These two anecdotal reports of unrelated adoptions in bonobos are indeed intriguing but the authors of the original study stop short of calling it altruism, offering two possibilities they could not rule out: 1) They looked at mitochondrial DNA which rules out relationship through the female line, but it was still possible the adoptees were related through the male line (in which case normal kin selection would still apply) and 2) the authors state that, as in other primates, “it is possible that future social bonding and alliances would be beneficial for the adoptive mothers. Additionally, it is possible that the adoption of an infant may improve the current social relationships of an adoptive mother in the group”. In this case, it is not true altruism because the adoptive mothers gain a net social benefit from doing so. It is interesting to me (and typical) that the popularized scientific report tries to make more of this “potential altruism” than do the original scientists themselves in their original journal paper-- they are appropriately hesitant to draw conclusions beyond what their data indicate. Unfortunately, non-scientists in the public rarely take the time to read original journal articles to sift the speculation and hype.
Love is the end product of knowing and respecting the "other’ in the vertical position before or without the need of consummating that emotion in the horizontal.
When food is scarce, humans are not at their best. In Nazi-occupied Poland, the Poles would betray hiding Jews for a bag of sugar.
Yes, it’s amazing how, in desperate situations, humans seem to lose a moral sense of altruism for others, and in war they often view the enemy as “non-human”. Such scenarios of betrayal that you mention make Jesus’s command to love your enemies all the more challenging as they go against our natural tendencies, I think. In non-human animals, captivity can be “non-natural” either because it deprives the animals of natural food and stimulation and places them in a constantly-stressed state, or at the other extreme, because it provides such a “luxurious” life of constant, unlimited food with no risk of predators that there are no costs or trade-offs to behaviours as there would naturally be in the wild.
Yes, that’s as a rule. I think you’d agree that these situations bring the truly unselfish ones out even more strongly. Have you read the account of Eric Liddell and the expat community in Japanese occupied China? Many of the Westerners wound up sacrificing their idealism for petty selfishness, but Liddell was exemplary. In Africa as a child, I met an old man who knew him as a young missionary kid. As I recall, he told me that Liddell never told the Chinese of his Olympic exploits.
As fighting between the Chinese Army and invading Japanese troops[21] reached Xiaozhang, the Japanese took over the mission station and Liddell returned to Tianjin. In 1943, he was interned at the Weihsien Internment Camp (in the modern city of Weifang) with the members of the China Inland Mission, Chefoo School (in the city now known as Yantai), and many others. Liddell became a leader and organiser at the camp, but food, medicine and other supplies were scarce. There were many cliques in the camp and when some rich businessmen managed to smuggle in some eggs, Liddell shamed them into sharing them. While fellow missionaries formed cliques, moralised and acted selfishly, Liddell busied himself by helping the elderly, teaching Bible classes at the camp school, arranging games, and teaching science to the children, who referred to him as Uncle Eric.[22]
Yes I have heard of him–there was a good movie about him a while ago.
I have seen the same sort of arguments that humans don’t have any “true” altruism either. I reject both arguments as equally absurd. I do not believe that any such thing is a difference between man and animals. Just because someone can imagine selfish reasons for altruistic behavior doesn’t mean those are the reasons for that behavior. And… just because there are obvious reason why such behavior evolved as positive for survival doesn’t mean the behavior is actually motivated by survival. The results of evolution are capabilities not programs, because flexibility and self-motivation are also highly positive for survival.
I agree that behavioural flexibility is often advantageous, but by definition, natural selection can never favour true self-sacrificial behaviours that reduce biological fitness…so such behaviours can’t naturally evolve. And, as I mentioned previously, any emotional sentiments an animal (or human) may have bouncing around in its mind are irrelevant to that fact…well, they are relevant only insofar as they translate into a concrete behaviour with effects on fitness (which is what natural selection can act on). I disagree with you, however, that there are no differences in the “minds” of humans and other animals. We have no evidence that animals can override their naturally-selected behaviours through conscious, intentional, freewill choice. But we know humans can, which is why I personally think humans are capable of true altruistic acts (despite those behaviours being maladaptive), i.e., humans are the only ones with the power to override behavioural tendencies bequeathed to them by evolution.
Incorrect. They can and they do.
They can because ever since the evolution of sexual reproduction, evolution is no longer about the individual alone, and the social interaction cannot be subtracted from the equation. Evolution shifted from survival of the individual to survival of the community and in some species the survival of the community has become so paramount that the individual will sacrifice itself for the sake of the community. This is especially the case where some individual do not even participate in sexual reproduction. This is biological in the case of female workers of ants and bees, but it can also come about due to social hierarchy.
But of course that is the way this happens when behaviors are highly programmed. Other species have evolved much more flexibility and behaviors are more according to choice and personally learned habits and personality. More diversity like this is almost always positive for survival because the it gives the community more flexibility in handling unusual circumstances. And this includes the advantage of having hero archetypes who sacrifice themselves for the survival of the community. Thus true altruism does evolve.
I said almost always because such diversity allows for anti-social types who cannot comprehend the value of altruistic behavior and will adopt neural patterns (or ways of thinking) that are not supportive of the survival of the community and even detrimental to it.
I know the idea that animals sacrifice themselves just for the good of the group (what is called “group selection”), is an attractive idea which is often promoted among non-biologists, but there is no evidence for it in the scientific literature. Simply saying “they can and do” is not sufficient evidence, which is why I asked people here to provide actual examples from the literature, if they knew of any. Do you know of any? You might be confusing “sociality” with “altruism”? Of course, there is selection for animals to live socially and cooperatively in groups, but the most parsimonious explanation that can be backed up scientifically is that they gain a net individual benefit by doing so. Social cooperation per se, is not altruistic. This is where definition of terms becomes important.
This was interesting:
Altruism in birds? Magpies have outwitted scientists by helping each other remove tracking devices
The principle difficulty is that I don’t buy into the empty rhetoric which is equally used to dispute human altruism, and I have no patience for it. Show me the evidence of human altruism that animals do not have and then we will talk about it.
I dispute the difference between the two. This is exactly the sort of empty rhetoric which I do not accept.
Social cooperation where the individual sacrifices their lives for good of the community and other individuals is altruistic as far as I am concerned. I have no interest whatsoever in the defense of any of these ideologies of universal selfishness. The way they bend over backwards with terminology is just too tortured. Like I said before, the fact that you can imagine some sort of benefit to the individual doesn’t mean that this actually plays any role in the motivation for such behavior and I know you cannot prove any such thing.
Another part of the problem is that it is doubtful that I believe in your “supernatural morality.” Taking a look at that paper now so I can evaluate this. Ran into a problem rather quickly… do you even define this in the paper? Ah… also there is this constant reference to “selfish genes” which I repudiate. Genes are just accumulated information. Attributing selfishness to them is absurd.
I’m sorry you do not want to engage in a rational discussion, where pinning down the scientific meaning of terms is vitally important to get to the bottom of things and not just “empty rhetoric”. But if you are not interested in doing so, I won’t continue this thread.
Well let’s examine the definition given in a footnote…
True altruism is defined by biologists as a permanently genetically self-diminishing behaviour and, as such, evolution can no more select for true altruism than it can for a tendency for suicide.
Ah yes… LOL
That is like defining “true love” as something which does not improve life in any way whatsoever but actually impairs life and diminishes it… LOL That is the most absurd and hilarious definition I have ever heard.
No.
How about this one from Stanford via google…
In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself .
Now that I can agree with. And that is something which can evolve.
Nice! We both seem to agree on the Stanford definition. The key point in the definition is “at a cost to itself”, which in biology means a cost to biological fitness. So what I’m curious about, is whether there are cases in non-humans that demonstrate behaviours being selected that entail such costs. To my knowledge, there are none, but I’m prepared to be wrong if someone can show me an example.
So you are attempting to alter the Stanford definition to change “itself” to “its species.” Something which I will not agree with. In that case you are back to defining love as something which is harmful to life. It is connected with your effort to separate sociality from altruism, which I also disagreed with.
Try the long view theologically of where all this is leading…
Not long back, we had a visitor to the forum who could not understand why God would think life evolved by evolution could ever be understood as something good, since it was based on so much death and suffering. So why did God look at His creation and say it is good. My reply was that God saw the result that evolution found that cooperation was the most successful survival strategy – and that is what made the results good.
The theological implication of what you are pushing is that “supernatural love” is something which can only be rewarded in the afterlife because on earth it will only make life worse. Do you really believe that? Because if love actually improves our lives then the logical implication that this is something which can evolve… because it is advantageous to life. And… you know this doesn’t mean that it actually did so without the help and involvement of God. Just because it is possible doesn’t mean it is likely. But that is the difference between making this into some kind of proof for the existence of God, if that is what you are hoping for.
I think this is logically incoherent. I think that in a thousand years we may indeed have our proof that humans had such behaviors and this why they became extinct. I likewise have little doubt that we can find other species with such traits and they are no doubt extinct or soon will be. In other words, behaviors which you define as disadvantageous to survival are logically not going to be selected for.
But if altruism is among such behaviors then I would agree with the visitor I mentioned that God calling such a world “good” does not make any sense.
No, I am not changing the Stanford definition of altruism. It says “cost to itself”. Itself is an individual (singular organism) not a species or group. That has been my point all along, that to to assess whether altruism has occurred, one must confirm that there is a real cost to an individual’s fitness. Cooperation is a different thing–it is a mutually beneficial interaction between two organisms that does not entail a net cost to either. So cooperation is easy to explain evolutionarily and there are many examples of it. But cooperation is not altruism.
Theologically, I appreciate the tension over the idea that evolution is evil because it is violent. Evolution can indeed pave the way to “nice” social behaviours, but science and mathematical modelling shows that behaviour can only evolve to the extent of cooperation, not pure altruism. But that doesn’t worry me as a Christian. There are many different theological explanations “theodicies” that help explain why a good God used a “harsh” method of evolution to create a good creation. The thesis by Bethany Sollereder is an excellent overview of those ideas.
What is love?
Baby don’t hurt me . . . don’t hurt me . . . no more
I just found out that Bethany Sollereder has a lecture posted on biologos that addresses the “evil and violence” in Evolution, if people are interested. not sure if this link will work:
What a fun observation! Thanks for passing it along. I note that the researchers call it “helping each other out” and “cooperative behaviour” which is reciprocity (both participants stand to gain by the act). So this is really cool, but not yet shown to be true altruism. It would certainly be interesting to follow these birds over time, though.