I don't think that students of evolution are saying that behaviour of any
sort is immoral or not. They are saying that there are cooperative aspects
of living together as separate species that confer some benefits on to those
species which can learn to cooperate.

The role of cooperation in species interactions is to rule out
"opportunitistic and causal" relationships as not leading to mutual benefit.
Matt Ridley maintains that "the principle condition required for Tit-for-tat
to work is a stable, repetitive relationship. The more casual and
opportunistic the encounters between a pair of individuals, the less likely
it is that Tit-for-tat will succeed in building cooperation. Trivers noticed
that support for this idea can be found in an unusual feature of coral
reefs: cleaning stations. These are specific locations on the reef where
local large fish, including predators, know they can come and will be
'cleaned' of parasites by smaller fish and shrimps."

The analogy of the organism is a powerful one. In the above case of cleaner
fish the analogy is important since an organism is defined as a collection
of highly interdependent cells, tissues, organs and structures limbs, torso,
head, and so on. Trees have evolved cooperative mechanisms and processes
with other species. Very few people, even biologists, are aware of the
cooperation that exists between tree species. One method of cooperation is
known as inter specific root grafting. In some tree species the ability of a
tree to graft with the roots of another is quite pronounced. Here the trees
can exchange photosynthate, soil moisture uptake from roots, and minerals in
the soil solution. Are there any benefits?

During drought and during diurnal or nocturnal uptake of minerals and soil
moisture and exchange of photosynthate there are several advantages of
interspecific root grafting. Tree communities together benefit by reducing
wind velocity within a stand of trees, disease resistance is more pronounced
in multi species forests, there is less predation of seeds and propagules by
predators due to predator swamping, and trees benefit trees is universally
true in many other ways that are too lenghty to list here. For instance most
leguminosae species for instance are able to fix atmosphere nitrogen.
Nitrogen is often a limiting nutrient in forests and grassland biomes.
Mychorrizae benefit trees immensely by protecting the rootlets from
pathogens, and by increasing the absorptive area of the rootlet by as much
as 1000 times, thus resulting in very high rates of phosphate uptake and
soil moisture.

The greater the ecological amplitude of the tree species the greater the
number and density of the symbionts that would benefit from the tree species
- up to 27 species that live in rotten logs in Douglas-fir forests. AS the
division of functioniung and specialization increases in nature there is a
corresponding increase in the organization of previously distinct organisms
- for instance euvolvox is composed of cells that increase in specialization
when they are contained in large organisms. The analogical direction of
evolutionary adaptation is toward higher levels of organization and greater
specialization. Perhaps as we 'evolve' as a species there is maybe an
ultimate reason for doing so- as yet undefined but largely predicted by
biological sciences. Perhaps the fact that there is a greater and greater
tendency for species to cooperate through "stable and repetitive"
relationships and progress toward new levels of organization, there will be
a inter-phylic consensus to work toward (on a pan genetic basis) more
specialization and integration. The analogy is a very deep one that is
grounded in natural history as species become more specialized. The
hypothesis of Gaia has not been disproved or proved, however the theory may
still be proved, it would be foolish to rule out the supra-organism so soon.
The moral consequences of doing so necessitate that we as conscious being
continue to work with the theory of a supra-organism, maybe a single
evolving organism of greater organization and more specialized.

jonf






At 11:00 PM 12/2/1998 -0900, you wrote:
>
>Steven Bissell,
>
>OK, I understand the context of the discussion on altruism a little
>better. By 'taking it in the shorts' I'm just refering to the idea that
>alturism means giving up one's life for another. This kind of behavior is
>supposed to be beneficial for the species (group) even if it isn't
>beneficial to the individual organism which is being altruistic.
>
>Question: If evolution is responsible for our morality is anything
>immoral? How does one decide? If evolution is our source of morality, is
>evolution itself moral, and is being non-evolutionary immoral?
>
>
>Ed Barker
>
>
>
>
        



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