Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Not really. Otherwise, selection would not have supported these behaviors for millions of years. After all, this behavior is inherent in more than one human species. It is believed that such types of behavior somehow benefit the entire population to maintain the existence of the entire species as a whole: it makes the group more cohesive, making it easier to defend against external enemies and gives greater reproductive success.
For example, the theory of kin selection is now quite widespread. That is, since we share half the genome with our siblings, protecting and rearing two siblings is like protecting and rearing yourself for your genes.
And there is also a reciprocal altruism in which the individual seems to sacrifice his interests, but counts on a reciprocal service. Here selfishness is more clearly visible.
Therefore, if this happens everywhere, then the reproductive success rate with this behavior is higher than without it.
evolution is stimulated by uncomfortable living conditions . Altruism and selflessness are also evolutions , but of a different order. Without them , it is now inconvenient for us to exist as a society , while within society itself, individuals are parasitic and adapt . Collective evolution is based on collective consciousness and is driven by the awareness of individuals . Unfortunately , we see that the Kerkynesian ethic is still in force .
Everyone has long agreed that the unit of selection is not the individual, not his siblings, and certainly not the population, but just one small, small gene that passionately wants to live, and will make any individual act, even altruistic, even selfish, if only it allows him – the gene, not the individual-to continue to exist.
What makes you think that at all? Why does evolution require selfishness?
Rather the opposite. Because selfishness and parasitism give more negative consequences. Do you agree? The more selfishness , the more suffering. And if you do something for someone without self-interest, you get inner satisfaction, you become happier and more harmonious.
No, it works both ways.Selfishness and other similar concepts help an individual survive in a hostile environment, and later, pass on their genes.Altruism, and other human (and not only) qualities, are created to protect the group from which the representative of the species comes,again, for the continuation of the group's life and its further reproduction.For example, we can distinguish completely different forms of life: subspecies of monkeys and orangutans, bees,bats, and others.
Here it is important to understand the nature of these definitions – altruism and selflessness. Their people invented them. They certainly happen, very rarely, but they do happen. But in the vast majority of cases, this is not even a veiled natural mechanism, but a poetic name for the desire to be useful/recognized. And these are very simple and necessary survival mechanisms. And disinterested altruists are more often people, I don't want to say unsuccessful, this is certainly not true – but people who have not really reached any heights. Not because they are mediocre – no-just in this world with these qualities will not go far (unfortunately). And this can be partially compensated by falling into the self-deception of an imaginary desire to selflessly help everyone – in fact, to feel useful/necessary. And who doesn't want that?
Some will object – after all, there are many millionaire patrons of art and famous people at the helm of charitable organizations. BUT-patronage as a way to be not only rich,but also” holy ” has not been canceled. Plus, it often helps in the same business-increasing the status and credibility of the patron. And for political “exploits” the most important thing. And charitable foundations are a good platform for money laundering, just in case.
So nothing new. Everything is in its proper place.