"The Selfless Gene"?

This video is a response to Olivia Judson's article "The Selfless Gene," which appeared in the October issue of The Atlantic.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• evolution
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• gene
• genetics
• ethics
• philosophy
• metaphysics
• science

[neotropic9]

"TheScholarBookWorm" is a pretty misleading username. Why don't you read the selfish gene before making a video on the subject (yes, I can tell you haven't read it)? Or do you not think you have to read the book in order to have an understanding of it?

[TheScholarBookWorm]

You're right, I haven't read Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, but this video has nothing to do with that. This video is in response to Olivia Judson's "The Selfless Gene," an article in The Atlantic. It's an easy mistake to make.

[neotropic9]

The article no doubt was based on the book, or else why the play on words?

In light of the discussion of altruism in Dawkins book your points made in this video seem amateurish and off the mark -they are easily dismissed by Dawkins. I would definitely recommend reading the book to someone with scholarly aspirations for evolutionary theory.

[TheScholarBookWorm]

Actually, it was not based on Dawkins' book, but on the research of another scientist--Hamilton was his name (I don't have the article in front of me). But yes, thanks for the suggestion, I've been meaning to read Dawkins. However, my true interest lies not in science but in philosophy, and I only venture to comment where the two spheres overlap.

[TheScholarBookWorm]

Winning a debate against me about science wouldn't be much of a victory, which is why, if you'll notice, my most important points are on ethics and metaphysics.

[Merlend]

You missed something. Yes, in theory, the "selfless gene" should be phased out because of natural selection in that the one carrying the gene will not reproduce. But she goes on to explain that the gene remains in the gene pool because the carriers of this gene help their close kin in raising children which likely carry the gene as well, even if it may be recessive. Get your facts straight before you start talking about how something doesn't make sense.

[armnesasfa]

Hi my name's Bruce. You make interesting points, but one thing I think that should be taken note of is how she explains altruism is indeed beneficial. It is not the individual itself that wants to survive or continue to live, but rather, unbeknownst to the individual, it is the gene that wants to exist beyond the individual, which exists theoretically in close proximity, as she explains with a mathematical equation, in that whom is being saved or sacrificed for. Thus the gene lives on.

[StudentDan]

Morality is prescriptive. It tells us how we ought to behave. Since evolution merely descrbes behavior from the past, it cannot account for the prescriptiveness of morality. For example, evolution can't answer the question "Why should I not be selfish?" because it's a question about what one should do and not merely a description of behavior.

[studio7manga]

Morality can be viewed as "how to behave amongst peers." Since we are social animals certain attitudes/behaviors would be selected against via natural selection, a tribe full of murderers would be less fit than a tribe where everyone worked together, for example. In this way morality can be understood from an evolutionary standpoint. This IMO is a good explanation as to why we act moral (most of the time) and why we define acting in this way to be moral.

[StudentDan]

Why should one be fair if it's not to their benefit? Evolution cannot tell us why we ought to be moral because the question is a philosophical one. At best, evolution can only describe how our brains let us grasp moral concepts.

[studio7manga]

"independent of science and naturalism"

should just be

"independent of science"

[studio7manga]

One final thing, basic morality is intrinsic to all healthy human beings this can be seen in the most basic codified laws around the world and over time: rape, murder, stealing, etc. We are social animals and antisocial behaviors would be selected against and social behaviors would be selected, hence, evolutionary explanation.

[studio7manga]

Someone forgot about recessive genes... high school biology anyone?

Also we aren't ruled by our genes, we are products of our minds, among other things.

The argument about "removing good and evil" is misguided as well. WE define good and evil independent of science and naturalism, science is merely a tool to find the truth of reality. And morality can be defined quite easily naturalisticly, in simplest terms it can be boiled down to Harm and Fairness. Also Reason.