Quoted message said:Quoted message said:JE The catchword for the right was "selfishness" but for left it remains, "altruism". Both views
are wrong but both have managed to dominate and bias evolutionary theory.
KA:-
Quoted message said:Rubbish. True, selfishness is all one needs to explain apparent altruism.
********
JE:- This is the Ayn Rand proposition. I admire the lady. However her view, like ALL views is only
a limited truth domain i.e. it is a refutable view that can evolve via the refutation of its
absolute assumption. Here one absolute assumption is replaced by another. Absolute selfishness can
be refuted and replaced by maximal mutual gains. Note: selfishness and maximal mutual gains are NOT
the same thing.
Quoted message said:Definition - Selfishness - absolute selfishness is doing whatever is necessary to maximize ones
own interests, irrespective if doing so will also aid another. Absolute selfishness does not mean
keeping everything to oneself, as this will often result, on many occasions in a net detriment due
to the consequences of such action. The term selfishness automatically includes the notion that
helping others can, and does often help oneself with a net advantage to that which would have been
achieved by not helping others in the long run. Doing something that results in a net detriment
simple cannot be referred to as absolute selfishness, if another better, i.e. more advantages to
it, i.e. more selfish, option was available for that individual.
JE:- Kevin fails to understand that the only form of selfishness that is an ESS (evolutionary stable
strategy) is mutual gain. The political battle between the Looney right, "all selfishness is good"
and the Looney left, "all altruism is good" is that they both miss the stable ESS. This ESS can
exclude _equal_ gains. Net gains are gains - costs, as everybody in business knows. Also, they know
a loss now, can produce a future gain. This is termed an "investment". The Looney left's takeover of
evolutionary theory, e.g. Dawkins, tried to palm off investment as altruism so that a Mad Hatter's
view of nature was produced where people trade in altruistic acts; they called it reciprocal
altruism. Mutual but not necessarily equal fitness gains were ignored as "obvious" and
"uninteresting".
BM:- Well I agree (partially) with John Edser - selfishness and altruism have had a significant
discussion in evolutionary theory. And I agree (partially) with Kevin Aylward - that selfishness can
explain altruism. But I am tired of the argument, and I am going to note the following (a la Godel
via Hofstadter):
True selfishness will want to insure the survival of itself, which can only be insured by
having maximum diversity of the ecosystem, which requires the survival of others.
True altruism will want to insure the survival of others, which can only be insured by
having maximum control of the ecosystem, which requires the survival of itself. JE:- The
above quote was just Panglossian, i.e. it fails to provide a HOW theses. This missing
HOW thesis is the evolution of mutual but not necessarily equal ABOLUTE fitness gains,
per selectee, per population. Unless Neo Darwinians bit the abolute fitness bullet they
don't have a hope in hell of providing a rational explanation, for anything they are
talking about.
Happy Christmas,
John Edser Independent Researcher
PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia
[email hidden]
