CH. 1-The Selfish Gene

113 posts / 0 new

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jul 17 2006 12:52

O.k., I have reread the first chapter, and I can see very little that is controversial in there. There are a few points that I would like to comment on to get the discussion rolling.

Richard Dawkins on P3 wrote:

It is a fallacy-incidentally a very common one-to suppose that genetically inherited traits are by definition fixed, and unmodifiable. Our genes may instruct us to be selfish, but we are not necessarily compelled to obey them all our lives.

I think that this is a very important point. Obviously human beings have the ability to go against their genetic programming. The decision of some people not to have children shows that. Just because we are programmed to behave in a certain way, it doesn't mean that we have to follow that programming. I think that the discussion about whether we are programmed to be selfish, or altruistic should wait until chapter 12, but it is clear here that he says that we can, and do go against our programming. Humans have the ability to make conscious long term decisions for the benefit of the species. Other animals don't have this.

Richard Dawkins on P2 wrote:

However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals

I think that this allows for Martinh's point that:

Martinh wrote:

I would argue, along with Chris Knight who I mentioned before, that social solidarity was selected during the evolution of hominids and particularly at around 120,000 years ago when we became modern homo sapiens.

While not agreeing with him on the specific point, it does allow for the possibility.

Richard Dawkins on P4 wrote:

It is important to realise that the above definitions of altruism and selfishness are behavioural, not subjective. I am not concerned here with the psychology of motives.

I think that this is important. With people, it doesn't matter how we rationalise an action, it is the results of that action that are important. With animals, I think it is a huge mistake to project human values onto them. This goes to anything from Dolphins 'raping' to gorillas keeping 'Harems'

Richard Dawkins on P4 wrote:

It is a very complicated business to demonstrate the effects of behaviour on long term survival prospects. In practice, when we apply the definition to real behaviour, we must qualify it with the word 'apparently'. An apparently altruistic act is one that looks, superficially, as if it must tend to make the altruist more likely (however slightly) to die, and the recipient more likely to survive. It often turns out on closer inspection that the acts of apparent altruism are really selfishness in disguise. Once again, I do not mean that the underlying motives are secretly selfish, but the real effects of the act on survival prospects are the reverse of what we thought.

I think that this is a very important paragraph. I want to give two examples:

a) Grooming in chimpanzees-In chimpanzees the act of grooming is apparently altruistic. If chimpanzee A spends half an hour grooming chimpanzee B, then it is half an hour that it could have spent looking for food, and would therefore make it 'more likely (however slightly) to die'. However, if chimpanzees can remember the actions of another chimpanzee, which I am pretty sure that they can, and refuse to groom one that has previously refused to groom themselves, not grooming would therefore have a negative effect on survival chances, and therefore grooming although it seems to be an altruistic act would actually be a selfish one. I know I am discounting other social purposes of grooming here.

b) Parents protecting their young. I want to be even more 'gene based' than Dawkins here, and say that the individual isn't important, but that the genes that it carries are. let us change his sentence to 'An apparently altruistic act is one that looks, superficially, as if it must tend to make the altruist more likely (however slightly) to flourish in the gene pool.

If for example an animal (which is past breeding age) has a gene which makes it likely to sacrifice itself for its young, it is more likely that the genes of that animal would survive than one whose parent didn't. This would make what seems to be a completely 'altruistic' act, into one that actually perpetuates its own genes, and therefore would make this gene more common in the gene pool.

O.k. that is a few points to get it going. What do people think? Is there anything else that people found interesting?

Devrim

AnarchoAl

Offline

Joined: 29-05-04

Jul 17 2006 13:11

Quote:

b) Parents protecting their young. I want to be even more 'gene based' than Dawkins here, and say that the individual isn't important, but that the genes that it carries are. let us change his sentence to 'An apparently altruistic act is one that looks, superficially, as if it must tend to make the altruist more likely (however slightly) to flourish in the gene pool.
If for example an animal (which is past breeding age) has a gene which makes it likely to sacrifice itself for its young, it is more likely that the genes of that animal would survive than one whose parent didn't. This would make what seems to be a completely 'altruistic' act, into one that actually perpetuates its own genes, and therefore would make this gene more common in the gene pool.

Actually, Dawkins does go this far (though maybe not in the first chapter?).

I think the correct way of stating it is: A gene or polygene which causes altruistic behaviour towards other individuals who carry that gene is more likely to be copied and passed on.

In fact, where "altruistic" behaviour is "behaviour that increases the odds of another individual's survival and reproduction", it's pretty much tautological.

magnifico

Offline

Joined: 29-11-05

Jul 18 2006 11:47

Devrim wrote:

I think that the discussion about whether we are programmed to be selfish, or altruistic should wait until chapter 12,

Are you sure Dev? As I remember it, this is the subject t of much of the book in that Dawkins is arguing that animals are always selfish except towards close relatives. Chapter 12 merely goes into some ways in which animals might evolve a very limited form of co-operation with non-kin using the 'prisoners' dilemma' as a theoretical model. So he doesn't just ignore questions of selfishness and altruism until chapter 12, rather they are central to the whole book and are elaborated on in a new way in chapter 12. To ignore them until we get to that chapter would mean that we ignore much of what is said up till then IMO.

One point he makes in the 'Why Are People' chapter which interests me and which is relevant to the discussion I was having on the other thread is:-

RD on p8 wrote:

The individual selectionist would admit that groups do indeed die out, and that whether or not a group goes extinct may be influenced by the behaviour of the individuals in that group. He might even admit that if only the individuals in a group had the gift of foresight they could see that in the long run their own best interests lay in restraining their selfish greed, to prevent the destruction of the whole group. How many times must this have been said in recent years to the working people of Britain? But group extinction is a slow process compared with the rapid cut and thrust of individual competition. Even while the group is going slowly and inexorably downhill, selfish individuals prosper in the short term at the expense of altruists. The citizens of Britain may or may not be blessed with foresight, but evolution is blind to the future.

This is the point I was trying to make when I talked about short term and long term 'interests' (of course we know genes don't have 'interests' any more than they are 'selfish', but it's a handy metaphor used throughout the book). Or course, Dawkins makes it more clearly than me, one of his great strengths (dodgy references to the 'working people of Britain' notwithstanding, though at least he has the decency to be embarassed about that now!). The point is that acting altruistically in the best interests of the group may be in an animal's long term interests, but acting selfishly will almost always be in it's short term interests, and this is what counts.

With regard to Dev's points -

1) this is in my opinion the most encouraging thing in Dawkins for libertarian communists. He demonstrates that our genes predispose us to act in such a selfish way that it becomes obvious that we must be defying them every day. And if we can defy them enough wear condoms or help out random strangers, then why can't we defy them enough to have libertarian communism?

2) I don't think the way Dawkins talks about this does allow for the evolution of 'social solidarity'. He talks only about kin altruism and very limited forms of tit-for-tat co-operation, not anything as broad as 'social solidarity'. I would be interested to read what Chris Knight said at some point.

3) I agree, but it can be a useful way of explaining things as long as we remember that they are metaphors. Dawkins talks a lot about harems, for example.

4) I agree with Dev entirely, here and think that these points are important to remember. AnarchoAl is also correct - Dawkins does go this far, this is where he becomes controversial and interesting even to other evolutionary biologists.

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jul 18 2006 14:53

magnifico wrote:

Devrim wrote:

I think that the discussion about whether we are programmed to be selfish, or altruistic should wait until chapter 12,

Are you sure Dev? As I remember it, this is the subject t of much of the book in that Dawkins is arguing that animals are always selfish except towards close relatives. Chapter 12 merely goes into some ways in which animals might evolve a very limited form of co-operation with non-kin using the 'prisoners' dilemma' as a theoretical model. So he doesn't just ignore questions of selfishness and altruism until chapter 12, rather they are central to the whole book and are elaborated on in a new way in chapter 12. To ignore them until we get to that chapter would mean that we ignore much of what is said up till then IMO.

Yes, I think you are right, and I am wrong.

magnifico wrote:

2) I don't think the way Dawkins talks about this does allow for the evolution of 'social solidarity'. He talks only about kin altruism and very limited forms of tit-for-tat co-operation, not anything as broad as 'social solidarity'. I would be interested to read what Chris Knight said at some point.

I disagree. You have to take into account that not all animals know who their kin are. For some animals it would be reasonably likely that any individual they meet would be kin. Therefore a gene for social solidarity could develop.

Dev

magnifico

Offline

Joined: 29-11-05

Jul 18 2006 19:56

Devrim wrote:

magnifico wrote:

2) I don't think the way Dawkins talks about this does allow for the evolution of 'social solidarity'. He talks only about kin altruism and very limited forms of tit-for-tat co-operation, not anything as broad as 'social solidarity'. I would be interested to read what Chris Knight said at some point.

I disagree. You have to take into account that not all animals know who their kin are. For some animals it would be reasonably likely that any individual they meet would be kin. Therefore a gene for social solidarity could develop.

But animals will only evolve kin altruism if it is beneficial for their gene(s) to do so. Kin altruism evolves only in situations where a gene that says 'act altruistically towards those who are closely related to you' assists copies of itself to become more numerous in the gene pool. If the animal for some reason is unable to tell which animals it is closely related to and so assumes that they all are and so acts altruistically to all, then it will inevitably be expending energy assisting animals which don't have this gene for kin altruism or 'social solidarity'. These other more 'selfish' animals will therefore benefit from the altruism but won't waste energy, put themselves in danger etc. giving any in return, and their genes for 'selfishness' will therefore become more successful and numerous in the gene pool, preventing any generalised 'social solidarity'. The gene for selfishness will be more successful than the one for social solidarity, and so the altruistic gene will not be selected for.

In situations where the animal knows who its kin are this is not a problem, because animals closely related to it are likely to have this same gene for kin altruism and so by helping them it will be helping this gene to replicate. Once it starts helping those who are not closely related to it and may not possess this gene, however, the argument breaks down as a selfish animal will clearly be more successful than an altruistic one.

Or to put it into the language Dawkins will use later in the book, generalised social solidarity is not an 'Evolutionary Stable State' (ESS) because it would only take one selfish 'free rider' gene to invade the gene pool and replace the altruistic ones.

EDIT:- I don't think I've explained this very clearly. To try and clarify:- The most common way for a gene to become more frequent in the gene pool is for it to assist the body that it is in to survive and/or reproduce. Kin altruism is another way for a gene to become more common in the gene pool, in that it occurs when a gene causes the body it is in to behave in such a way that it assist other bodies to survive and/or reproduce, bodies that are closely to related to its own body, and so will almost certainly also carry copies of itself - in other words, it is helping copies of itself in other bodies to replicate and so becoming more common in the gene pool. If the body it is in has no way of knowing who it is related to, then any gene which causes it to show altruism to others will in most cases be helping not copies of itself to replicate, but rivals to itself - genes for other behaviours, for example selfishness. Thus if a population of animals does not know who they are related to, then kin altruism will not evolve, never mind become the basis of wider 'social solidarity', because such a gene would be helping other genes to prosper at its own expense - this behaviour does not help it to become more common in the gene pol, but rather less common.

The example Martin used of males provisioning their mates as a forerunner of social solidarity is also flawed IMO - the reason males do this (in many species of animal, as well as in humans) is because of a partial female victory in a genetic 'battle of the sexes' that we will get to in chapter 9.

The following quote from the opening chapter shows Dawkins' view of whether or not we have genes for social solidarity - I also wanted to quote this passage because of it's particular relevance to libertarian communists:-

RD on page 3 wrote:

This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to.

Steven.

Offline

Joined: 27-06-06

Jul 18 2006 20:04

Just to let you know - I've added links to this discussion on the libcom.org reading group post on this forum

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jul 18 2006 22:17

magnifico wrote:

But animals will only evolve kin altruism if it is beneficial for their gene(s) to do so. Kin altruism evolves only in situations where a gene that says 'act altruistically towards those who are closely related to you' assists copies of itself to become more numerous in the gene pool. If the animal for some reason is unable to tell which animals it is closely related to and so assumes that they all are and so acts altruistically to all, then it will inevitably be expending energy assisting animals which don't have this gene for kin altruism or 'social solidarity'. These other more 'selfish' animals will therefore benefit from the altruism but won't waste energy, put themselves in danger etc. giving any in return, and their genes for 'selfishness' will therefore become more successful and numerous in the gene pool, preventing any generalised 'social solidarity'. The gene for selfishness will be more successful than the one for social solidarity, and so the altruistic gene will not be selected for.

But in fact all animals are kin, and those of the same species in a limited geographical area probably quite close kin. I am not arguing that it is true, but it could be a mechanism in which 'social solidarity' could prosper. Because by displaying this solidarity they are helping their genes to the extent that they are distributed in the gene pool. Dawkins suggests in 'River out of Eden' that all 'English' people are related since the Norman conquest. This is quite a short period geologically speaking, and one would expect there to be distinct similarities in the genetic make up.

Dev

magnifico

Offline

Joined: 29-11-05

Jul 18 2006 22:51

The crux of my argument on this matter is that showing altruism to your kin is an 'Evolutionarily Stable Strategy' whereas showing altruism to a general population, even if they are reasonably closely related, is not. I'm not sure if I should go into too much detail on this concept now, as it is addressed later in the book and would perhaps be better saved for then.

Essentially it means that in a population of altruists, a selfish animal will have a clear genetic advantage because it will benefit from the altruism of others without having to give any in return. So the population of altruists is not 'stable', because selfishness will be rewarded within such a population and therefore the proportion of genes for selfishness will increase.

A population of kin-altruists can be 'stable', because individuals less inclined to behave altruistically towards their kin will be promoting their own genes for selfishness in the same way as I have described above, but at the same time penalising the same gene in their siblings, children etc. by behaving selfishly towards them. So a gene for pure selfishness could in fact be less successful in the gene pool than a gene for kin-altruism. Whilst large populations may be quite closely related, they are nowhere near as closely related as immediate family and therefore nowhere near as likely to possess the particular gene in question - if I remember correctly Dawkins does not allow for kin-altruism beyond first cousins.

I cannot think of any examples of 'social solidarity' in nature. Can anyone else?

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Jul 18 2006 22:59

What I don't understand is when Dawkins talks about us being able to go against our genes. Surely our consciousness and our socialability that allows us to do this is infact the product of our genes. In a sense our consciousness represents the development of evolution to the point where by it creates an agency that supercedes it.

#10

magnifico

Offline

Joined: 29-11-05

Jul 18 2006 23:33

revol68 wrote:

What I don't understand is when Dawkins talks about us being able to go against our genes. Surely our consciousness and our socialability that allows us to do this is infact the product of our genes. In a sense our consciousness represents the development of evolution to the point where by it creates an agency that supercedes it.

Yes, that's how I read it. I think he is saying that, whilst our genes for instinctual behaviour are programmed for selfishness, evolution has also (initially for other reasons) selected for big brains and amazing learning ability, which allows us to, as you say, understand and supercede this 'programming'. Our big brains are of course a result of our genes as well, but the higher functions of them came about relatively recently in evolutionary time. So perhaps we didn't evolve altruism, we discovered it (my words not Dawkins').

#11

jef costello

Offline

Joined: 9-02-06

Jul 19 2006 00:03

Devrim wrote:

Dawkins suggests in 'River out of Eden' that all 'English' people are related since the Norman conquest. This is quite a short period geologically speaking, and one would expect there to be distinct similarities in the genetic make up.
Dev

That is quite simply wrong, unless we are talking about the aristocracy and even then I'd argue against it.

Evolution is influenced by chance as much as anything else, all evolution has taken place in species that were unable to comprehend evolution, so any "innate wisdom" they display is the result of massive trial and error. And as we can see from documented history even Humans cannots know what is best for themselves. For example the Ibo left twins out to die, this ha no genetic advantage, but evolution failed to counter it. Evolution is a very inexact science, so many die, so few decide, probability suggests that the best will survive, but this is not always the case.

#12

magnifico

Offline

Joined: 29-11-05

Jul 19 2006 00:31

Jef wrote:

That is quite simply wrong, unless we are talking about the aristocracy and even then I'd argue against it.

Dawkins actually goes into quite a lot of detail about how we can work out how long ago our common ancestor was in a number of books, it's very interesting and does seem to work out as more recent then you'd think. I can't remember the exact details right now, I don't think it's all that important for this discussion.

Jef wrote:

Evolution is influenced by chance as much as anything else, all evolution has taken place in species that were unable to comprehend evolution, so any "innate wisdom" they display is the result of massive trial and error. .

Evolution is not at all 'trial and error'. Variations in the gene pool are random, but their differing rates of survival are highly selective, especially when viewed over evolutionary time. Do you think that your eye evolved through simple 'trial and error'? Why does a species need to understand evolution in order to evolve?

Jef wrote:

And as we can see from documented history even Humans cannots know what is best for themselves. For example the Ibo left twins out to die, this ha no genetic advantage, but evolution failed to counter it. Evolution is a very inexact science, so many die, so few decide, probability suggests that the best will survive, but this is not always the case

I don't know who the Ibo are (presumably some tribe?), but blaming stupid cultural taboos on our genes is well dodgy, scientifically and politically. Are you saying that this irrational belief was innate and in the Ibo's genes, that they have/had a gene for 'leaving twins out to die' that could be naturally selected for or against, and that if an Ibo person was brought up in another culture they would have continued with this practise because it was genetically programmed? I'm sorry but that is both ludicrous and racist, so I presume you didn't think it through properly. Would you say that people from muslim, christian or anarchist families similarly have their beliefs dictated to them by their genetic code? And can you think of any examples from non-human animals of similarly evolutionarily insane actions? There aren't any, because evolution doesn't allow them to arise - humans are a special case, in that we have developed complex cultures which have allowed us to co-operate in creating civilisation, but have also given rise to some very strange behaviours from an evolutionary point of view (such as leaving babies out to die, or taking priestly oaths of celibacy, for example).

#13

jef costello

Offline

Joined: 9-02-06

Jul 19 2006 01:08

magnifico wrote:

Jef wrote:

That is quite simply wrong, unless we are talking about the aristocracy and even then I'd argue against it.

Dawkins actually goes into quite a lot of detail about how we can work out how long ago our common ancestor was in a number of books, it's very interesting and does seem to work out as more recent then you'd think. I can't remember the exact details right now, I don't think it's all that important for this discussion.

It is important if you wish to defend the point that he made.

Quote:

Evolution is not at all 'trial and error'. Variations in the gene pool are random, but their differing rates of survival are highly selective, especially when viewed over evolutionary time. Do you think that your eye evolved through simple 'trial and error'? Why does a species need to understand evolution in order to evolve?

I don't know how to engage with someone who thinks that evolution is not random. Trial and error was an inexact analogy I admit, but it wasn't too bad.

I am not being racist, I'm simply saying that behaviours of animals (hiumans includced) are not necessarily in favour of natural selection.

Theoretically and animal should defend it's partner rather than its offspring if genetic diversity is its aim. But that is rarely how it works is it?

I'm simply saying that genetic mutations, like ridiculous behaviours are often random and survive through luck rather than superiority.

For example Kosher and Halal butchering and proscriptions are both defensible from a hygiene point of view. This does not mean that the rest of the belief syustem has any validity.

#14

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Jul 19 2006 01:16

Quote:

Theoretically and animal should defend it's partner rather than its offspring if genetic diversity is its aim. But that is rarely how it works is it?

Genetic reproduction is the aim (well not an aim as such but the dynamic) so an animal will put it's offspring who have it's genes rather than a partner who doesn't.

Seriously this is basic stuff.

#15

Red Marriott

Offline

Joined: 7-05-06

Jul 19 2006 01:49

jef wrote:

magnifico wrote:

Jef wrote:

That is quite simply wrong, unless we are talking about the aristocracy and even then I'd argue against it.

Dawkins actually goes into quite a lot of detail about how we can work out how long ago our common ancestor was in a number of books, it's very interesting and does seem to work out as more recent then you'd think. I can't remember the exact details right now, I don't think it's all that important for this discussion.

It is important if you wish to defend the point that he made.

I'm not clued in enough on your topic to know if this is really relevant, so will stay out of it - but in case it is; a Somerset man can trace his ancestry back 9,000 years.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9807EEDB133BF937A15750C0A961958260

#16

EdmontonWobbly

Offline

Joined: 25-03-06

Jul 19 2006 02:16

Overall his argument seems pretty sound. I like the fact he tries to write in plain language, generally I take this as a pretty radical thing for a scientist to do. I don't really wanna quibble with anything right at this point, though he does seem to tak an awfuly extreme point of view.

Perhaps the kin selection and altruism point was what Plato was getting at whgen he suggested in the Republic that we abandon 'ownership' of children and instead of having families we tell everyone they came from the dirt.

#17

jef costello

Offline

Joined: 9-02-06

Jul 19 2006 06:26

revol68 wrote:

Quote:

Theoretically and animal should defend it's partner rather than its offspring if genetic diversity is its aim. But that is rarely how it works is it?

Genetic reproduction is the aim (well not an aim as such but the dynamic) so an animal will put it's offspring who have it's genes rather than a partner who doesn't.

Seriously this is basic stuff.

Yes, so logically you defend the partner with which you can produce more offspring rather than risk your own life to defend the offspring.

Also there has been muddling of defending one's own genes and ensuring variety.

What I am trying and probably failng to get across is that animals may be hardwired to scertain responses, this does not mean that they are effective. It's hard for a conscious being to know what is best for her/himself let alone one that has nothing but accumulated instinct and some conditioning to work from.

#18

Steven.

Offline

Joined: 27-06-06

Jul 19 2006 09:16

Jef Costello wrote:

revol68 wrote:

Quote:

Theoretically and animal should defend it's partner rather than its offspring if genetic diversity is its aim. But that is rarely how it works is it?

Genetic reproduction is the aim (well not an aim as such but the dynamic) so an animal will put it's offspring who have it's genes rather than a partner who doesn't.

Seriously this is basic stuff.

Yes, so logically you defend the partner with which you can produce more offspring rather than risk your own life to defend the offspring.

Jef sorry but this is plain wrong, and very illogical. The "purpose" of any gene is to perpetuate itself. Thus defending your offspring comes before all else. You can easily find another partner - it would take far more energy to make new offspring.

#19

MalFunction

Offline

Joined: 31-10-03

Jul 19 2006 09:25

(history /genetic sidebar)

Quote:

British outbred by Anglo-Saxon 'apartheid'
July 18 2006 at 04:05PM

By Richard Ingham

Britain - The Anglo-Saxons who conquered England in the fifth century set up a system of apartheid that enabled them to master and outbreed the native British majority, according to gene research published on Wednesday.

In less than 15 generations, more than half of the population in England had the genes of the invaders, investigators say.

"The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years," said Mark Thomas, a University College London biologist.

'They prevented the British genes from getting to the Anglo-Saxon'

"An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage.

"We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised," he said.

"This is what we see today - a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language."

Thomas believes the study, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a British journal, answers key questions about one of the turning points in European history.

The Anglo-Saxons - Germanic tribes who lived in present-day Germany, northern Holland and Denmark - invaded Britain in 450 AD after the fall of the Roman empire.

They conquered England but were unable to penetrate far into the Celtic fringes of what are now Wales and Scotland. They coincidentally prompted an exodus of Britons to what is now Brittany, France.

The population of England at that time was probably around two million while the number of Anglo-Saxons was minute: the lowest estimate puts the number of migrants at less than than 10 000 some 200 years after the invasion, although others put it at more than 100 000.

How could such a tiny minority have ruled a country so emphatically?

How could it skirt assimilation with the native British majority and impose a language, laws, economy and culture whose stamp is visible today?

The answer, suggest Thomas and colleagues: an "apartheid-like social structure" that enshrined Anglo-Saxons as the master and the native Britons (called "Welshmen", from the Germanic word for slave) as the servants.

Evidence for this comes from ancient texts, including the laws of Ine, the late seventh-century ruler of Wessex, an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in western England.

Ine set down payments of "wergild", or blood money, that was payable to a family for the killing of one of its members in order to prevent a blood feud.

If an Anglo-Saxon was killed, the wergild was between two and five times more than the fine payable for the life of a "Welshman" of comparable status.

Burial sites also provide a pointer about economic and social disparity.

The skeletal remains of men believed to be Anglo-Saxons are often found alongside a weapon or other precious artefacts, whereas those of native Britons are usually weaponless and have only one or two objects.

In previous work, Thomas' team compared the gene pool among native, white Englishmen in central England today and counterparts in the ancestral lands of the Anglo-Saxons.

They found that the two groups shared between 50 percent and 100 percent of telltale variations in the male sex chromosome, Y.

In the latest research, he used computer simulations to try to explain how segregation would have enabled the Anglo-Saxons to flourish and the native Britons to decline.

The computer model uses various scenarios involving the size of the immigration influx, different ethnic intermarriage rates and the reproductive advantage of being Anglo-Saxon, with more wealth and resources.

Apartheid is best known today for the notorious racial segregation that prevailed in white-minority South Africa.

But the authors point out that there are many other examples in history, when conquerors or settlers used such controls to avoid assimilation, nurture their identity and maintain their political, military or economic supremacy over an ethnic majority.

By the time of King Alfred the Great in the ninth century, the differences in legal status between Anglo-Saxons and Britons had faded out altogether.

Two centuries later, the Normans invaded England and imposed their own apartheid, giving themselves higher legal status than the Britons and allowing Norman men to marry native women but preventing native men from marrying Norman women. - Sapa-AFP

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=588&art_id=qw1153228321565B216

(book arrived today so hope to get started on it later!)

#20

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Jul 19 2006 09:27

Jef Costello wrote:

revol68 wrote:

Quote:

Theoretically and animal should defend it's partner rather than its offspring if genetic diversity is its aim. But that is rarely how it works is it?

Genetic reproduction is the aim (well not an aim as such but the dynamic) so an animal will put it's offspring who have it's genes rather than a partner who doesn't.

Seriously this is basic stuff.

Yes, so logically you defend the partner with which you can produce more offspring rather than risk your own life to defend the offspring.

Also there has been muddling of defending one's own genes and ensuring variety.

What I am trying and probably failng to get across is that animals may be hardwired to scertain responses, this does not mean that they are effective. It's hard for a conscious being to know what is best for her/himself let alone one that has nothing but accumulated instinct and some conditioning to work from.

Did you do biology at school?

Maybe you should spend some of your big salary on Dawkins books. tongue

Didn't you also say you work less hours too, see you should have no problem then.

grin

#21

magnifico

Offline

Joined: 29-11-05

Jul 19 2006 10:05

Jef wrote:

I am not being racist, I'm simply saying that behaviours of animals (hiumans includced) are not necessarily in favour of natural selection.

I'm sure you're not consciously being racist but this thinking can lead only to racist conclusions.

You said that the Ibo (which I presume are a race or tribe of humans somewhere) leave twins out to die and that 'evolution failed to counter' this behaviour. But evolution works only on genes, not on aspects of human culture - for evolution to counter this behaviour then it would have to be genetically programmed into the Ibo, they would have to have genes which made them more or less likely to leave twins out to die which could be selected for or against by natural selection pressures. It's the same with your halal and kosher examples - muslims and jews are not genetically programmed to kill/prepare their food in these particular ways, rather they are the result of tradition and culture - they have nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection or evolution. To say that they do is to say that different races have different beliefs hardwired into their genes, which IMO is a ridiculously right-wing position.

Jef wrote:

Theoretically and animal should defend it's partner rather than its offspring if genetic diversity is its aim. But that is rarely how it works is it?

Jef wrote:

Also there has been muddling of defending one's own genes and ensuring variety.

As revol & John said, an animal would defend it's offspring as the offspring would contain approximately half of its own genes, whereas a partner would most likely contain none. Animals don't 'aim for genetic diversity' or variety except inasmuch as they try to avoid incest, which would penalise their own genes by making their offspring more likely to be disabled or whatever - they don't defend unrelated animals for the good of the species' genetic diversity, this would be an example of the universal altruism which I am arguing does not occur in nature.

Jef wrote:

What I am trying and probably failng to get across is that animals may be hardwired to scertain responses, this does not mean that they are effective. It's hard for a conscious being to know what is best for her/himself let alone one that has nothing but accumulated instinct and some conditioning to work from.

No-one is arguing that any species, conscious or otherwise, always knows what is best for themselves. What we are arguing is that if a behaviour has become naturally selected for and become a hardwired genetic 'instinct' then it must have done so for a reason. Natural selection is not random - yes the genetic variations are random, but the fact that some genetic variations survive and some do not is not at all random. Instincts which make an animal more likely to die might last for a few generations, but not for billions of years of evolutionary time, which is what we are talking about. An animal's instincts are as much a product of specific natural selection as its eyes, heart or nervous system, and are as amazingly finely tuned for its survival and reproduction as those organs are.

You are arguing that because animals don't understand evolution they will be unable to evolve evolutionarily beneficial behaviour. I would argue rather that it is humans who are more likely to behave in ways that are harmful to our genes' evolutionary success, precisely because we have become intelligent enough to do so. Animals who rely far more on instinct are far more likely to behave in a way that maximises their genetic success rate.

Can you find an example of behaviour that is manifestly not in the interests of one's genes, equivalent to the Ibo killing their babies, or somebody choosing not to have children, in the animal kingdom rather than amongst humans? You can't because there aren't any - natural selection has seen to it.

#22

martinh

Offline

Joined: 8-03-06

Jul 19 2006 10:28

magnifico wrote:

Can you find an example of behaviour that is manifestly not in the interests of one's genes, equivalent to the Ibo killing their babies, or somebody choosing not to have children, in the animal kingdom rather than amongst humans? You can't because there aren't any - natural selection has seen to it.

Actually, there are. Coots regularly kill the youngest or weakest of their offspring. I'm sure if i look I can find plenty more. Presumably, the runt is there as an insurance against predation of the stronger young. I believe hornbills do something similar, though thye just leavfe the runt to die rather than actively kill it like coots do.

Regards

Martin

#23

Steven.

Offline

Joined: 27-06-06

Jul 19 2006 10:30

magnifico wrote:

Jef wrote:

Theoretically and animal should defend it's partner rather than its offspring if genetic diversity is its aim. But that is rarely how it works is it?

As revol & John said, an animal would defend it's offspring as the offspring would contain approximately half of its own genes, whereas a partner would most likely contain none.

Ah ha well not with Jef! Maybe that's where the confusion's coming from

Oh and a minor pedantic point which I was trying not to make, but everyone on this thread is doing it about 10 times a post - the possessive form of "it" is "its" not "it's"!

#24

Steven.

Offline

Joined: 27-06-06

Jul 19 2006 10:32

martinh wrote:

magnifico wrote:

Can you find an example of behaviour that is manifestly not in the interests of one's genes, equivalent to the Ibo killing their babies, or somebody choosing not to have children, in the animal kingdom rather than amongst humans? You can't because there aren't any - natural selection has seen to it.

Actually, there are. Coots regularly kill the youngest or weakest of their offspring.

You don't think this could be a mechanism to stop resources being diverted from healthier, stronger ones from those who wouldn't stand a chance anyway?

#25

Nemo

Offline

Joined: 12-07-06

Jul 19 2006 10:33

John. wrote:

Oh and a minor pedantic point which I was trying not to make, but everyone on this thread is doing it about 10 times a post - the possessive form of "it" is "its" not "it's"!

#26

martinh

Offline

Joined: 8-03-06

Jul 19 2006 10:37

Devrim wrote:

magnifico wrote:

2) I don't think the way Dawkins talks about this does allow for the evolution of 'social solidarity'. He talks only about kin altruism and very limited forms of tit-for-tat co-operation, not anything as broad as 'social solidarity'. I would be interested to read what Chris Knight said at some point.

I disagree. You have to take into account that not all animals know who their kin are. For some animals it would be reasonably likely that any individual they meet would be kin. Therefore a gene for social solidarity could develop.

Dev

Many animals, esp primates, actively deceive thier kin and other group members. Part of Chris Knight's hypothesis is that females used deception as to fatherhood to get males to collectively provision thier babies, as otherwise they would only have had an interest in doing it for their confirmed offspring. In addition, hunting is something that was best done collectively (at least until the game was wiped out of most places).

There is more to say on this but I don't have time at the moment - will hopefully try to respond more

regards,

Martin

#27

martinh

Offline

Joined: 8-03-06

Jul 19 2006 10:42

John. wrote:

martinh wrote:

magnifico wrote:

Can you find an example of behaviour that is manifestly not in the interests of one's genes, equivalent to the Ibo killing their babies, or somebody choosing not to have children, in the animal kingdom rather than amongst humans? You can't because there aren't any - natural selection has seen to it.

Actually, there are. Coots regularly kill the youngest or weakest of their offspring.

You don't think this could be a mechanism to stop resources being diverted from healthier, stronger ones from those who wouldn't stand a chance anyway?

John.,

That's what i was getting at, though I see I didn't get at it very well. Ahh, the benefits of sleep

I think if something like this has evolved in a human society, there will be some sort of genetic self-interest underlying it. Perhaps a strong folk memory of a famine. There are plenty of examples of infanticide in many different societies.

Regards,

Martin

#28

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Jul 19 2006 10:50

martinh wrote:

John. wrote:

martinh wrote:

magnifico wrote:

Can you find an example of behaviour that is manifestly not in the interests of one's genes, equivalent to the Ibo killing their babies, or somebody choosing not to have children, in the animal kingdom rather than amongst humans? You can't because there aren't any - natural selection has seen to it.

Actually, there are. Coots regularly kill the youngest or weakest of their offspring.

You don't think this could be a mechanism to stop resources being diverted from healthier, stronger ones from those who wouldn't stand a chance anyway?

John.,

That's what i was getting at, though I see I didn't get at it very well. Ahh, the benefits of sleep

I think if something like this has evolved in a human society, there will be some sort of genetic self-interest underlying it. Perhaps a strong folk memory of a famine. There are plenty of examples of infanticide in many different societies.

Regards,

Martin

Not following, how is a folk memory "genetic". Either your not explaining yourself correctly or are some sort of German nationalist from 1912. tongue

#29

martinh

Offline

Joined: 8-03-06

Jul 19 2006 10:55

revol68 wrote:

martinh wrote:

John. wrote:

martinh wrote:

magnifico wrote:

Can you find an example of behaviour that is manifestly not in the interests of one's genes, equivalent to the Ibo killing their babies, or somebody choosing not to have children, in the animal kingdom rather than amongst humans? You can't because there aren't any - natural selection has seen to it.

Actually, there are. Coots regularly kill the youngest or weakest of their offspring.

You don't think this could be a mechanism to stop resources being diverted from healthier, stronger ones from those who wouldn't stand a chance anyway?

John.,

That's what i was getting at, though I see I didn't get at it very well. Ahh, the benefits of sleep

I think if something like this has evolved in a human society, there will be some sort of genetic self-interest underlying it. Perhaps a strong folk memory of a famine. There are plenty of examples of infanticide in many different societies.

Regards,

Martin

Not following, how is a folk memory "genetic". Either your not explaining yourself correctly or are some sort of German nationalist from 1912.

I'm not explaining myself very well embarrassed

I've got to go now - will come back to this later when hopefully my brain is working

regards,

Martin

#30

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Jul 19 2006 11:03

martinh wrote:

revol68 wrote:

martinh wrote:

John. wrote:

martinh wrote:

magnifico wrote:

Can you find an example of behaviour that is manifestly not in the interests of one's genes, equivalent to the Ibo killing their babies, or somebody choosing not to have children, in the animal kingdom rather than amongst humans? You can't because there aren't any - natural selection has seen to it.

Actually, there are. Coots regularly kill the youngest or weakest of their offspring.

You don't think this could be a mechanism to stop resources being diverted from healthier, stronger ones from those who wouldn't stand a chance anyway?

John.,

That's what i was getting at, though I see I didn't get at it very well. Ahh, the benefits of sleep

I think if something like this has evolved in a human society, there will be some sort of genetic self-interest underlying it. Perhaps a strong folk memory of a famine. There are plenty of examples of infanticide in many different societies.

Regards,

Martin

Not following, how is a folk memory "genetic". Either your not explaining yourself correctly or are some sort of German nationalist from 1912.

I'm not explaining myself very well

I've got to go now - will come back to this later when hopefully my brain is working

regards,

Martin

Thank god for that!

You were almost in the running for looking sillier than Jef on this thread.

#31

magnifico

Offline

Joined: 29-11-05

Jul 19 2006 11:09

John. wrote:

martinh wrote:

magnifico wrote:

Can you find an example of behaviour that is manifestly not in the interests of one's genes, equivalent to the Ibo killing their babies, or somebody choosing not to have children, in the animal kingdom rather than amongst humans? You can't because there aren't any - natural selection has seen to it.

Actually, there are. Coots regularly kill the youngest or weakest of their offspring.

You don't think this could be a mechanism to stop resources being diverted from healthier, stronger ones from those who wouldn't stand a chance anyway?

Yes, I agree with John. This has a clear evolutionary advantage in that the one killed is the one that probably won't survive anyway, so no point putting the energy into gathering food for it. This is different from randomly killing all twins regardless of how healthy they are, which must be due to superstition rather than survival strategy (unless you too are saying that human cultural taboos are a result of genetic adaptation? As I said to Jef, very dodgy ground. If killing twins does somehow benefit the group, and I don't see how it could (though perhaps killing one twin might be useful in some circumstances) then this will be a cultural adaptation, not a genetic one).

I think basically you (Martin) are disagreeing with Jef, in that you are saying that evolved behaviours must have a basis in genetic self-interest, and I agree with you entirely. I would argue that you have to be very careful when applying this principle to human behaviour, however, as much of what affects our behaviour is due to culture and learning, not genes.

martinh wrote:

Many animals, esp primates, actively deceive thier kin and other group members. Part of Chris Knight's hypothesis is that females used deception as to fatherhood to get males to collectively provision thier babies, as otherwise they would only have had an interest in doing it for their confirmed offspring.

But there would have to be a reasonable chance of it being their own offspring for this to work, wouldn't it, otherwise their wouldn't be a genetic advantage in doing this for the males, as they would almost certainly be provisioning for someone else's kids. I'm sure this could only happen in small groups where there is a reasonable probability that any given child will be the child of any given male. Does Chris Knight dispute this?

Chapter 9 has some fascinating stuff on these types of feminine wiles in the face of males being genetically predisposed to be total bastards - have you thought about how many more of your genes would be passed on if you left your partner with your new kid and instead went off impregnating as many young ladies as possible (and not calling them in the morning)? The only reason you don't do this is because your partner forced you to spend loads of time and energy 'wooing' her before she let you get her pregnant, so you have invested more time and energy into this particular baby than you other wise would have. She's got you by the balls! (Note, I've only said this for amusement value, i don't think we should start a discussion on this yet.)

martinh wrote:

In addition, hunting is something that was best done collectively (at least until the game was wiped out of most places).

Hunting is best done collectively, but in a population of collective hunters a selfish 'free rider' who doesn't join in will have a genetic advantage, so collective hunting by non-kin does not occur. The possible exception of this might be a kind of tit-for-tat coperation which we will get to in chapter 12, but that can only be very limited - it might explain lionesses who aren't genetically related hunting together for example (I think this occurs?). I would argue that there are no examples in nature of animals hunting together who are not either closely related or have been in regular contact with one another for long enough (eg through being 'wives' in a lion's 'harem') to build up a limited amount of reciprocal 'trust' on a personal level).

CH. 1-The Selfish Gene

Featured

Featured threads

Posting guidelines

Log in for more features

blog

news

library

history

libcom.org