WD Hamiltion

[Dataika]

I was debating with a capitalist and he cited Hamilton and the selfish group theory which basically says that because animals gather in groups with the strongest in the front and the weakest in the rear, it shows that nature is selfish. Get rid of the weaker and keep the stronger.

I responded by saying that they are evolved and this is a part of self-preservation. How would you respond? Or, rather, how would you refute such an argument?

[elijahcraig]

I was debating with a capitalist and he cited Hamilton and the selfish group theory which basically says that because animals gather in groups with the strongest in the front and the weakest in the rear, it shows that nature is selfish. Get rid of the weaker and keep the stronger.

This is not false, the weak perish: this is evolution. But you also reach a point in evolution when reason enters into the equation, consciousness of the situation,etc., the ability to appreciate weakness (slave-morality) as also a form of power. Martrydom is a form of will to power.

I also think that the reason the "weak" are destroyed is because it is out of necessity, not "nature". Under socialism, there would be no "need" for the weak to perish: but for the means to be available to give all the opporunity to live.

Is this a good thing is the question I suppose? Should the weak be cuddled and hand-fed? Does this hinder the human experience? Art? Thought? Science? A slump in intellectualism?

[Dataika]

Thanks for the response. He was trying to use this example to prove that humans are naturally selfish because if animals whom have no consciousness are selfish, what makes us think that humans aren't?

That was basically his point.

I think you did a good job at explaining how it doesn't necessarily apply to humans, and how it's not out selfishness but rather necessity for self-preservation.

[BuyOurEverything]

If we were living in the forest with no technology then maybe it would be a good thing to let the physically weak die and save the rest of society but most of us don't live in the forest anymore. Killing off the weak is bad for society anyways because in a society where physically weak people can survive easily, physical strength hasnothing to do with survival and weak people can signifacantly add to society. Should we kill of Stephen Hawking because he would die if we left him alone in the forest?

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 08:40 AM
I was debating with a capitalist and he cited Hamilton and the selfish group theory which basically says that because animals gather in groups with the strongest in the front and the weakest in the rear, it shows that nature is selfish. Get rid of the weaker and keep the stronger.

I responded by saying that they are evolved and this is a part of self-preservation. How would you respond? Or, rather, how would you refute such an argument?
I guess I would have just told him he is talking out his ass and trying to make facts where no facts exist, then ask him what specific animal out of the 60,000,000 that inhabit this planet is he speaking of. Herd animals, predators, prey.... Whoever you were talking with was making up false facts to fit his/her belief system or personal theory. I don't know what evidence suggest that the weakers go in the back, when the weakest would be the youngest and most animals will surround and protect their young when there is danger. Elephants innertwine their weaker with their stronger, fish swim all together... I would attack his false facts.

What he is using is a "Might makes right" type attitude. It is an alpha male type suggestion that the strong deserve to go on and reproduce and the weak don't. Since this exists in nature to some degree, it is okay for us to duplicate that. Unfortunelty with our intellect, we are more moved to compassion, which is also a quality that is in nature. If we were not compassionate as a society, we wouldn't have doctors, eyeglasses, hearing aids, retirement homes....

Intelligence has allowed us to push our compassion past the animal kingdom's might is right rule. And that rule is usually only used in pack/herd animals, and only for direction, mating and first pick on food.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 03:40 PM
I was debating with a capitalist and he cited Hamilton and the selfish group theory which basically says that because animals gather in groups with the strongest in the front and the weakest in the rear, it shows that nature is selfish. Get rid of the weaker and keep the stronger.
What does in that situation make the one in the front be the one who survives? I dont get it. But really, this "theory" is stupid.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 02:25 AM
If we were living in the forest with no technology then maybe it would be a good thing to let the physically weak die and save the rest of society but most of us don't live in the forest anymore. Killing off the weak is bad for society anyways because in a society where physically weak people can survive easily, physical strength hasnothing to do with survival and weak people can signifacantly add to society. Should we kill of Stephen Hawking because he would die if we left him alone in the forest?
Good point. Excellent and simple post, I agree with this.

[Dataika]

Let me post what he said in its entirety in order for you to understand what he was implementing in his post..

"W.D. Hamilton established the selfish herd theory sometime in the... mid 1900's? Something like that. You see, when animals are threatened by predatory animals, they naturally flee. But what you don't notice is the organization of the animals. Every escaping herd has different levels of concentric circles in increasing size. The central circles are the most dense of whatever given animal it is per square whatever measurement you want to use. As you reach the outer circles, it is less dense despite the increased surface area. Now why is this? Why do all these animals scurry to the center and THEN run? Because the more targets you put between you and what wants to devour you, the less of a chance there is for you to be singled out and eaten. Therefore, the most of most power is the position in which the animal puts as many levels between itself and the outside.

Now let's think about this for a second. Let's think about some of the most powerful people in the world. Presidents, Prime Ministers, CEOs, etc. These people have power. They also have managed to isolate themselves from the general masses. Between the President/CEO, there are several levels of people. For instance, as a CEO, you've got the rest of the corporate shareholders, the upper level management, the lawyers, the lower level management, finance, public relations, etc etc etc all the way down to the janitor and the cubicle. The President works the same way. The most powerful positions in the world are the ones that place as many levels of society between you and the general masses. Putting oneself above all others is the staple of existence for mankind. There is not a single action that is selfless. Not one. Not even a bird making a warning call to alert the rest of the flock is altruistic. Because if the bird says nothing and flees by itself, it has now singled itself out and has become the primary target. When fleeing with the flock as an entire unit, it has ensured its own individual safety by giving the predator not one, but too many targets to choose from.

There is a reason why communism does not work. There is a reason why it has not been tried. There is also a reason why not even Marx believed in pure Communism, because he was not stupid. As a matter of fact, he criticized people who supported pure Communism."

Now how would you respond to this? Great replies by the way. I think you're mistakenly thinking that he's ipmlying social darwinist theory, when he's really trying to say that humans do everything for selfish reasons, and it's natural because it occurs in nature.. How would you respond?

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 02:40 AM
it shows that nature is selfish.
Actually, there is no such thing as "human nature", which is what you really meant or implied. Human nature is no longer a term used by scientists.

There is something that can correspond to "human nature" though. The term is "fixed action patterns" which are basically movements that require little or no specific individual experience for normal execution. In humans, these include smiling and sucking. These are important for a baby to survive. Smiling is important for social contacts, and sucking is for sucking the milk out of a mother's breast.

Greed and/or selfishness are not fixed action patterns. They are learned or developed from experience. For example, if you grow up in an environment where greed is unacceptable, then it is most likely that you will not be greedy. But if you were born in an environment where greed is acceptable, then you are most likely going to be greedy. There are exceptions in each case, however.

Greed and selfishness are praised in today's world, but there are a few "nutters" like myself who have rejected this view. :redstar2000:

[Dataika]

Originally posted by Comrade James+Oct 29 2003, 04:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade James @ Oct 29 2003, 04:34 AM)
[email protected] 29 2003, 02:40 AM
it shows that nature is selfish.
Actually, there is no such thing as "human nature", which is what you really meant or implied. Human nature is no longer a term used by scientists.

There is something that can correspond to "human nature" though. The term is "fixed action patterns" which are basically movements that require little or no specific individual experience for normal execution. In humans, these include smiling and sucking. These are important for a baby to survive. Smiling is important for social contacts, and sucking is for sucking the milk out of a mother&#39;s breast.

Greed and/or selfishness are not fixed action patterns. They are learned or developed from experience. For example, if you grow up in an environment where greed is unacceptable, then it is most likely that you will not be greedy. But if you were born in an environment where greed is acceptable, then you are most likely going to be greedy. There are exceptions in each case, however.

Greed and selfishness are praised in today&#39;s world, but there are a few "nutters" like myself who have rejected this view. :redstar2000: [/b]
My guess is he would reply to this with the idea that they are still being selfish in that they are looking out for their best interest. Because they aren&#39;t being selfish so they themselves will be accepted.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Dataika+Oct 30 2003, 03:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dataika @ Oct 30 2003, 03:10 AM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2003, 04:34 AM

[email protected] 29 2003, 02:40 AM
it shows that nature is selfish.
Actually, there is no such thing as "human nature", which is what you really meant or implied. Human nature is no longer a term used by scientists.

There is something that can correspond to "human nature" though. The term is "fixed action patterns" which are basically movements that require little or no specific individual experience for normal execution. In humans, these include smiling and sucking. These are important for a baby to survive. Smiling is important for social contacts, and sucking is for sucking the milk out of a mother&#39;s breast.

Greed and/or selfishness are not fixed action patterns. They are learned or developed from experience. For example, if you grow up in an environment where greed is unacceptable, then it is most likely that you will not be greedy. But if you were born in an environment where greed is acceptable, then you are most likely going to be greedy. There are exceptions in each case, however.

Greed and selfishness are praised in today&#39;s world, but there are a few "nutters" like myself who have rejected this view. :redstar2000:
My guess is he would reply to this with the idea that they are still being selfish in that they are looking out for their best interest. Because they aren&#39;t being selfish so they themselves will be accepted. [/b]
There have been some instances in modern history where people have stopped being selfish, and this has produced attempted uprisings and revolutions.

There is no reason why it can&#39;t happen again. :redstar2000:

[elijahcraig]

If we were living in the forest with no technology then maybe it would be a good thing to let the physically weak die and save the rest of society but most of us don&#39;t live in the forest anymore. Killing off the weak is bad for society anyways because in a society where physically weak people can survive easily, physical strength hasnothing to do with survival and weak people can signifacantly add to society. Should we kill of Stephen Hawking because he would die if we left him alone in the forest?

I think by “weak” we mean “ordinary”, “common”, “sheeplike”, “the herd”, “slaves”, etc.; not “weak physically”.

I don’t know if it would be possible to sustain artistic and intellectual evolution when “covered” with the “weak” (ie, the slaves). A dictatorship against the aristocracy would mean a dictatorship against the intellect. This is a question Communists need to answer. Nietzsche saw this and addressed it.