted by moderator]
1 Like
Not sure I follow, Beaglelady. Of course, from the viewpoint of the tobacco plant, addicted people are responsible for its population surviving and thriving.
2 Likes
She is logically extending someone else’s claims.
1 Like
Thanks. haven’t had my third cup of coffee this morning, speaking of addictions. Of course, in the case of tobacco and usually of alcohol, they kill most of the time after reproductive capacity fades, so addiction has little effect on the population. In fact with alcohol, it tends to remove functioning members of society who are not addicted through auto accidents as often as the addicted…
And I now realize the comment was not meant to be taken that seriously, but still.
2 Likes
Steve correctly pointed out that I was logically extending Marvin’s uncharitable claims. btw, have you noticed that few pastors preach about the sin of gluttony? I’ve heard gluttony mentioned only once in a sermon in all my years. It might be because many pastors and their congregations are overweight!
1 Like
As a fat boy, I preach to myself every morning, but it is difficult once you have the pounds on. You inspire me to work at it, however, as I agree it is a sin to overindulge. Part of the problem is that once there, it takes the same amount of calorie deprivation for a 250 lb guy to lose 20 lbs as it takes for a 110 lb. woman.
Evolution probably plays a role in obesity in that those who tolerated starvation and thrived passed their genes along to those who now gain weight when provided plenty.
1 Like
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that somebody struggling with weight gain is especially sinful, but just that sin and temptation affects all of us with one kind of appetite or another. Everybody these days seems to be on a diet. You are right that evolution plays a role. There is plenty of food around in this country now, and our instincts tell us to eat it. It’s how our ancestors survived. And until recently we had to share our food with internal parasites.
Actually, I am comfortable with thinking of it as sin. Repenting is a bit more physically involved than with some, however.
2 Likes
looks like you got the hang of it. Evolution eliminates the weakest links if they do not show love for their neighbours, e.g. produce a benefit to creation but only consume. The human condition tops that further as some people are quite skilled in eliminating themselves from the genepool.
But is that still true, if it ever was? DWIs kill non-alcoholics, smokers may kill by second hand smoke, and neither have fewer offspring that I can tell. The more educated, those who are environmentally aware tend to have fewer children.
1 Like
correct the argument of morally flawed came from gbrooks.
However I still wait for evidence to show that:
Thanks for calling herd efficacy a myth, but predation actually stabilises entire ecosystems. If herbivores overpopulate an area they reduce biodiversity.
[content deleted by moderator] The definition of the self and selfishness are the central element of Christian ethics and evolution so to avoid talking about it does not help.
If you watch “idiocracy” you have an interesting extrapolation of what awaits us 
The extinction of a species / death of an individual does not imply that they did not contribute, nor would I imply that evolution if free of “collateral damage” but the net benefit is to the system.
The self centredness of human evolution might well kill a lot of humanity and if we are lucky some tribe somewhere will make it through and the will tell myth about this “not so great civilisation” if we manage not to blow up the whole planet.
Looks like you misunderstand me.
1 Like