trc@houti.UUCP (07/14/83)
Response to Laura Creighton: You state that my "article is full of biological inaccuracies with respect to the behavior of real animals". However, you do not state exactly what inaccuracies you see. My major claims (with respect to biology) were that 1) not all species exhibit altruism, and many of those that do also exhibit selfish behaviors 2) there does not seem to be any conclusive evidence that humans have instincts because 3) cultural factors seem to be predominant in humans, and so would obscure such an instinct unless a precise experiment were arranged to expose it. I also made a comment on the meaning of "Tabula Rasa". I have not yet read "The Selfish Gene", but I have read some reviews and letters discussing it. While I dislike the "anthropomorphization" of genes implied in terms like "selfish" or "altruistic", the general idea that survival of genes as the "motivation" of evolution seems reasonable. I suppose that such terms are justified for getting the idea across, but I hope the author carefully noted that they are really being used metaphorically, not literally. What I believe the author means is that the pattern encoded in the gene survives and interacts through the creatures it helps form with the real world. Thus, the creatures are, relative to the gene, the method of survival. Our genes are not "concerned" with our survival, and we need not examine their genetic code to determine what is right for us - that genetic code is expressed in the nature of humans. Regardless of how their genes may have evolved and survived, humans are what they are. They do have a specific nature, which is obvious - they are alive and have the ability to reason. The latter is what distinguishes them from other animals. Morality, and hence rights, should be in accord with this nature, or else they will be anti-survival. Humans are not bees or ants. "Species altruism" may be instinctive (IE beyond choice) for those creatures, but that does not imply that they are for humans. Humans have *demonstrated* the ability to act in practically every physically possible manner. This implies that, if there are tendencies built into humans, that in other creatures would be instincts, they are easily overcome by the human mind. Altruism is not compatible with consciousness and reason. This is because humans are able to realize the value of their own lives, for themselves, and altruism (or species altruism) opposes this individual life. Perhaps this will turn out to be a poor survival trait (I doubt it - but then I'm biased), but that does not mean we should try to circumvent it. That would require that we change our nature, so as to give up intelligence. Again, I may be biased, but I see rational intelligence as the most interesting "experiment" ever to be conducted by evolution. Tom Craver houti!trc
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (07/18/83)
Until Tom Craver reads the Selfish Gene, i will have to quote from it to discredit some of his over-generalisations. Richard Dawkins is a respected Zoologist, and I am not a zoologist but have a strong interest in zoology. I would rather read Dawkins than listen to laura creighton if i were you ... the selfish gene is not a discussion of genes from an anthropomorphic point of view. The Selfish gene does not make a case for altruism as instincts in animals, it MOST EMPHATICALLY claims that REASON (ie the human mind/brain) is the only hope for altruism (if that is desirable) because IT DOES NOT OCCUR IN NATURE. Now these discussions are in the forefront of zoology these days, and it has become vogue to present animals that "behave altruistically" as counters to this claim. So far, no one has brought me one that has actually been behaving altruistically, given that your unit of natural selection is something smaller than an individual. i have yet to read of one either. this does not mean that they do not exist, for we may have not found them yet. On the other hand, if we find them, they are very much worth studying, perhaps more than anything else. I am willing to discuss this, one of my favourite topics of discussion with *anyone* who has read the Selfish Gene. I am not willing to discuss it with anyone else unless they are an ethologist. netnews does not have the bandwidth of a verbal conversation. i would rather that richard dawkins made a lot of money for writing an excellent book. Some day i may write an excellent book, and I would rather that no one typed the whole thing in to distribute over usenet. I see no other way i can adequately present my ideas. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura