Evolution affirms whatever is extant. Today we find evidence of altruism as the keystone to the success of Man's decent. In ten thousand years egoism may rule the day as the cause of our survival. In that case egoism would be valued as a virtue.
This reminds me of the economic principle behind "The Dictator Game." It's all about economic altruism, google it. The wikipedia article goes a long way to describing it too.
What does 'atruism' mean? It is commonly defined as selfless behaviour - but, as described here, it is not selfless. I doubt 'altruism' as commonly envisaged actually exists, since there are underlying self-interested motives for pretty much everything anyone does.
Well, true altruism may not really exist in humans, but it does exist in nature. For example : social insects like ants, termites and bees. Most of them live just to serve the queen. They are totally selfless and sacrifice their life any time it is necessary. Bees are a very good example. When a bee stings, it commits a suicide attack.
@witalian1 But isn't that due to the high level of genetic similarity between the queen and her servitors? The suicidal bee commits hari kari to preserve it's own genes - they don't sacrifice themselves defending strange hives (which would be 'true' altruism).
Hi. I agree with your views on evolution, bu I have some objections on you politics.
It is not true that communism/socialism ignores altruism. Infact communism embraces altruism, and relies on altruism. In the communist system each individual is working for the good of society and not for himself. An individual living under communism is selfless whether he likes it or not. The same is true for nationalism and national socialism...
... Of Course the ruling class in those societies is not altruistic, but that is true for the ruling class in all societies. The positions of power always attracts the power hungry. It is a nichе and the best equipped to survive in that niche are the power hungry.
You are allso slightly wrong in your portrayal of capitalism. In capitalism the rich do not compete against the poor, and they do not become rich on the expense of the poor...
... In capitalism the producers compete against each other, and the ones that are better at serving the customers are the winners. The workers are also competing against each other, and the most skilful workers get the paid jobs. The consumers also compete against each other and they drive the price of scarce goods up.
The rich do not compete with the poor. The rich become rich by doing work thats useful for the people so the people and the people agree to give the their money
... Just like in nature different bee hives compete against each other, and different flowers compete against each other, but the bees and the flowers cooperate. In the marketplace the employers compete against each other and that drives wages up, the workers compete against each other and that drives wages down so both groupes actually work in each others interest. The competition between poducers drives prices down and the competition between consumers drives them up.
Not necessarily. I'm an egoist communist. One of the central tenets of libertarian communism/socialism is mutual aid (see Kropotkin's biological Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution).
That means you are not communist. You are a libertarian, that has made a personal choice to help others, but you have the freedom to choose not to do that. In communism, you don't have that choice. You do what others had chosen for you, or you go to the gulag.
There is mutual aid in nature. There is even altruism in nature, but obligatory altruism(collectivism) is not good for humans.
No, you're mistaken. If you look up how Marx defined communism it was quite the opposite of what the USSR was. HE defined it as a stateless, moneyless, classless society based on the free association of producers (google the latter), this is known as pure communism (google also).
I believe that if everyone acted in their self-interest we would reach libertarian communism (i.e. pure communism without Marxist transitional phase).
What the USSR did was the only possible way to implement comunism in reality.
People are different. If they are free, some will choose to cooperate, some will choose to compete. The only way to make everybody cooperate is by force.
However comunism can not work even if everibody cooperates, because in a monyless society, you can't have market prices, and you can not hope to make rational economic decisions.
The problem is in the "labor theory of value". Marx thinks that the amount of labor put in the production of somthing is what gives it its value. That's just not true. You can waste infinite amnount of effort on useless activities without producing anything valuable. What makes thing valuable is the demand for it. If people need something, and you produce it, it is they who give the thing its value, not your labor. That's why you need market prices.
Very well said . Thank you :)
VitalApparatuz 6 months ago
Evolution affirms whatever is extant. Today we find evidence of altruism as the keystone to the success of Man's decent. In ten thousand years egoism may rule the day as the cause of our survival. In that case egoism would be valued as a virtue.
notonewhit 9 months ago
@notonewhit
If you have said empathy, I would probably agree, but altruism - not so much. Being social and being selfless are not the same thing.
witalian1 9 months ago
I liked the video, very thought provoking. Though the sound wasn't that great
TheIdealGasLaw 9 months ago
Impostor! You're not Charles Darwin...... I believe he is dead.. :P
purewilderness 9 months ago
This reminds me of the economic principle behind "The Dictator Game." It's all about economic altruism, google it. The wikipedia article goes a long way to describing it too.
ARKAtheist 9 months ago
Now I see why your vids were recommended to me.
abjectreality 9 months ago
What does 'atruism' mean? It is commonly defined as selfless behaviour - but, as described here, it is not selfless. I doubt 'altruism' as commonly envisaged actually exists, since there are underlying self-interested motives for pretty much everything anyone does.
BinkyHuckleback 9 months ago
@BinkyHuckleback
Well, true altruism may not really exist in humans, but it does exist in nature. For example : social insects like ants, termites and bees. Most of them live just to serve the queen. They are totally selfless and sacrifice their life any time it is necessary. Bees are a very good example. When a bee stings, it commits a suicide attack.
witalian1 9 months ago
@witalian1 But isn't that due to the high level of genetic similarity between the queen and her servitors? The suicidal bee commits hari kari to preserve it's own genes - they don't sacrifice themselves defending strange hives (which would be 'true' altruism).
BinkyHuckleback 9 months ago
@BinkyHuckleback
Yes that's true, but that does mot change anything. The genes are selfish. The individuals are altruistic.
witalian1 9 months ago
Viva la Evolucion!
preptimenow 9 months ago
Hi. I agree with your views on evolution, bu I have some objections on you politics.
It is not true that communism/socialism ignores altruism. Infact communism embraces altruism, and relies on altruism. In the communist system each individual is working for the good of society and not for himself. An individual living under communism is selfless whether he likes it or not. The same is true for nationalism and national socialism...
witalian1 9 months ago
@witalian1...
... Of Course the ruling class in those societies is not altruistic, but that is true for the ruling class in all societies. The positions of power always attracts the power hungry. It is a nichе and the best equipped to survive in that niche are the power hungry.
You are allso slightly wrong in your portrayal of capitalism. In capitalism the rich do not compete against the poor, and they do not become rich on the expense of the poor...
witalian1 9 months ago
@witalian1 ...
... In capitalism the producers compete against each other, and the ones that are better at serving the customers are the winners. The workers are also competing against each other, and the most skilful workers get the paid jobs. The consumers also compete against each other and they drive the price of scarce goods up.
The rich do not compete with the poor. The rich become rich by doing work thats useful for the people so the people and the people agree to give the their money
witalian1 9 months ago
@witalian1 ...
... Just like in nature different bee hives compete against each other, and different flowers compete against each other, but the bees and the flowers cooperate. In the marketplace the employers compete against each other and that drives wages up, the workers compete against each other and that drives wages down so both groupes actually work in each others interest. The competition between poducers drives prices down and the competition between consumers drives them up.
witalian1 9 months ago
@witalian1 You're right. True altruism, one sacrifices oneself for others. The communist/socialist system is built on this. Well said.
216trixie 9 months ago
@witalian1
Not necessarily. I'm an egoist communist. One of the central tenets of libertarian communism/socialism is mutual aid (see Kropotkin's biological Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution).
GlobalAlternateMedia 8 months ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia
"I'm an egoist communist."
That means you are not communist. You are a libertarian, that has made a personal choice to help others, but you have the freedom to choose not to do that. In communism, you don't have that choice. You do what others had chosen for you, or you go to the gulag.
There is mutual aid in nature. There is even altruism in nature, but obligatory altruism(collectivism) is not good for humans.
witalian1 8 months ago
@witalian1
No, you're mistaken. If you look up how Marx defined communism it was quite the opposite of what the USSR was. HE defined it as a stateless, moneyless, classless society based on the free association of producers (google the latter), this is known as pure communism (google also).
I believe that if everyone acted in their self-interest we would reach libertarian communism (i.e. pure communism without Marxist transitional phase).
GlobalAlternateMedia 8 months ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia
What the USSR did was the only possible way to implement comunism in reality.
People are different. If they are free, some will choose to cooperate, some will choose to compete. The only way to make everybody cooperate is by force.
However comunism can not work even if everibody cooperates, because in a monyless society, you can't have market prices, and you can not hope to make rational economic decisions.
witalian1 7 months ago
@witalian1
That's especially bad since in comunism the economy is centraly planned.
witalian1 7 months ago
@witalian1
The problem is in the "labor theory of value". Marx thinks that the amount of labor put in the production of somthing is what gives it its value. That's just not true. You can waste infinite amnount of effort on useless activities without producing anything valuable. What makes thing valuable is the demand for it. If people need something, and you produce it, it is they who give the thing its value, not your labor. That's why you need market prices.
witalian1 7 months ago
You have to have the best beard on YouTube.
monkeytail2002 9 months ago
I always find your videos informative, Viva la Evolucion!
LogicalThinker667 9 months ago
Nice job, thank you and keep these up.
viicISrotcib 9 months ago