Humans are alturisitc

[Drace]

I'm not sure if I this link has already been posted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all

[IcarusAngel]

Richard Dawkins wrote an introduction to a book called "The Evolution of Cooperation" (or something similar) where a political scientist did an experiment that showed that cooperative strategies are more effective in certain mathematical games than competitive ones.

The evidence is overwhelming and it seems that humans (and other species) are cooperative to some extent. It's not just biology that confirms it but mathematics as well.

Why should we then purpose systems that are based on competition and other aspects of human nature that are bad, like how imperialism is based on murder? Why are capitalists even needed?

All this evidence really makes you question capitalism on a whole new level, not that it is just a failed economic system that exists by statism and terror.

[Drace]

where a political scientist did an experiment that showed that cooperative strategies are more effective in certain mathematical games than competitive ones.That's quite irrelevant though. The question is whether humans are naturally cooperative and helpful rather than whether what is more effective.


It's not just biology that confirms it but mathematics as well.

Just because cooperation in mathematical games is often better, doesn't mean mathematics proves humans are biologically good.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, the reasoning is that if people work together it produces the most desirable outcomes. It's like a more simplified case. Of course, I agree that hard biological evidence is more important. Economics and human interaction may very well be highly mathematical.

Dawkins himself is a scientist and has noted numerous kinds of evidence to show the cooperative aspects of some species and attempts to explain it so that people can understand it.

[Tatarin]

I would say that cooperation is natural when necessary, but not always, thus capitalism and other exploative systems. When the cooperative community is functioning without bigger difficulties then that is when some take up "the leadership" which can later turn into exploitation.

[Coggeh]

That's quite irrelevant though. The question is whether humans are naturally cooperative and helpful rather than whether what is more effective.



Just because cooperation in mathematical games is often better, doesn't mean mathematics proves humans are biologically good.
Humans aren't naturally cooperative , naturally being competitive and being cooperative when both are necessary is what we should be naturally , but because of moral constraints we may be cooperative when it doesn't suit us or the same with being competetive.

The point is that , people in capitalism success when their being greedy and people are shaped by this condition that greed= success . If we were to replace the system with a system where abouts greed didn't equal success and favoured cooperation then humans would be more "altruistic"

Nature means little when the societal influence is so strong in one direction as it would be under socialism/anarchism in favour of a more altruistic society where altruism is what determines success and not greed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Anyone interested in seeing the theory of 'inclusive fitness' (the main theoretical excuse for explaining altruism away) taken apart, check this book out:

Stove, D. (2006), Darwinian Fairytales (Encounter Books, 2nd Ed.).

This was written by an atheist who thinks that Darwin's theory is the best we have, despite its serious weaknesses