The Selfish Gene & Altruism

IN THIS LINK, DAWKINS TALKS ABOUT BILL HAMILTON'S VIEWS OF ALTRUISM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qc2hn
IF YOU HAVE TIME CHECK IT OUT. OR DOWNLOAD IT TO YOUR IPOD!
The pervasive tendency toward altruism within our species is accepted by almost all evolutionary biologists today. What is the subject of debate is the evolutionary basis for the altruism which has resulted in our empathetic traits. This subject has gotten a lot of attention during the recent documentary centring on the work of Frans de Waal and Richard Dawkins' interviews of de Waal.

My personal view of the role of altruism is not that of Dawkins or of Hamilton, but I think this view is very important and it's critical to understand that it is not just a rehash of the old Hobbes cliché of "red in tooth and claw."

I'm posting this very short video to try to add depth to the often one-dimensional view of what Richard Dawkins meant when he spoke of the "selfish gene" in his ground breaking work by the same title.

This short excerpt is from an interview Richard Dawkins did with Charlie Rose. It is used here strictly for educational purposes. To watch the full interview:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/594
[If that link doesn't work for you, here's on to the same video on Google Videos.]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2033780970508916664&ei=9NdmS-2CB4...
The images are reproduced under generic licence from the Creative Commons under attribution 2.0.

SORRY ABOUT THE SOUND QUALITY.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• richard
• dawkins
• selfish
• gene
• altruism
• yt:stretch=16:9

[davidthecook]

You all should buy his 30th anniversary edition, It has many footnotes in it rather than an appendix to make clear things that changed slightly or improvements to parts in added research, It was fantastic to read and because of the footnotes doesn't read like many 30 year old books.

[2bsirius]

@davidthecook

Yes, exactly...

Thanks for the comment.

[deliciousonionsoup]

The Selfish Gene - he explains his book very well. It's a shame that people protest against that particular book when they don't understand the basis of his Selfish Gene premise. I liked the bit where he said it's been largely misunderstood by those who haven't even read it. We all too easily jump to conclusions after seeing soundbites / headline terms. But then RD has to take a little responsibility for people having misunderstood his the Selfish Gene because he chose that headline term.

[2bsirius]

@deliciousonionsoup

I agree.

[TheraminTrees]

Altruism does seem to've had a rocky time doesn't it?? ;8) You even get those folks who say there's no such thing, because there's always *some* payoff to the person giving, however small, even if it's just a little 'glow' from giving. I find that a trivial, pedantic approach. I think altruism can be viewed in terms of the balance of costs and benefits to the self — and with that perspective I think we have a very workable basis for discourse in the areas of biology/evolution.

[1tabligh]

The atheist Delusion!

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

[samjenkinssam]

Very enjoyable thank you

[kevinmorais]

Yea he says there is No God...Yet he doesn't support DMT Studies...Is Dawkins a Shill? He blames others for not reading his book, yet makes claims against a greatre awareness without DOING A STUDY WITH DMT? Is Dawkins a Shil? Me thinks so, But I would have to first perform a Shil Study, perhaps he sill volinteer for a Shill Stud?

[florinmoc]

The selfish gene makes people nice and altruistic, unless it makes them mean and selfish...

[2bsirius]

@WiseMonkey888

We drew different conclusion...

[john42t]

@TheresonlyoneSparky Then again, maybe you're right. The only way to find out would be to get in touch with Dawkins though.

[john42t]

@TheresonlyoneSparky For a long time, I read nothing into it, but now I'm pretty convinced that there is something going on that isn't really nice at all. I'm not talking about conscious dishonesty, but about a subconscious desire to obfuscate things in areas of human thought that deal with morality. I believe instincts to be at work at the origins of religion as well as Dawkins rationalization of his book. Ironically, I have an explanation based on the Selfish Gene Theory.

[TheresonlyoneSparky]

@john42t Have you considered that you might be reading into this more than is necessary?

[TheresonlyoneSparky]

@john42t Simple- Dawkins looks at it from a biological standpoint. He does not claim to be a philosopher and his book does not enter into any deep debate about human motivations. He looks at genes and examples, but our current society as it stands is not as reliant on genetics as wild populations as we live in a less dangerous way. For us, altruistic acts mean spending an hour helping someone, not risking your life to protect your young. That is why we are different.

[john42t]

@TheresonlyoneSparky If it's not about us, why the fuss? Obviously he's defending himself against allegations of attacking altruism. One party must have it wrong, which one is it? I believe it's Dawkins. His enemies don't mean altruism to mean reciprocal altruism, kin-selection, politeness or collaboration. The don't mean value for value. They mean value for nothing. They mean sacrifice.