Plants demostrate a form of 'altruism' in that by their action they improve the
habitat for all life; plants are exceptionally giving organisms, fruit, homes,
food, nurtrients, and respond rapidly to the needs of their habitat..... as much
as the challenges.
The same can be said of most bacterial life... upon which the plants are
fundmentally dependent, as are we humans......
Indeed shit is altruism in operation as it is NOT waste, it is nutrient for yet
more life.
The fact of the matter is that the wild pretty much increases overall fecundity
of habitat, day by day. Natural bio-mass creation far exceeds that of
Pharming..... and bio-mass IS food for all life.
The old concept of a selfish gene driven struggle for survival ecology is merely
an intellectual throwback to the days of that most selfish meme : Empire.
Kindest regards
Corneilius
www.corneilius.net
"do what you love it's your gift to the universe!"
note : if you do not wish to receive further emails from [log in to unmask]
please reply with blamk email and "remove me" in the subject field.
________________________________
From: Brian Orr <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, 19 October, 2010 19:16:08
Subject: Re: MOTHS, GREENS AND CORPORATE NEON
Michael,
I disagree with your basic contention that scientists consider altruism as
irrational.
They will all be familiar with the behaviour of the social insects where
co-operation is singularly the dominant theme. Okay, insects are a life-form
a long way from ourselves but at least they demonstrate that if we were to learn
to be as self-sacrificing as they are then Utopia would prevail - at least
within the nest. Of course, the battles and wars between social insects can be
bloody indeed and are often fought to the 'last man standing'. But this also is
pure altruism in action, but with the nest as the 'significant other' and not
the species. No difference with humans here then!
If one is uncomfortable with the social insect model, we have fairly recently
discovered a mammal, the "naked mole-rat", which mimics the relationship
patterns with the social insects quite closely, with a king and a queen a few
dozen "workers".
And this is not a million miles from the relationship pattern holding in
wolf-packs where only the alpha male and alpha female are allowed to mate. But
the pack operates exceedingly co-operatively most of the time because it is so
much more effective than individual or pairs of wolves in 'defence and attack'.
My father taught me to be kind to animals from when I was about four. I found
being kind to animals very rewarding. But it wasn't until much later that I
became conscious that I was "serving a transcendent good".
I would contend that the educational process I went through, courtesy of my
father, was just that, building on an innate tendency to serve the greater good
that is 'in our genes' - by virtue of the evolutionary path humans have had to
follow. That 'consciousness of serving a transcendent good' may then come to
later reinforce the innate tendency and the cultural/educational process gives
me no problem.
Brian Orr
On 18 Oct 2010, at 13:45, Michael Northcott wrote:
> The modern concept altruism - Plato, Aristotle, Christ, Augustine, Aquinas
>never use the term - rests on a logical error which is that actions towards
>others that involve effort or sacrifice on the part of the self are
>intrinsically at odds with the interests of the self. While there are
>individuals who are exceptional in their tendency to put other interests above
>their own they tend to argue - if they are able to rationalise their motives -
>that they are serving a transcendent good - such as justice or love - commitment
>to which they share with the other since both participate in a moral order that
>is given and not merely rationally constructed. Their identification of their
>interest with that good and hence with the good of others - and not an
>irrational preference for disinterested action - is what drives them. The reason
>so many modern scientists - natural and political - have become concerned to
>explain altruism is because for them it is irrational. This reflects the
>influence of classical economics on modern western, and especially Anglosaxon,
>culture. In my experience many nonwesterns - Malaysians for example - don't
>think like this unless they have spent a lot of time being trained by Western
>economists to abandon their own cultural conceptions of self-other relations,
>and hence of why action towards the common good, or on behalf of another, is
>rational. For another example Japanese economics is very different to
>Anglosaxon in its account of the relative duties of firms to employees and
>shareholders.
>
> The paradox and the tragedy is that in the Anglosaxon world as modern economic
>accounts of rationality as selfish - and of the associated account of the self
>as unencumbered, unattached and unsituated - have grown in cultural power action
>for the common good, or the good of others, appears both irrational and as
>contrary to the interests of the individual. As a theologian I would refer back
>to the teaching of Christ that 'those who save their life will lose it' to make
>the point that this is a modern innovation in the Western tradition. But even
>empirical economists sometimes are sometimes driven by evidence to admit that
>volunteering on behalf of others in service of a transcendent good actually
>makes those who participate in it happier: see Francesca Borgonovi, Doing well
>by doing good. The relationship between formal volunteering and self-reported
>health and happiness. Social Science & Medicine 66 (2008) 2321e2334.
>
> Arne Naess devoted many words to contesting the modern concept of self interest
>and arguing that when individuals spend more time in the 'wild' or climbing
>mountains they find it possible to recover an account of self-interest that
>includes others, nonhuman and human. His Spinozist point was that this extended
>account of self-interest is neither novel nor irrational. For Moses, Plato,
>Christ, or more recently Gandhi or Leo Tolstoy, thinking like a mountain is not
>counterintuitive.
>
> Michael Northcott
>
>
> On 18 Oct 2010, at 13:08, harriet wood wrote:
>
>> Isn't it
>> a question of how to define altruism
>> the problem of not knowing what other species "think"
>>
>> Apparently altruistic behaviour can benefit the group, species or
>> local ecosystem, as can selfish / aggressive behaviour.
>>
>> Harriet Wood
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 October 2010 12:47, Barker, Tom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I’m afraid I don’t have time to elaborate. It is not altruism, though it
>>> might look like it at first glance; it’s survival.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So I'm sticking with my contention that altruism is a key component of the
>>> cement that binds tribes, and wolf packs, together. The trick for us is to
>>> tap into that while linking it to the intellectual concept that the whole of
>>> the human race is our tribe.
>>> Brian
>>
>
>
> --The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
