>That's why Trivers, Williams and other evolutionary biologists defined
>altruism as a risking reproductive potential with no immediate reward. They
>avoid all this
but is that how they define altruism in the human realm as well? if so, i
don't think it's a very relevant definition.... for example, if Bill Gates
gives 90 percent of his money to charity (annonymously; not that he could,
but for the sake of argument), would we not consider that altruistic? of
course he would have in no way jeapordized his reproductive potential....
bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Peter Singer - An Interview
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 1:53 PM
>Subject: Re: FW: Peter Singer - An Interview
>
>
>>>Saying reciprocal altruism is not real altruism because the giver
>>(potentially)
>>>gets something out of it, is a lot like saying we are all egoists because
>>>everything we do we we do because we want to do it.
>>
>>yes wayne, that's it.... thanks....
>>
>>bryan
>
>
>That's why Trivers, Williams and other evolutionary biologists defined
>altruism as a risking reproductive potential with no immediate reward. They
>avoid all this
>sb
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|