The meaning of life. Deep Down.

[WAB]

Democracy is messy and inefficient. China has a certain advantage with their centralized control and things might work out for the best, but they're not exactly respecting a woman's autonomy and have the opposite goal in mind. Totalitarian systems are clearly not the answer.

- Treedbear.

Advantage?

Advantage?

Your first and last sentences are correct.

The part I bolded gets my Holy Crap Did I Actually Read That award for the greatest understatement in recent recorded history.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Most people don't feel a sense of empathy for those they do not identify as sharing their values.

But do you know what? Fuck those assholes, who cares what they feel. They need to get in line with those of us who empathise with all of humanity.

There are two kinds of people; those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who don't.

No-no-no-no.

There are only two kinds of people; those who are too kind, and those who don't.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ah, at last, I found out about uploading a portrait of my philosophical father! Nice touch!
EB

 

[fromderinside]

GFYBG

 

[Treedbear]

Democracy is messy and inefficient. China has a certain advantage with their centralized control and things might work out for the best, but they're not exactly respecting a woman's autonomy and have the opposite goal in mind. Totalitarian systems are clearly not the answer.

- Treedbear.

Advantage?

Advantage?

Your first and last sentences are correct.

The part I bolded gets my Holy Crap Did I Actually Read That award for the greatest understatement in recent recorded history.

To place it in context, I was responding to this:

...
... we are definitely not doing everything in our power to maximize the population of organisms that carry our genes. From a social engineering perspective, it could be done a lot more efficiently if we didn't worry about things like respecting the bodily autonomy of women of childbearing age. We have a lot of unused resources and plenty of room on the globe, enough to sustain maybe double our current numbers if we all hunkered down. ...

...

I was pointing out the irony in the fact that China infringes on a woman's reproductive rights for exactly the opposite effect that PyramidHead proposed. My point being that the defacto driver of genetic evolution is not to maximize the reproductive potential of individual organisms, but to maximize the prospects of long term survival of the society and so the species. I might be having a hard time understanding why this is not obvious ... so I may have channeled a bit of sarcasm. No harm intended. Any further objections?

 

[Speakpigeon]

To place it in context, I was responding to this:

...
... we are definitely not doing everything in our power to maximize the population of organisms that carry our genes. From a social engineering perspective, it could be done a lot more efficiently if we didn't worry about things like respecting the bodily autonomy of women of childbearing age. We have a lot of unused resources and plenty of room on the globe, enough to sustain maybe double our current numbers if we all hunkered down. ...

...

I was pointing out the irony in the fact that China infringes on a woman's reproductive rights for exactly the opposite effect that PyramidHead proposed. My point being that the defacto driver of genetic evolution is not to maximize the reproductive potential of individual organisms, but to maximize the prospects of long term survival of the society and so the species. I might be having a hard time understanding why this is not obvious ... so I may have channeled a bit of sarcasm. No harm intended. Any further objections?

Yes.

It seems just as obvious to me that any objective that's not strictly the survival of the species may be harmful to it. Thus, the hypothetical objective of survival of a certain society may well be harming the prospect of survival of the species. For example by increasing the risk of a thermonuclear war or some such.

Also, I'd be sceptical even about the objective of a political leader being the survival of any society.

Finally, people do very many and all sorts of things and I think it would be very difficult, if not entirely impossible, to sort out what the main objective is overall.

I for one certainly don't know what my own main objective is in life. For example, sure I try to stay alive but, really, it's not my objective. Rather, essentially, it's a means to an end, and then, I'm not sure what this end might be.

So, I would gather that any 'objective' would be one that the subjects themselves are not aware of. They are doing things that, overall, would increase the likelihood of a particular outcome without themselves being aware of what this outcome might be.

And then, hey presto, you have the real smart guys here that have somehow sussed out the general nature of this outcome, if only presumably for most people, and these smart guys are scientists.

Yet, I have to wonder how the fact that America and Russia are storing 1500 thermonuclear warheads each could really "maximize the prospects of long term survival of the society and so the species".

Finally, why would any individual organism care about the species? You could say it's the species that in effect devolves the responsibility for its survival to each individual organism through the individual's objective of its own survival. Sure, good trick.

But, the fact is that each individual organism has a unique set of genes and so its survival cannot amount to the species' survival. Same thing in fact for both parents none of whose children will have the same genes as any of the parents. So, I'd say that this idea of the genes trying somehow to perpetuate themselves is just a bedtime story for the grownup children of our very scientific age.

Have a good night.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Gene Survival

Replicators love to, uh, replicate. Well, not "love to," they just do. It is, by definition, their nature. The language of desire or goal is from a gene's point of view, as if it had a point of view. Genes love to replicate, being replicators.


Natural Selection is survival of the fittest to survive long enough to generate offspring who could in turn survive and have offspring. Desire to be a grandparent is a built-in "desire" of each and every gene.


Humans are a complicated way for a gene to go from being in a single cell, a zygote, to being in another single cell -- another zygote.


The meaning of life to humans, these Rube Goldberg contraptions' consciousnesses, is a matter of debate.

This isn't the meaning of life. This is the purpose of life. Ie, what it's function is, or simply, just what it does. Meaning is typically what a creator gives to something. Just asking the question "what is the meaning of life" answers it. The answer to the question is God. Since I don't believe in God I think the question is flawed. If there's no creator life doesn't have a meaning given to it.

Another way to interpret meaning, is how we chose to interpret it. So inherently subjective and subject to change. But if that's how we chose to interpret "what is the meaning of life" then the question is wrongly formulated, because it implies a singular answer. A better form of the same question is "what meaning does your life have for you?"

A good answer that question could be "playing with my children", "painting", "building my company" or "competing in the national MMA championships". Which is a very different type of answer than you give.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Gene Survival

Replicators love to, uh, replicate. Well, not "love to," they just do. It is, by definition, their nature. The language of desire or goal is from a gene's point of view, as if it had a point of view. Genes love to replicate, being replicators.


Natural Selection is survival of the fittest to survive long enough to generate offspring who could in turn survive and have offspring. Desire to be a grandparent is a built-in "desire" of each and every gene.


Humans are a complicated way for a gene to go from being in a single cell, a zygote, to being in another single cell -- another zygote.


The meaning of life to humans, these Rube Goldberg contraptions' consciousnesses, is a matter of debate.

This isn't the meaning of life. This is the purpose of life. Ie, what it's function is, or simply, just what it does. Meaning is typically what a creator gives to something. Just asking the question "what is the meaning of life" answers it. The answer to the question is God. Since I don't believe in God I think the question is flawed. If there's no creator life doesn't have a meaning given to it.

Another way to interpret meaning, is how we chose to interpret it. So inherently subjective and subject to change. But if that's how we chose to interpret "what is the meaning of life" then the question is wrongly formulated, because it implies a singular answer. A better form of the same question is "what meaning does your life have for you?"

A good answer that question could be "playing with my children", "painting", "building my company" or "competing in the national MMA championships". Which is a very different type of answer than you give.

Personally, I go for meaning as how we interpret some thing. So, we may all have different meanings in mind for the same thing. I would say we mostly have different meanings in mind. Yet, it's seem true, too, that we pretend we mostly all have the same, hence the way we ask "what's the meaning of life" as if we'd decided there's just one possible. Or, we accept we have or may have our differences but we are essentially gregarious people bound to cooperate and therefore we accept we should better all mean the same thing. So the question "what's the meaning of life?" expresses our expectation that we can arrive at some sort of consensus on the meaning of life. Otherwise, what's the point of even talking?

Not that we're so terribly successful at consensus anyway, as your exchange exemplifies all to well.

Still, it also shows we're willing to try.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

This isn't the meaning of life. This is the purpose of life. Ie, what it's function is, or simply, just what it does. Meaning is typically what a creator gives to something. Just asking the question "what is the meaning of life" answers it. The answer to the question is God. Since I don't believe in God I think the question is flawed. If there's no creator life doesn't have a meaning given to it.

Another way to interpret meaning, is how we chose to interpret it. So inherently subjective and subject to change. But if that's how we chose to interpret "what is the meaning of life" then the question is wrongly formulated, because it implies a singular answer. A better form of the same question is "what meaning does your life have for you?"

A good answer that question could be "playing with my children", "painting", "building my company" or "competing in the national MMA championships". Which is a very different type of answer than you give.

Personally, I go for meaning as how we interpret some thing. So, we may all have different meanings in mind for the same thing. I would say we mostly have different meanings in mind. Yet, it's seem true, too, that we pretend we mostly all have the same, hence the way we ask "what's the meaning of life" as if we'd decided there's just one possible. Or, we accept we have or may have our differences but we are essentially gregarious people bound to cooperate and therefore we accept we should better all mean the same thing. So the question "what's the meaning of life?" expresses our expectation that we can arrive at some sort of consensus on the meaning of life. Otherwise, what's the point of even talking?

Not that we're so terribly successful at consensus anyway, as your exchange exemplifies all to well.

Still, it also shows we're willing to try.
EB

But that's not what he asked. He asked for THE meaning of life. That's a meaning in singular.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Personally, I go for meaning as how we interpret some thing. So, we may all have different meanings in mind for the same thing. I would say we mostly have different meanings in mind. Yet, it's seem true, too, that we pretend we mostly all have the same, hence the way we ask "what's the meaning of life" as if we'd decided there's just one possible. Or, we accept we have or may have our differences but we are essentially gregarious people bound to cooperate and therefore we accept we should better all mean the same thing. So the question "what's the meaning of life?" expresses our expectation that we can arrive at some sort of consensus on the meaning of life. Otherwise, what's the point of even talking?

Not that we're so terribly successful at consensus anyway, as your exchange exemplifies all to well.

Still, it also shows we're willing to try.
EB

But that's not what he asked. He asked for THE meaning of life. That's a meaning in singular.

I guess I might now have to bold and underline whatever is the crucial bit in whatever I say...

So the question "what's the meaning of life?" expresses our expectation that we can arrive at some sort of consensus on the meaning of life.

Oh, bother.
EB

 

[George S]

Gene Survival

Replicators love to, uh, replicate. Well, not "love to," they just do. It is, by definition, their nature. The language of desire or goal is from a gene's point of view, as if it had a point of view. Genes love to replicate, being replicators.


Natural Selection is survival of the fittest to survive long enough to generate offspring who could in turn survive and have offspring. Desire to be a grandparent is a built-in "desire" of each and every gene.


Humans are a complicated way for a gene to go from being in a single cell, a zygote, to being in another single cell -- another zygote.


The meaning of life to humans, these Rube Goldberg contraptions' consciousnesses, is a matter of debate.

This isn't the meaning of life. This is the purpose of life. Ie, what it's function is, or simply, just what it does. Meaning is typically what a creator gives to something. Just asking the question "what is the meaning of life" answers it. The answer to the question is God. Since I don't believe in God I think the question is flawed. If there's no creator life doesn't have a meaning given to it.

Another way to interpret meaning, is how we chose to interpret it. So inherently subjective and subject to change. But if that's how we chose to interpret "what is the meaning of life" then the question is wrongly formulated, because it implies a singular answer. A better form of the same question is "what meaning does your life have for you?"

A good answer that question could be "playing with my children", "painting", "building my company" or "competing in the national MMA championships". Which is a very different type of answer than you give.

Yes. Read that italicized part.

The purpose of life to genes is replication.

The purpose of life to humans is what each human makes of it. That is what it is like to be a human being being human.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This isn't the meaning of life. This is the purpose of life. Ie, what it's function is, or simply, just what it does. Meaning is typically what a creator gives to something. Just asking the question "what is the meaning of life" answers it. The answer to the question is God. Since I don't believe in God I think the question is flawed. If there's no creator life doesn't have a meaning given to it.

Another way to interpret meaning, is how we chose to interpret it. So inherently subjective and subject to change. But if that's how we chose to interpret "what is the meaning of life" then the question is wrongly formulated, because it implies a singular answer. A better form of the same question is "what meaning does your life have for you?"

A good answer that question could be "playing with my children", "painting", "building my company" or "competing in the national MMA championships". Which is a very different type of answer than you give.

Yes. Read that italicized part.

The purpose of life to genes is replication.

The purpose of life to humans is what each human makes of it. That is what it is like to be a human being being human.

Nah. The purpose of life is to reproduce. Because if it wouldn't it would seize to be. It's what the human machine exists to do.

Purpose and meaning are very different things. Just because you are good at something doesn't mean doing it will make you happy or feel fulfilled. That's the difference.

Meaning is what makes your life feel meaningful to you. That doesn't have to make any sense, nor be measurable nor objectively true.

But there are a bunch of psychological studies on this. There are clear universal themes for what makes people feel meaningful. If I remember correctly, we usually want to be a part of some larger collective with a shared greater goal. We just like doing stuff together with others. That's usually the answer people will give. Which also nicely explains religion.

 

[rousseau]

Not really what I meant but I see your point. I understand that there is nothing involving 'intent' when it comes to evolution.

The point I was making is that adaptations that become consistent throughout a species do so for the individual, not the greater species as a whole. While evolution occurs at a species level, it doesn't care about the species itself. Those members of the species who have genes that allow them to interact with their environment effectively are more likely to pass on those genes, and so if empathy is one of those causes, it will spread throughout the species. But that empathy does not exist for the purpose of extending the species, it exists for the purpose of extending the individual within the context of the species.

It's not necessarily the case that a genetic change must somehow improve the reproductive probability of the individual. It's more important that the long term survival of the genetic code is assured. So I might have a new gene combination that leads to a lesser chance of producing children, but if I somehow manage to do so anyway that same genetic code might enhance my childrens' abilities. Or my grandchildrens', etc. So the effect is expressed across a broader segment of the population in a more species oriented way. This would tend to restrain any genetic tendency for especially selfish types of behavior that produce morally intolerant acts and lead to the desolution of society. That said, societies tend toward a balance between altruistic and egoistic personality types in a dynamic equilibrium.

When Dawkins uses the phrase 'the selfish gene' I'm not sure he's actually anthropomorphizing genes but instead using the phrase as an analogy to help people understand how they work.

Individually, a gene that is successful will perpetuate itself, and genes that are the most successful are almost universal aspects of the each domain of life. Consider something like eyes.. almost every animal has them. This is because these genes are so enormously successful that animals cannot exist without them. But the genes for eyes couldn't care less about any of the organisms other genes, just that they continue existing.. hence 'selfish' gene.

In practice, genes don't actually have intent, but the analogy helps paint a picture of how they work. And the over-arching point is that the prime unit of selection is actually the gene, and not the organism.

If that's what Dawkins means then I shouldn't have given his ideas the benefit of the doubt. I assumed "the selfish gene" was simply a way to sell books by using a provocative title. As an instructive analogy I think it fails because it has intelligent folks like you utilizing the idea that genes "couldn't care less" about other genes, as if you were describing the attitude one person has towards another. You can say that was not your intent, but I see it all the time in discussions and I think it only increases the ability of people to rationalize selfish behavior. Both self-interested behavior and the ability to reproduce are only small parts of what drives the process of evolution in cultural and biological systems.

I think a lot of what is commonly seen as altruistic, is not actually altruistic, and that many people are not aware of their own motives for action. I believe true altruism is extremely rare.

No matter which way you slice it, it's the individuals who produce the most babies that make up the genetic code of any population. And the only thing that is truly common to people who produce babies is that they want to produce babies. It isn't altruistic people who are more likely to reproduce, it's people who like having kids. And so our genetics are primarily comprised of a combination of genes that lead to that goal.

Contrary to your belief, it doesn't matter if the species propagates, it only matters that individuals within the species propagate. The species propagating is the corollary of individuals propagating, and so our evolutionary behaviour is aimed at the individual producing babies.

Like I said before, I would grant that altruism exists, but in practice altruism mostly only extends to family and in-tribes, and that's what accounts for your description of 'species wide genes' that ensure everyone makes it. The anthropological concept of the family gives individuals a supportive net that makes sure more kids get made.

To take that concept a little further, having children is an inherently selfish act in practise. If we were truly altruistic and giving we would be more likely to spend our energy helping people who need it rather than propagating our own genes. Because the world doesn't need more people, and a lot of people need help, but in reality.. nobody cares, because they have evolved to be baby-makers.

I don't mention that last part with any angst, because that's essentially what it means to be a living thing, but your idea that altruism is somehow baked into what we are, any further than extending to in-groups, is just not tenable to me. Maybe that's a grim picture, but that's reality, and until we as a species get better at understanding and respecting reality, we're not going to be able to make things much better

 

[bilby]

It's not necessarily the case that a genetic change must somehow improve the reproductive probability of the individual. It's more important that the long term survival of the genetic code is assured. So I might have a new gene combination that leads to a lesser chance of producing children, but if I somehow manage to do so anyway that same genetic code might enhance my childrens' abilities. Or my grandchildrens', etc. So the effect is expressed across a broader segment of the population in a more species oriented way. This would tend to restrain any genetic tendency for especially selfish types of behavior that produce morally intolerant acts and lead to the desolution of society. That said, societies tend toward a balance between altruistic and egoistic personality types in a dynamic equilibrium.

When Dawkins uses the phrase 'the selfish gene' I'm not sure he's actually anthropomorphizing genes but instead using the phrase as an analogy to help people understand how they work.

Individually, a gene that is successful will perpetuate itself, and genes that are the most successful are almost universal aspects of the each domain of life. Consider something like eyes.. almost every animal has them. This is because these genes are so enormously successful that animals cannot exist without them. But the genes for eyes couldn't care less about any of the organisms other genes, just that they continue existing.. hence 'selfish' gene.

In practice, genes don't actually have intent, but the analogy helps paint a picture of how they work. And the over-arching point is that the prime unit of selection is actually the gene, and not the organism.

If that's what Dawkins means then I shouldn't have given his ideas the benefit of the doubt. I assumed "the selfish gene" was simply a way to sell books by using a provocative title. As an instructive analogy I think it fails because it has intelligent folks like you utilizing the idea that genes "couldn't care less" about other genes, as if you were describing the attitude one person has towards another. You can say that was not your intent, but I see it all the time in discussions and I think it only increases the ability of people to rationalize selfish behavior. Both self-interested behavior and the ability to reproduce are only small parts of what drives the process of evolution in cultural and biological systems.

I think a lot of what is commonly seen as altruistic, is not actually altruistic, and that many people are not aware of their own motives for action. I believe true altruism is extremely rare.

No matter which way you slice it, it's the individuals who produce the most babies that make up the genetic code of any population. And the only thing that is truly common to people who produce babies is that they want to produce babies. It isn't altruistic people who are more likely to reproduce, it's people who like having kids. And so our genetics are primarily comprised of a combination of genes that lead to that goal.

Contrary to your belief, it doesn't matter if the species propagates, it only matters that individuals within the species propagate. The species propagating is the corollary of individuals propagating, and so our evolutionary behaviour is aimed at the individual producing babies.

Like I said before, I would grant that altruism exists, but in practice altruism mostly only extends to family and in-tribes, and that's what accounts for your description of 'species wide genes' that ensure everyone makes it. The anthropological concept of the family gives individuals a supportive net that makes sure more kids get made.

To take that concept a little further, having children is an inherently selfish act in practise. If we were truly altruistic and giving we would be more likely to spend our energy helping people who need it rather than propagating our own genes. Because the world doesn't need more people, and a lot of people need help, but in reality.. nobody cares, because they have evolved to be baby-makers.

I don't mention that last part with any angst, because that's essentially what it means to be a living thing, but your idea that altruism is somehow baked into what we are, any further than extending to in-groups, is just not tenable to me. Maybe that's a grim picture, but that's reality, and until we as a species get better at understanding and respecting reality, we're not going to be able to make things much better

This is true, if (and only if) individuals within a population are not closely related to each other, and therefore do not carry a significant number of shared genes.

Given that that is never the case for humans, it is simply not true of humans.

A man who has no children, but whose actions allow his brother's four children to survive and reproduce, is more successful in passing his genes to the next generation than a man who has one child, and who does nothing to prevent the death in infancy of his brother's children.

Altruism that helps very large numbers of more distant relatives to have direct reproductive success can be similarly effective in passing ones genes to the next generation.

Your analysis makes a very popular and common error; But it is an error, nonetheless. Reality is FAR more complex than your simplified model, to the point where your model makes predictions that are at odds with observed reality. People are altruistic. And genes that are rarely or never passed down by those who express them are, nevertheless, able to be highly successful at being passed down in a population. Evolution applies to populations, not to individuals.

 

[rousseau]

It's not necessarily the case that a genetic change must somehow improve the reproductive probability of the individual. It's more important that the long term survival of the genetic code is assured. So I might have a new gene combination that leads to a lesser chance of producing children, but if I somehow manage to do so anyway that same genetic code might enhance my childrens' abilities. Or my grandchildrens', etc. So the effect is expressed across a broader segment of the population in a more species oriented way. This would tend to restrain any genetic tendency for especially selfish types of behavior that produce morally intolerant acts and lead to the desolution of society. That said, societies tend toward a balance between altruistic and egoistic personality types in a dynamic equilibrium.

When Dawkins uses the phrase 'the selfish gene' I'm not sure he's actually anthropomorphizing genes but instead using the phrase as an analogy to help people understand how they work.

Individually, a gene that is successful will perpetuate itself, and genes that are the most successful are almost universal aspects of the each domain of life. Consider something like eyes.. almost every animal has them. This is because these genes are so enormously successful that animals cannot exist without them. But the genes for eyes couldn't care less about any of the organisms other genes, just that they continue existing.. hence 'selfish' gene.

In practice, genes don't actually have intent, but the analogy helps paint a picture of how they work. And the over-arching point is that the prime unit of selection is actually the gene, and not the organism.

If that's what Dawkins means then I shouldn't have given his ideas the benefit of the doubt. I assumed "the selfish gene" was simply a way to sell books by using a provocative title. As an instructive analogy I think it fails because it has intelligent folks like you utilizing the idea that genes "couldn't care less" about other genes, as if you were describing the attitude one person has towards another. You can say that was not your intent, but I see it all the time in discussions and I think it only increases the ability of people to rationalize selfish behavior. Both self-interested behavior and the ability to reproduce are only small parts of what drives the process of evolution in cultural and biological systems.

I think a lot of what is commonly seen as altruistic, is not actually altruistic, and that many people are not aware of their own motives for action. I believe true altruism is extremely rare.

No matter which way you slice it, it's the individuals who produce the most babies that make up the genetic code of any population. And the only thing that is truly common to people who produce babies is that they want to produce babies. It isn't altruistic people who are more likely to reproduce, it's people who like having kids. And so our genetics are primarily comprised of a combination of genes that lead to that goal.

Contrary to your belief, it doesn't matter if the species propagates, it only matters that individuals within the species propagate. The species propagating is the corollary of individuals propagating, and so our evolutionary behaviour is aimed at the individual producing babies.

Like I said before, I would grant that altruism exists, but in practice altruism mostly only extends to family and in-tribes, and that's what accounts for your description of 'species wide genes' that ensure everyone makes it. The anthropological concept of the family gives individuals a supportive net that makes sure more kids get made.

To take that concept a little further, having children is an inherently selfish act in practise. If we were truly altruistic and giving we would be more likely to spend our energy helping people who need it rather than propagating our own genes. Because the world doesn't need more people, and a lot of people need help, but in reality.. nobody cares, because they have evolved to be baby-makers.

I don't mention that last part with any angst, because that's essentially what it means to be a living thing, but your idea that altruism is somehow baked into what we are, any further than extending to in-groups, is just not tenable to me. Maybe that's a grim picture, but that's reality, and until we as a species get better at understanding and respecting reality, we're not going to be able to make things much better

This is true, if (and only if) individuals within a population are not closely related to each other, and therefore do not carry a significant number of shared genes.

Given that that is never the case for humans, it is simply not true of humans.

A man who has no children, but whose actions allow his brother's four children to survive and reproduce, is more successful in passing his genes to the next generation than a man who has one child, and who does nothing to prevent the death in infancy of his brother's children.

Altruism that helps very large numbers of more distant relatives to have direct reproductive success can be similarly effective in passing ones genes to the next generation.

Your analysis makes a very popular and common error; But it is an error, nonetheless. Reality is FAR more complex than your simplified model, to the point where your model makes predictions that are at odds with observed reality. People are altruistic. And genes that are rarely or never passed down by those who express them are, nevertheless, able to be highly successful at being passed down in a population. Evolution applies to populations, not to individuals.

What you've just said is pretty much baked into my post.

Our altruism extends to family and in-groups.

 

[bilby]

It's not necessarily the case that a genetic change must somehow improve the reproductive probability of the individual. It's more important that the long term survival of the genetic code is assured. So I might have a new gene combination that leads to a lesser chance of producing children, but if I somehow manage to do so anyway that same genetic code might enhance my childrens' abilities. Or my grandchildrens', etc. So the effect is expressed across a broader segment of the population in a more species oriented way. This would tend to restrain any genetic tendency for especially selfish types of behavior that produce morally intolerant acts and lead to the desolution of society. That said, societies tend toward a balance between altruistic and egoistic personality types in a dynamic equilibrium.

When Dawkins uses the phrase 'the selfish gene' I'm not sure he's actually anthropomorphizing genes but instead using the phrase as an analogy to help people understand how they work.

Individually, a gene that is successful will perpetuate itself, and genes that are the most successful are almost universal aspects of the each domain of life. Consider something like eyes.. almost every animal has them. This is because these genes are so enormously successful that animals cannot exist without them. But the genes for eyes couldn't care less about any of the organisms other genes, just that they continue existing.. hence 'selfish' gene.

In practice, genes don't actually have intent, but the analogy helps paint a picture of how they work. And the over-arching point is that the prime unit of selection is actually the gene, and not the organism.

If that's what Dawkins means then I shouldn't have given his ideas the benefit of the doubt. I assumed "the selfish gene" was simply a way to sell books by using a provocative title. As an instructive analogy I think it fails because it has intelligent folks like you utilizing the idea that genes "couldn't care less" about other genes, as if you were describing the attitude one person has towards another. You can say that was not your intent, but I see it all the time in discussions and I think it only increases the ability of people to rationalize selfish behavior. Both self-interested behavior and the ability to reproduce are only small parts of what drives the process of evolution in cultural and biological systems.

I think a lot of what is commonly seen as altruistic, is not actually altruistic, and that many people are not aware of their own motives for action. I believe true altruism is extremely rare.

No matter which way you slice it, it's the individuals who produce the most babies that make up the genetic code of any population. And the only thing that is truly common to people who produce babies is that they want to produce babies. It isn't altruistic people who are more likely to reproduce, it's people who like having kids. And so our genetics are primarily comprised of a combination of genes that lead to that goal.

Contrary to your belief, it doesn't matter if the species propagates, it only matters that individuals within the species propagate. The species propagating is the corollary of individuals propagating, and so our evolutionary behaviour is aimed at the individual producing babies.

Like I said before, I would grant that altruism exists, but in practice altruism mostly only extends to family and in-tribes, and that's what accounts for your description of 'species wide genes' that ensure everyone makes it. The anthropological concept of the family gives individuals a supportive net that makes sure more kids get made.

To take that concept a little further, having children is an inherently selfish act in practise. If we were truly altruistic and giving we would be more likely to spend our energy helping people who need it rather than propagating our own genes. Because the world doesn't need more people, and a lot of people need help, but in reality.. nobody cares, because they have evolved to be baby-makers.

I don't mention that last part with any angst, because that's essentially what it means to be a living thing, but your idea that altruism is somehow baked into what we are, any further than extending to in-groups, is just not tenable to me. Maybe that's a grim picture, but that's reality, and until we as a species get better at understanding and respecting reality, we're not going to be able to make things much better

This is true, if (and only if) individuals within a population are not closely related to each other, and therefore do not carry a significant number of shared genes.

Given that that is never the case for humans, it is simply not true of humans.

A man who has no children, but whose actions allow his brother's four children to survive and reproduce, is more successful in passing his genes to the next generation than a man who has one child, and who does nothing to prevent the death in infancy of his brother's children.

Altruism that helps very large numbers of more distant relatives to have direct reproductive success can be similarly effective in passing ones genes to the next generation.

Your analysis makes a very popular and common error; But it is an error, nonetheless. Reality is FAR more complex than your simplified model, to the point where your model makes predictions that are at odds with observed reality. People are altruistic. And genes that are rarely or never passed down by those who express them are, nevertheless, able to be highly successful at being passed down in a population. Evolution applies to populations, not to individuals.

What you've just said is pretty much baked into my post.

Our altruism extends to family and in-groups.

Humans are just not that genetically diverse. At the genetic level, all humans are your in-group.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a better analogy between meaning and purpose. If somebody would put a gun to your head and threaten to kill you if you didn't start dancing. Then dancing is something that you needed to do to stay alive. But would it make you happy? Would it make you feel that your life has been worthwhile?

We life with a multitude of guns to our heads. Everything from poisons, to food, to oxygen, to getting a job, to getting laid, to getting enough sleep. Avoiding all those is our purpose. What we need to do to stay alive and procreate is our purpose. But the meaning of it all is beyond all that. It's the stuff you look back at fondly at and are happy or proud about doing. Can be mundane.

 

[PyramidHead]

Here's a better analogy between meaning and purpose. If somebody would put a gun to your head and threaten to kill you if you didn't start dancing. Then dancing is something that you needed to do to stay alive. But would it make you happy? Would it make you feel that your life has been worthwhile?

We life with a multitude of guns to our heads. Everything from poisons, to food, to oxygen, to getting a job, to getting laid, to getting enough sleep. Avoiding all those is our purpose. What we need to do to stay alive and procreate is our purpose. But the meaning of it all is beyond all that. It's the stuff you look back at fondly at and are happy or proud about doing. Can be mundane.

It seems like you're smuggling in "and procreate" there, when it actually doesn't fit your gun-to-the-head analogy very well. Many people survive their whole lives without procreating (arguably, most people who have ever lived managed to do this). What I'm trying to say is that we don't need to view procreation as anything nearly as urgent a 'purpose' as our survival as individual organisms. Genes do not actually care if they are replicated or not. Life has no interest in continuing itself across the generations. Natural selection makes it appear otherwise, but there is really no purpose to be found at any level below complex brains.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a better analogy between meaning and purpose. If somebody would put a gun to your head and threaten to kill you if you didn't start dancing. Then dancing is something that you needed to do to stay alive. But would it make you happy? Would it make you feel that your life has been worthwhile?

We life with a multitude of guns to our heads. Everything from poisons, to food, to oxygen, to getting a job, to getting laid, to getting enough sleep. Avoiding all those is our purpose. What we need to do to stay alive and procreate is our purpose. But the meaning of it all is beyond all that. It's the stuff you look back at fondly at and are happy or proud about doing. Can be mundane.

It seems like you're smuggling in "and procreate" there, when it actually doesn't fit your gun-to-the-head analogy very well. Many people survive their whole lives without procreating (arguably, most people who have ever lived managed to do this). What I'm trying to say is that we don't need to view procreation as anything nearly as urgent a 'purpose' as our survival as individual organisms. Genes do not actually care if they are replicated or not. Life has no interest in continuing itself across the generations. Natural selection makes it appear otherwise, but there is really no purpose to be found at any level below complex brains.

No, it's critical. But humanity isn't a bunch of individuals. It's a collective. One human in the world is a soon dead human. It doesn't matter how hard he or she works at life, that's the end of it. Which defeats the point of doing anything. That human might as well quit trying to stay alive and try to find a higher meaning. I think this is the deeper truth that religions have figured out.

I'd also argue that we're inherently a social species. Anything we do that brings us joy we do for the recognition of some collective or another. Or love and recognition from an individual. Ask any old geezer. What people value the most from their lives is shared experiences.

 

[PyramidHead]

No disagreement there. Just saying it's not in our genes, not in life itself from the get-go, but in our brains as a post-hoc addition.