uh, i think i forgot to attach the attachment.... :) here goes....

It's really a paradox. At the deepest levels, there's really no difference
between selfishness (in the true sense of the word, not the modern misused
version, i.e. selfishness doesn't nescessarily equal greediness) and
altruism. To explain, I'll have to take a step back. It is said in the
Bible (I'm not a Christian but there are some deep truths in the bible if
interpreted correctly) that God made mankind in his image. Now, contrary to
what some may believe, this doesn't mean that God looks like a human. What
it means is that before "creation," God was one. God was all there was.
One unified conciousness. Then God sort of got bored with that (not really
bored in the sense that we get bored, but s/he wanted to "know"
him/herself). God wanted to form him/herself into a myriad of different
things, including humans, in order to relate to him/herself. So, god made
matter and then entered it. We are made up of the exact same stuff as God.
That's what the bible means when it says that God made us in his/her image.
Now, to say that we are God, or for me to say that I am God not only sounds
blasphemous, but a little preposterous as well. So I won't. But that's the
idea. We're made of the same stuff. So... my point is that at the deepest
level we are all one. God is by nature selfish, because he's all that
really exists. And we're the same way. Since we're all one, we're not
really helping another when we help someone else. At the deepest level,
we're actually helping ourselves. That's why it feels good. Now most of us
have forgotten that we're all one, so we think that if we do something in
the best self interest of ourselves as separate beings, that we're being
selfish, and if we do something in the best interest of someone else, that
we're doing something altruistic. But those of us who realize that the
other is not really separate from us, do things for other in our own self
interest. And that's why altruism=selfishness. That's why it's a paradox.
;)
Bryan Hyden
-----Original Message-----
From: John Foster <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Peter Singer - An Interview


>At 08:28 PM 11/30/1998 -0600, Wayne Van Tassell wrote:
>
>>The chimps grooming each other is used as an example of reciprocal
>>altruism by so many authorities on the subject (Dawkins, de Waal, etc.)
>>that it seems rather pointless to deny it. The cost may be small, but I
>>am certain it is measurable, if only in terms of lost opportunities (ie
>>time spent grooming another could be time spent gathering food,
>>sleeping, etc. I understand the total amount of time chimps spend in
>>grooming is substantial. Taken in the aggregate, there is certainly
>>survival implications.
>
>There is a book on the evolutionary origins of virtue by Mat Ridley. The
>author is a zoologist and essentially states in his book "The Origins of
>Virture: human instincts and the evolution of cooperation" that there are
no
>examples of altruism in animals. This is because there are no examples
where
>an animal will risk itself for another species or risk itself for a
>genetically unrelated individual unless it is for some selfish return. He
>provides numerous examples, and states that cooperation exists primarily
>where groups have genetic similarities as in siblings, parents and so on.
Or
>where there is some reason to suspend short term selfish interest. The
>example of vampire bats regurgitating a nights blood back in the roost in
>Costa Rica shows that bats that "reciprocate" confer survival advantage
onto
>themselves by doing so. The evidence is overwhelming, and it supports the
>"selfish gene" behind all social cooperation. For instance bees and ants
and
>termites within a colony are genetically related, many of the "workers" are
>not able to reproduce except through the queen, so commit themselves in
this
>act of "altruism" but in animals it probably has no emo
tional motivation
>exactly. Robert Trivers stated too that the "reciprocity" is advantages but
>it is not true altruism, but a "tit for tat" behavioral adaptation in
>genetically distinct animals.
>
>If altruism exists as humans know it, it could only exist in a species that
>could comprehend right and wrong. In an animal this is probably not
>possible. I have never heard of an animal being or feeling quilty, having a
>conscience. I have never heard of banishment of individual animals. There
is
>competition among animals that leads to forced leaved from a group, but
>there are no animal courts of justice. If a monkey is grooming another
>monkey, then it is likely a sister of brother and genetically the same or
>perhaps a half brother or sister. Humans on the other hand have to teach
>their young to be moral. We spend a great amount of effort teaching
children
>how to respect other person's feelings, and that the animals must be
>protected, and natural resources must be conserved.
>
>It has also been argued that true altruism to be true altruism could not
>result in feelings of satifaction in the giver, but only in the recepient.
>Altruism cannot be felt as being beneficial to one's emotions; that is, an
>altruistic act must be a true scarifice where one donates a kidney to one's
>brother or something that is not going to necessarily be beneficial to
one's
>health or longivity but is done - on balance - to save another person from
>dying. The criteria for a true act of altruism is an act that is not
>reciprocal in anyway. The terms of contradictories, therefore, altruism is
>giving without expectation of a personal return, even happiness, but only
>the happiness of the recipient. Certainly the love of a brother is the
>reason for the donation, but the gift is completely selfish since brothers
>don't usually need to "earn love from the other brother."
>
>Hence the brotherhood and sisterhood of labour unions, sororities, orders,
>etc., brethren and sistren of the common live of the "devotia moderno"
>
>Chao Mien
>
>jf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> I'll admit that I haven't read up on this topic in years and
>>> years, so my thinking may be out of date. If there are any
>>> evolutionary biologists out there, it would be nice to hear
>>> from them. I'll ask a couple of my friends who still keep
>>> current in this area and see if anything has been happening.
>>>
>
>





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%