The consequence of human consciousness is the inevitable placement of a moral order upon nature. Life is completely amoral in this sense, but measured up against our human experience it is selfish, voracious, cannibalistic etc. Our predicament is to reconcile our experience of these things with the knowledge that we are a part of it. This is why the emergence of mythology was coincidental with the emergence of human consciousness. The subject was explored ages ago. Read Joseph Campbell.
evil jews. yes, genes can be selfish. This is jews trying to prove selfish dishonest jewishness is a superior and noble quality. magnats can be selfish, skies can be blue and rivers can be angry.
Saw a documentary on this topic. It was interesting. 70,000 years ago there were about 20,000 humans. They all lived in Africa, scattered in small groups across the continent. To cooporate was necessary to survive because there were not many people. Imagine a huge war with so few.
It seems war and conflicts came later when the population grew.
I was talking with a group of people. And we were talking about the justification of torture. I argued that there may be a justification of torture if, say, we can avoid a nuclear holocaust. We will torture someone to get info to avoid the bomb (or any other weapon of mass destruction).
It seems stright forward. One against millions of people. But what is at issue is the philosophy of individualism. Never to harm a individual in principle. (principle!)
Ok. If Murphy's law is true. Someone in the future who has a time machine will nuke the hell out of the universe. The reason this may be true, because we got a lot of time ahead. Enough time to come up with a time machine. And studpid enough people to kill us all.
The future people are ethical. Argument: in the future people will have a bomb to destroy the universe and they will have a time travel capability. So they can go back in time and blow up the universe. This is perfectly possible because of the murphy's law. But we are still living. What is wrong? Well the future people are ethical.
In many primate species, the tendency toward social or group harmony is demonstrably stronger among the female members of the species. The males, likely due to hormonal differences, tend to be more concerned with status within their social group than females, but not to the exclusion of displays of empathy (while less consistent, males can be altruistic). I saw one nature program where female monkeys shunned, then assaulted, an abusive male whose aggression had gone too far. He lost leadership.
I saw that on National Geographic too. And let me say this, all social animals (those that live in groups and have to cooperate to survive) as a rule, tend towards harmony. If not, the species would have never evolved towards cooperation and the species would never have survived. (When thinking about intelligent life outside of Earth one would have to think the same. How could a social, intelligent life form survive and reproduce if they didn't tend toward cooperation?)
Being a big fan of Dostoyevsky, I learned "compassion" from him in my youth. It was obvious that I should reach out to others. And the confidence that I can make the difference. But then as I grow up, I learned that I need to close myself up to survive. Because my personal "survival" is vital to the "compassion". There is a task for me in the future to be "compassionate" but if I am not alive, then there is nothing to it.
By REAL empathy I was trying to point out that some social Darwinists claim that empathy and altruism are just disguised selfishness...Yet the deepest motivation for empathy might not matter as much as we think. In the long run it feels good to do good...So does that make doing good invalid? No...
Your point about deciding what the self IS-- Yes, I agree that is most important question we need to TRY to understand!
It feels good to be good because we derive feelings of elation, happiness, and joy when we do moral acts such as altruism. (When no one is witness to some moral act we commit, we're STILL commiting it out of our own self interest. What's the self interest? Making oursleves feel good.)
And it does matter, because if everything we do is in our own self interest (including being empathetic and altruistic when no one else is witness to it) then we're more inclined to be IMMORAL than MORAL. If everything comes down to survival and reproduction and we're all predisposed to be selfish, self centered and only out for our own self interest, then being IMMORAL at the expense of the group will be more common than not.
Sounds interesting - will put it on my endless list...
It's not just that we can find evidence of empathy in nature - there's ample evidence of empathy in us. From the overt rewards we get from social interaction to the more hidden rewards we get from our wiring, there are a lot of factors that push us to interact & cooperate to achieve goals. Aside from curbing magical thinking, I think one of the major goals of our time is to manage these tendencies so people are both productive & happy.
Yes, I know about this series. A link is already in my sidebar. Dawkins appears twice in the book...First, de Waal talks about how Jeff Skilling -- the CEO of Enron who is now in prison -- was a great fan of The Selfish Gene BECAUSE he misunderstood the concept as unconstrained cutthroat competition and tried to mimic that idea with the workforce at Enron, with disastrous results. He makes the point that Skilling thought that because our genes are selfish then we must be selfish too.
Further, de Waal also makes the point that he and Dawkins have been critical of each other in print before the documentary you're pointing to. Dawkins thinks de Waal exaggerates empathy in animals, and de Waal thinks that the selfish gene metaphor is too easy to misunderstand.
Take a look at the book if you have the time. I think you'd find it interesting...I did.
Sounds a fascinating read! You always offer such great recommendations. The issue you mention of trust in social groups with sizeable disparities of income, etc., does speak to me — thinking also about the imbalances we create through prejudice and oppression, and how that can't be maintained as it sets up an counter-drive by oppressed groups to work towards stasis/equilibrium. And yes — groan — the number of times figurative talk like 'selfish gene' is strawmanned as literal! ;8)
If there's a natural law that altruism pays overall, then it's in our individual best interests to be altruistic. If not, then statistical laws of nature can't help us choose which ones to 'follow'. If there were such a law, I don't see any conflict between that and the idea of it being a law of God's. His laws would have to be recommendations anyway, rather than enforced dictats, because since his laws are what necessarily holds, if altruism was universal, there'd be no need for laws.
De Waal is NOT making the point that there is some "universal law of altruism" [or of empathy for that matter]...His point is that often empathetic reactions are more adaptive than hostile, competitive reactions, both for the individual and the larger group's long term survival...
He is a primatologist, and he bases his observations concerning empathy on the behavior of higher primates [baboons, chimpanzees, etc] AND on human social organizations...Look at the book for more details.
Yes sorry, I was reacting more to the title of the video than the video. It reminded me of arguments I've heard before, on YT, and in Dawkins' books, that if we understand how our sense of morality evolved, that's enough to help us make choices. We wouldn't be here if it weren't for the ancestors of our cells co-operating with each other and with mitochondria, but whether they know or care about anything, and so that could be called 'altruism' is a moot point.
just my opinion. i totally agree with you, i think the human race is slowly -- WAY too slowly -- becoming a better species and at some point money will be done away with.
quite true but i also think money affects the mentality of people who don't have much of it. it makes people in general more fearful and submissive, and it tends to trump human life in importance.
Interesting. Thanx!
julzabro 6 months ago
The consequence of human consciousness is the inevitable placement of a moral order upon nature. Life is completely amoral in this sense, but measured up against our human experience it is selfish, voracious, cannibalistic etc. Our predicament is to reconcile our experience of these things with the knowledge that we are a part of it. This is why the emergence of mythology was coincidental with the emergence of human consciousness. The subject was explored ages ago. Read Joseph Campbell.
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago 2
evil jews. yes, genes can be selfish. This is jews trying to prove selfish dishonest jewishness is a superior and noble quality. magnats can be selfish, skies can be blue and rivers can be angry.
nVei06 1 year ago
Good reference 2b, thanks for drawing our attention to this. I've just ordered the audio version for those long Cheshire/Devon drives.
conferencereport 2 years ago
Saw a documentary on this topic. It was interesting. 70,000 years ago there were about 20,000 humans. They all lived in Africa, scattered in small groups across the continent. To cooporate was necessary to survive because there were not many people. Imagine a huge war with so few.
It seems war and conflicts came later when the population grew.
GrinningSandCat 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this as a video response to my monkey cooperation video; very relevant and Frans de Waal is a true giant in ethology.
This very book has been on my to-read list for some time, but I didn't realize it had already come out; thanks for the heads up! :-)
tehinfidel 2 years ago
Thanks for accepting the add. You video reminded me of de Waal's work....
2bsirius 2 years ago
I was talking with a group of people. And we were talking about the justification of torture. I argued that there may be a justification of torture if, say, we can avoid a nuclear holocaust. We will torture someone to get info to avoid the bomb (or any other weapon of mass destruction).
It seems stright forward. One against millions of people. But what is at issue is the philosophy of individualism. Never to harm a individual in principle. (principle!)
Israe5l 2 years ago
Comment removed
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
Ok. If Murphy's law is true. Someone in the future who has a time machine will nuke the hell out of the universe. The reason this may be true, because we got a lot of time ahead. Enough time to come up with a time machine. And studpid enough people to kill us all.
Israe5l 2 years ago
Great Point. Don't Get 2 Pieced.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
The future people are ethical. Argument: in the future people will have a bomb to destroy the universe and they will have a time travel capability. So they can go back in time and blow up the universe. This is perfectly possible because of the murphy's law. But we are still living. What is wrong? Well the future people are ethical.
Israe5l 2 years ago
Where's the compassion from the christian "mom" now when the kid start questioning her bullshit?
watch?v=3mcOIyf9TOQ
I could kill you and no jury would believe it. Okay, that was cute.
watch?v=bEg1wlyM8V8
Skip to the 8:00 mark. "Wow, it's like Southpark, she means Dallas you know that show?"
watch?v=LrYzfg2OcSw
Some people just need a visit from an armed Karen and Gina.
joesub007 2 years ago
The word "God" is human kind's highest form of technology.
Israe5l 2 years ago
I think, to be empathetic is to be human.
should be an interesting read...
Thanks for the video
axel1million 2 years ago
I can see Gary starting to twitch at the mention of any anthropomorphised quality in nature....
The book is available from Amazon in the UK.
Colston 2 years ago
In many primate species, the tendency toward social or group harmony is demonstrably stronger among the female members of the species. The males, likely due to hormonal differences, tend to be more concerned with status within their social group than females, but not to the exclusion of displays of empathy (while less consistent, males can be altruistic). I saw one nature program where female monkeys shunned, then assaulted, an abusive male whose aggression had gone too far. He lost leadership.
Tophet7 2 years ago
De Waal makes many of the same points in the book. He points out that the alpha male is often the one who offers empathic responses...
2bsirius 2 years ago
I saw that on National Geographic too. And let me say this, all social animals (those that live in groups and have to cooperate to survive) as a rule, tend towards harmony. If not, the species would have never evolved towards cooperation and the species would never have survived. (When thinking about intelligent life outside of Earth one would have to think the same. How could a social, intelligent life form survive and reproduce if they didn't tend toward cooperation?)
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
So if they come to Earth they, hopefully, should come in peace. Or something like that.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
No, it was PBS.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll be sure to look for it at book stores or the library when I get the chance. :)
HaleyMary 2 years ago
Being a big fan of Dostoyevsky, I learned "compassion" from him in my youth. It was obvious that I should reach out to others. And the confidence that I can make the difference. But then as I grow up, I learned that I need to close myself up to survive. Because my personal "survival" is vital to the "compassion". There is a task for me in the future to be "compassionate" but if I am not alive, then there is nothing to it.
Israe5l 2 years ago
Comment removed
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
Widely shared!
slobomotion 2 years ago
"Can human beings show REAL empathy?"
As opposed to what? Fake empathy?
Of course. We're social animals ...
lol. nice thinkings anywaze
[maybe before we decide what is selfish we must decide what is self.]
TWITfromURANUS 2 years ago
By REAL empathy I was trying to point out that some social Darwinists claim that empathy and altruism are just disguised selfishness...Yet the deepest motivation for empathy might not matter as much as we think. In the long run it feels good to do good...So does that make doing good invalid? No...
Your point about deciding what the self IS-- Yes, I agree that is most important question we need to TRY to understand!
2bsirius 2 years ago
Comment removed
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
It feels good to be good because we derive feelings of elation, happiness, and joy when we do moral acts such as altruism. (When no one is witness to some moral act we commit, we're STILL commiting it out of our own self interest. What's the self interest? Making oursleves feel good.)
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
And it does matter, because if everything we do is in our own self interest (including being empathetic and altruistic when no one else is witness to it) then we're more inclined to be IMMORAL than MORAL. If everything comes down to survival and reproduction and we're all predisposed to be selfish, self centered and only out for our own self interest, then being IMMORAL at the expense of the group will be more common than not.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
reminded me of those old Reading Rainbow episodes on PBS, with the clouds and music and all
ElectronicPhone 2 years ago
ty girl.
fckuvrymch 2 years ago
sharp fellow.
fckuvrymch 2 years ago
Sounds interesting - will put it on my endless list...
It's not just that we can find evidence of empathy in nature - there's ample evidence of empathy in us. From the overt rewards we get from social interaction to the more hidden rewards we get from our wiring, there are a lot of factors that push us to interact & cooperate to achieve goals. Aside from curbing magical thinking, I think one of the major goals of our time is to manage these tendencies so people are both productive & happy.
FeelFreeToArgue 2 years ago
Love is the essence of life, only love keeps the flame of life alive.
divinacomedias 2 years ago
Does the book mention W D Hamilton's work by any chance?
divinacomedias 2 years ago
watch?v=8hSYTe2AwJQ
Well worth watching all 9 parts.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Yes, I know about this series. A link is already in my sidebar. Dawkins appears twice in the book...First, de Waal talks about how Jeff Skilling -- the CEO of Enron who is now in prison -- was a great fan of The Selfish Gene BECAUSE he misunderstood the concept as unconstrained cutthroat competition and tried to mimic that idea with the workforce at Enron, with disastrous results. He makes the point that Skilling thought that because our genes are selfish then we must be selfish too.
2bsirius 2 years ago
Further, de Waal also makes the point that he and Dawkins have been critical of each other in print before the documentary you're pointing to. Dawkins thinks de Waal exaggerates empathy in animals, and de Waal thinks that the selfish gene metaphor is too easy to misunderstand.
Take a look at the book if you have the time. I think you'd find it interesting...I did.
2bsirius 2 years ago
I didn't.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
Sounds a fascinating read! You always offer such great recommendations. The issue you mention of trust in social groups with sizeable disparities of income, etc., does speak to me — thinking also about the imbalances we create through prejudice and oppression, and how that can't be maintained as it sets up an counter-drive by oppressed groups to work towards stasis/equilibrium. And yes — groan — the number of times figurative talk like 'selfish gene' is strawmanned as literal! ;8)
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
YES, exactly!
2bsirius 2 years ago
I'll definitely be checking this out :) Thanks for the info.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
If there's a natural law that altruism pays overall, then it's in our individual best interests to be altruistic. If not, then statistical laws of nature can't help us choose which ones to 'follow'. If there were such a law, I don't see any conflict between that and the idea of it being a law of God's. His laws would have to be recommendations anyway, rather than enforced dictats, because since his laws are what necessarily holds, if altruism was universal, there'd be no need for laws.
gerontodon 2 years ago
De Waal is NOT making the point that there is some "universal law of altruism" [or of empathy for that matter]...His point is that often empathetic reactions are more adaptive than hostile, competitive reactions, both for the individual and the larger group's long term survival...
He is a primatologist, and he bases his observations concerning empathy on the behavior of higher primates [baboons, chimpanzees, etc] AND on human social organizations...Look at the book for more details.
2bsirius 2 years ago
Yes sorry, I was reacting more to the title of the video than the video. It reminded me of arguments I've heard before, on YT, and in Dawkins' books, that if we understand how our sense of morality evolved, that's enough to help us make choices. We wouldn't be here if it weren't for the ancestors of our cells co-operating with each other and with mitochondria, but whether they know or care about anything, and so that could be called 'altruism' is a moot point.
gerontodon 2 years ago
Thanks for the recommendation. Will get a copy.
dregret 2 years ago
True social evolution would have to include the abolition of money.
No money, no greed, no profit motive, no disparity.
Technology would progress at a dizzying rate.
No sickness, no hunger, nothing to fight over.
Paradoxically, we would be following the Biblical teachings of Christ.
Just one, really.
Love one another.
tomken8dy 2 years ago
money is a virus that seeks to consume us.
just my opinion. i totally agree with you, i think the human race is slowly -- WAY too slowly -- becoming a better species and at some point money will be done away with.
highway234 2 years ago
highway234
The people who control the wealth are holding it back very effectively.
Money is power and power tends to corrupt.
tomken8dy 2 years ago
quite true but i also think money affects the mentality of people who don't have much of it. it makes people in general more fearful and submissive, and it tends to trump human life in importance.
MisterRiffley 2 years ago
MisterRiffley
So we should rid ourselves of it.
It only causes misery.
tomken8dy 2 years ago