+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 15748
Total Topics: 267
Most Online Today: 37
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 10
Total: 10

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 9089 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32532
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #120 on: April 10, 2017, 07:03:28 pm »
Homo sap's epitaph: Self Preservation beats altruistic behavior any time.

The point AG is that you have to achieve a balance between the two.  You can't be perfectly altruistic, at the very least for self-preservation you have to kill plants and eat them.

RE

No, really? Uh, RE, the last time I checked, using the verb "BEATS" in the above boast is evidence of a LACK of balance to the point of arrogant and totally unjustified ASSURANCE that conscience free predation (which is what  justifying self-preservation over altruism ALWAYS IS in practice) takes PRECEDENCE over altruism ANY TIME.

Now tell me, Godfader, where did you get the strange idea that Saint Palloy was advocating a BALANCE, as in, about as much of one as the other? 

I don't mean to replace GO in some kind of passive aggressive chain pulling exercise  ;), but you are off your meds and on an "apex predator can anything it wants" trip (AGAIN  :P).

Even Darwin said that ain't so. Now don't get your drawers in a bunch about dis ting, old man. I do agree with you that self-preservation has its place in biosphere math. BUT, as far as species perpetuation and survival is concerned, and PARTICULARLY in regard to APEX PREDATORS, individual ALTRUISM plays a FAR more important role than self-preservation. There is NO survival if those two are EQUAL TIME balanced. ONLY when altruism is the TOP TRAIT (i.e. NEVER a balance between the two    ) is species perpetuation not in jeopardy. 

Of course I know you love a good argument, so I will give you some fodder to get a real good one going here.

SNIPPET from The Paradox of Altruism

Quote
Charles Darwin regarded the problem of altruism—the act of helping someone else, even if it comes at a steep personal cost—as a potentially fatal challenge to his theory of natural selection. After all, if life was such a cruel “struggle for existence,” then how could a selfless individual ever live long enough to reproduce? Why would natural selection favor a behavior that made us less likely to survive? In “The Descent of Man,” Darwin wrote, “He who was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature.” And yet, as Darwin knew, altruism is everywhere, a stubborn anomaly of nature. Bats feed hungry brethren; honeybees defend the hive by committing suicide with a sting; birds raise offspring that aren’t their own; humans leap onto subway tracks to save strangers. The sheer ubiquity of such behavior suggests that kindness is not a losing life strategy.

For more than a century after Darwin, altruism remained a paradox. The first glimmers of a solution arrived in a Bloomsbury pub in the early nineteen-fifties. According to legend, the biologist J. B. S. Haldane was several pints into the afternoon when he was asked how far he would go to save the life of another person. Haldane thought for a moment, and then started scribbling numbers on the back of a napkin. “I would jump into a river to save two brothers, but not one,” Haldane said. “Or to save eight cousins but not seven.” His drunken answer summarized a powerful scientific idea. Because individuals share much of their genome with close relatives, a trait will also persist if it leads to the survival of their kin. According to Haldane’s moral arithmetic , sacrificing for a family member is just a different way of promoting our own DNA.
https://www.wired.com/2012/02/the-paradox-of-altruism/


Yup, All these serious scientists have to be drunk to come up with any kind of semi-logical CFS. ::)

But it's still mostly a wild ass guess, if evolution true believers would be honest about it (which they NEVER are!). These pecker heads can't even figure out how a woodpecker evolved, but they arrogantly claim to be "logical" about some mathematical formula for altruism based on the "danger" of not passing on their glorious gene pool. GIVE ME A BREAK HERE! These F U C K S want to reduce loyalty, love and caring to some set of perceptual cues about the family jewels? ???

 



Consequently, I continue to advocate that any claim to "balance" between self preservation and altruism, where altruism has the subservient position, is the MARK of an EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END. As I have said here many times to deaf ears, Natural Selection is a SUBTRACTIVE PROCESS, so I have no problem predicting the logical and well deserved extinction of dumb f u c k ing predators that don't care for their surroundings, relatives or prey species.

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
01 Apr, 2020 06:04

New Pandemic? by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 00:15

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
31 Mar, 2020 23:23

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
31 Mar, 2020 17:00

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
31 Mar, 2020 16:26

Money by AGelbert
31 Mar, 2020 16:17

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
30 Mar, 2020 23:11

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
30 Mar, 2020 16:24

Beauty and Grace of Animals in Nature by AGelbert
30 Mar, 2020 12:43

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
29 Mar, 2020 22:38