The point being expressed here is that the proponents of evolutionary based
ethics have missed is what Matt Ridley points out in his "The Origins of
Virture" is that in animals altruism does not exist except in terms of the
selfish gene. Genes rule how animals interact with each other. There are
virtually no examples of altruism in animals except those that are related
and this is pure selfishness on the part of the genes that similarly related
individuals share.
However, in some cases there is something known as "reciprocal altruism" but
this is not altruism either, but the selfish gene expressing it's interests
in solitary living species. Cooperation in animals therefore is an
evolutionary strategy that confers the survival in species that are related.
Altruism is not cooperation however but is selflessness. Selflessness in
animals...does it exist?
At 09:17 AM 12/1/1998 -0600, you wrote:
>
>First, let me be clear that by Altruism here I mean the reciprocal altruism of
>evolutionary biology but the selfless kind Mr. Foster writes about.
>
>My comment to Mr. Foster that such Altruism is not an stable evolutionary
survival
>strategy got me thinking. Environmentalists tend to describe the good as that
>which is sustainable in the long term, that which tends to create or sustain a
>stable ecosystem, etc.
>
>Mr. Foster's version of altruism does none of these things. According to game
>theorists his "dove" strategy is unstable. Any population that adopts this
>strategy exclusively is doomed to extinction. Is extinction consistent
with sound
>environmentalism? I doubt it.
>
>So, strange as it sounds, Altruism may be inconsistent with environmentalism.
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
