altruism is it selfish?

Is altruism a selfish thing in that we help others because it makes us feel good...or can there be selfless altruism. I believe it can be both. Although it usually stems from self related reasons. I want to help my friend because it makes me feel good to do so. I have OCD so by helping others get past the illness I'm sort of helping myself....by the way I do have OCD am I being selfish by wanting you guys to know this about me? But I'm interested in hearing other people's perspectives on altruism. Should altruistic AI mimic that of human altruism I know there has been some discussion on this topic. Is wanting to live longer selfish? That topics also probably been adressed!

I have seen a few definitions of altruism. The two main ones are 1. Doing things for the benifit of others with no benifit coming to yourself, and 2. Doing things for the benifit of others without expecting a benifit to come to yourself.
Both of these types of altruism seem to happen in nature. Since natural selection doesen't care whether an organism knows it is recieving a benifit which leeds to greater fitness the second definition can easily evolve. The easiest way to explain why the first definition of altruism is through kin selection. Natural selection cares most about the individual itself. But it also cares much about brothers and sisters and parents since they have 1/2 the genes of the individual. An organism may be altruistic to a to a large number of individuals with similar traits to the organism if this results in an increase in fitness for his kin weighted by relatedness. Another way altruism can come about is through learning in repeated contests. For example in prisners dillema the best strategy if played just one time is defect, but if it is repeated there are better strategies which involve sometimes choosing cooperate. This can translate to a type of reciprical altruism. One more way to explain altruism is through memes. The meme strategies with the greatist fitness may be different from the genetic strategies.

good stuff chub!

Altruistic behavior among animals is the result of programming by selfish genes which directly or indirectly benefit from such behavior. Paternal altruism is the most common example given, but there are many many others. The definition of altruism from a evolutionary perspective has none of the intentionality that is associated with human altruism.

In my mind, human altruism can no longer be directly associated with the perpetuation of the selfish gene. Case in point, one of our fellow ImmInst member, Kevin donates some of his resources to help the starving children of Africa, or Cambodia, or... where ever he said it was, I can't remember. Some place poor, with a lot of starving children.

How does this benefit his selfish genes? It doesn't. Obviously there is some thing more here than meets the eye.

The kind of altruism that Kevin displays could hardly be discribed as selfish. He will never make a material gain from his contributions. The most he could hope for is a warm fuzzy feeling... To me this is altruism in the purest sense of the word.

Myself on the other hand...

I guess I'm just a selfish bastard. I understand that people suffer. I understand that people are under privileged, etc etc. It's just that when it comes down to me or them, I always pick me.

I never donate to charities. They really don't have much appeal to me. For me, they are simply too abstract. Trying to solve "world systemic" problems with individual contributions some how strikes me as trying to put out a forest fire with a cup of water. Then again, if large coalitions of altruist individuals can join together then significant progress is possible. I just couldn't be bother. What's the point of saving a few starving children in India when all they are going to do is grow up and each have another 10 children? I believe that no matter how hard we try, not every one can be saved. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is a flaw in my character.

However, I am not cheap with friends or family. I'd lay down on tracks for my best friends. But then again this is selfish behavior because I obviously would expect some level of reciprocation if the need arose.

This is a very good question Dfowler, and one that I am afraid I can not answer properly since I am not really very altruistic. I would like very much for some one who is very altruistic to describe their motivations behind performing acts of altruism on the basis of such abstract and idealistic notions as "save the starving children of Bangladesh". Perhaps it would give me a better understanding of the altruistic perspective and why selfishness is wrong...

Don

Adam Smith quite compellingly postulated that it is self-interest, not altruism, which promotes the greatest overall 'good' for society. This was in his book 'Wealth of Nations' published in 1776 and is still relevant today as it ever was.

In it, he claims that if every person follows their own self-interest, inadvertedly, society will benefit. You may have heard of the 'invisible hand' - which is the driver of capitalism into the ultimate outcome that is derived from individual's selfish pursuits within society.

Everything I do is in my own self-interest to do so. Typing this very post is really for my own intrinsic benefit, but others may also benefit. If I'm feeling hungry, then maybe I'll go to the shops and buy something to satisfy my hunger (and hence my own self-interested desire), which in turn benefits the shop keeper; who is running his/her shop based on their own interest to make money and run a business (etc.). Therefore from two parties own self interest they benefit each other.

That's why I believe capitalism is the best system for promoting welfare. Two or more parties always benefit from capitalism (ie. voluntary trade) - the buyer and the seller. The only problem is when there are significant transactions costs involved or there are externalities to trade where a third party is worse off......

Also, utility is gained by different means depending on the individual who seeks to maximise utility (the surplus of pleasure over pain). Therefore if someone gains utility from giving money to starving Africans then they will gain greater value than if they actually kept that money for other purposes.

Kissinger,

You may have read this somewhere..

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed people can change the world.
Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. "
-- Margaret Mead

Now, I've always been the 'sensitive' type, and I realize that many people are not affected by the plight of others in the same way. For example, when I was 10 years old and the true impact of pollution occured to me, I cried. When as a teenager I read the book "The Fate of the Earth" by Rober Schell and the insanity of nuclear war hit me hard, I was almost physically ill. Throughout my early decades these and other feelings never spurred me on to action because I am also by nature extremely self-centered. It took until I was 38 for the the images of fly covered starving children to penetrate deep enough to actually cause me to break down and weep (I'm beginning to wonder if I need some lithium). That morning I realized that for my mental well being, it was necessary for me to 'contribute'. So in a way, I am being selfish as it was distressing me that nothing was being done, now instead of just a warm fuzzy feeling, I don't get that sense of anxiety and powerlessness. Of course, if I was having many problems of my own, I'm sure my otherwise self centered nature would have one the coin toss. I think higher forms of altruism definitely occur primarily in people who obviously have 'enough' for themselves and one's idea of what is 'enough' tends to change as we age.

It has taken a long time for me to be able to throw out the bullshit that guys need to be macho and accept that yes indeed, I have feelings. I can't help it... I believe a large part of our personalities are genetic, and I think that I got the soft end of the stick. Empathy and compassion are definitely traits that are not looked upon as 'survival' oriented in a world of low resources, but in one where the basic needs of most are met, it is highly possible that they serve a higher purpose. One thing I've come to truly believe is that behind the 'selfish gene' is something else, the 'selfish life' perhaps. There is a book review I just posted by James Gardner that I think I'll order that talks about the 'selfish biocosm' where he believes that the universe is replicating itself and needs intelligent life to do it. Compassion and empathy go a long way towards organisms working synergistically for not just the survival, but also the advancement of their species. I think that once an organisms survival is not threatened by a lack of resources, the next level, the enhancement of life, kicks in in the form of helping others. However, it is a rare organism indeed that will place the welfare of another above their own when they themselves do not have enough, so I truly believe that if we remove the threat of death due to ageing that hangs over all of our heads, we will be faced with a natural progression towards a more 'altruistic' society.

My belief is that 'altruism' is a necessary and naturally occuring aspect of self-referencing entities because it enhances the forward movement of life and it's diversity. Non-altruistic approaches are self-limiting and restrictive to the advancement of life and are made for situations where resources are scarce. For this reason, I think that a self-referencing AI would probably react with the same motivations as any other organism when faced with decisions of survival and growth. Our altruism is directed primarily at other humans and I think we would be right to be very careful that we instill a 'sacred cow' complex in an AI matrix when it comes to considering the fate of humanity.

Now where did I put my "woobie"..

It took until I was 38 for the the images of fly covered starving children to penetrate deep enough to actually cause me to break down and weep (I'm beginning to wonder if I need some lithium). That morning I realized that for my mental well being, it was necessary for me to 'contribute'. So in a way, I am being selfish as it was distressing me that nothing was being done, now instead of just a warm fuzzy feeling, I don't get that sense of anxiety and powerlessness.

Then the TV advertising seemed to have worked on you. Call it the guilt complex if you'd like, but basically the aim of such advertising and various other forms of propaganda is to cause significant dis-utility to you by commicating such messages like 'the plight of starving children in Africa'. Whether this is meant to trigger some a priori mechanism in the human mind is debatable. What is clear though, is that the intended purpose of such media is to spur the person who received the message into action (which is usually handing out sums of money).

So advertising not only lures with promises of increased utility but also to instill dis-utility from not acting upon the advertisement. Because, to use your example, you don't really receive any direct benefit from giving money to charity. Possibly it is just the knowledge that you have contributed to the world's problems that drives you otherwise you would be in a world where you would not have this satisfaction and thus gain diminshing utility (in theory).

Since everyone gains utility from different things, and also dis-utility from different things, it is still safe to say that it is entirely individual self-interest at work here. Because you simply can't say that everyone would care about the plight of 'children in the third world'. Probably there are people who live out their lives in happiness without caring one little bit about the plight of the disadvantaged (despite having full knowledge of it). This may seem uncaring, but utilitarianism does not allow judgement of individual preferences.

However, if you want to increase the share of 'altruism', greater levels of empathy might be the way to go...

Although there are a lot of emotions that go through my mind when I look at those less fortunate than me, guilt is not usually one of them. I do not feel 'guilty' that I have more than others or that my circumstances permit me a comfortable life while theirs does not. It is more an acknowledgement of suffering that I wish to alleviate. I have a high level of empathy in that I seem to automatically put myself in the place of other individuals and imagine what it may be like to be them. This reaction, on balance, I have found to be less than beneficial, especially in a society which holds to the principle of 'dog eat dog'. There are advantages however to being able to 'identify' with others in that you can see their potential weaknesses as well. Maybe even wussy empathy can have it's survival benefits.

This reaction, on balance, I have found to be less than beneficial, especially in a society which holds to the principle of 'dog eat dog'.

If you're talking about our capitalistic society than I reject that. The culture of business is more fostered toward co-operation. Yes, capitalism can be a competitive environment but that's because it is all customer focused - businesses exist to serve their customers. Firms who have better business practices and are more socially responsible also do better; according to some polls I have seen.

The reason Government is there is because of a lack of trust between the private sector and employees and consumers. While this may be beneficial to markets in some instances, if the barrier of dis-trust (creating regulation) were removed and co-operation was used instead, it would be a better outcome for all.

The Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates this:

Employees don't trust firms to pay them well or provide good conditions, so they get the Government to legislate, thus imposing costs on the firm. Consequently the firm hires less employees and eschews other employee benefits that would otherwise exist if not for the Government imposed costs. Employees and Firms are both worse off. However, if you had co-operation you wouldn't need these regulations in the first place. This is a Prisoner's Dilemma problem.

I'm like Kevin, to a degree. I do feel simply bad at others suffering. I put myself in their shoes and I want to help. I generally WANT to help the world out... But I especially really really want basically good people to get a chance at a longer life. Now this already is a problem because there are many people who are nicer and kinder than me. I'm not a saint because if I didn't have the qualtiy of life I have now maybe I couldn't get to the point where I would have the luxary of writing these posts and remaining so optimistic. but I would still want good people to not suffer and do well...but there is another catch...

Here I am contemplating living for a long long time, so obviously I'm somewhat selfish for this. I don't think one can honestly claim that wanting to live longer isn't indirectly selfish if you know that not everyone will get this chance. That's where the Darwinian dog eat dog part comes in as I see it. Even if you devote your thousands of years to social work, you're still outliving others...therefore you're living better than others... sadly that simple... But do I feel I should not deny others this opportunity of course not.

So than what? am I going to tell everyone about what scientists are working on and the potential progress? No!... because 1)many people would hate me for doing so 2) I would be looked at as crazy by idiots, 3) I've personally suffered myself from OCD, and anti-semitism so I'm a little bitter...and I've lived long enough to know there is SCUM out there. Idiots who don't deserve to live that long because they are useless, thoughtless people who put their faith ahead of their minds. Sound harsh you bet, where and are these people when it comes to the issue of longevity? Why didn't they work towards this cause? And if people weren't such idiots we would be a lot further along than we are now...therefore I'm bitter and I don't feel that badly for the wasteful morons that didn't put humanity as first priority.

? If humanity really cared about each other there wouldn't have been wars, torture, racism you name it...therefore good people, and I define good in the sense of being a fair, loving and basically kind type, who appreciate life, should be able to live as long as they damn well please!

The last thing I want is to become an uncaring coward but I'm quickly realizing that bad things happen to good people and none of us can save everyone and what about my parents and their peers this makes me want to cry.
so can I selflessly stand on a soap box and say I'm an all loving person...I don't think it's possible...So maybe the true test is whether or not people, like us, are willing to fight for life! and I'll always respect those who came before me who were basically good caring lovers of life. Let's honor them by fighting hard for longevity...and be angry at the stupidity that put us twenty or so somethings at the dawn of a potentialy miraculous longevity.

Edited by dfowler, 22 October 2003 - 05:35 PM.

An interesting article appeared today concerning the concept of 'forgiveness', 'empathy' and it's relation to the brain and physiological responses.

http://www.forgiving...n/clippings.asp

Can forgiveness become medicine’s newest tool in the rehabilitation process? One study of the medical rehabilitation of spinal cord patients says yes. Forgiveness was found to improve health and those more forgiving of themselves and of others reported more life satisfaction.

Forgiveness is a factor in low blood pressure, especially in poorer Blacks. Forgiveness linked to low blood pressure and, first study connecting forgiveness and health to survey racially and socio-economically diverse individuals shows that, for low socio-economic status Blacks, forgiveness is linked to low blood pressure and low levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

Forgiveness research highlights new realities in the battle of the sexes. A new study finds that women are more likely to forgive than men, but both are equal in seeking revenge.

When counseling forgiveness in victims of child sexual abuse, there is no such thing as an open and shut case of forgive and forget. An ongoing ten-year study on the long-term impact of child sexual abuse found that reconciling with the offender might not be a healthy choice, especially when the mother and child are not close. Going beyond certain steps in the forgiveness process was shown to be detrimental in cases of child sexual abuse.

Forgiveness is linked to less back pain and depression. New study demonstrates that among people who have chronic back pain, those who have forgiven others experience lower levels of pain and less associated psychological problems like anger and depression than those who have not forgiven.

Fair enough - be altruistic, however there is something which you must be aware. Altruism creates a free rider problem.

For example; say there are 3 friends: A, B and C. A is an altruist, while C and B are both self interested. However, B has better social skills then C, so B will extract more value out of A than C. A being the altruist, will get utility from providing for B, and B will pursue A for rents at the expense of C.

Therefore altruism becomes imbalanced in it's share ratio because of B's rent seeking behaviour, which is trying to gain more at the expense of others. This violates pareto optimality and thus economic efficiency. This can be seen in the micro level as well as the macro level.

Fortunately, A, having been around the block a time or two, can smell BS a mile away, and doesn't base the allocation of resources strictly on how well B can argue his case. He does his own research to the satisfaction of his conscience to arrive at what he feels is a fair distribution. If that means B gets more than C, than so B it.

A rational altruist may do that, kevin. However, there are altruists who operate on a far more extreme scale. Someone who derives a large quantity of pleasure from giving to others without a return will find themselves a target for exploitation. Many altruists, I think, are taken advantage of by free loaders.

This does not apply to those, for example, donate to World Vision or the like. Perhaps we need a kind of 'constructive altruism' where the benefit goes to where it's most needed and is spent in a useful way. As they say give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime...

Avoiding being taken advantage of emerges naturally as a subgoal of altruism. Avoiding freeriders derives its desirability from the urge to preserve resources for the most effective altruistic causes. Kevin and dfowler, your stories are heart-warming!

Link: http://www.hbns.org/...ism10-17-03.cfm
Date: 10-17-03
Author: Becky Ham
Source: Center for Advancement of Health
Title: Alturistic Actions May Result in Better Mental Health

---

Release Date: Oct. 17, 2003
ALTRUISTIC ACTIONS MAY RESULT
IN BETTER MENTAL HEALTH
By Becky Ham, Science Writer
Health Behavior News Service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People who offer love, listening and help to others may be rewarded with better mental health themselves, according to a new study of churchgoers in the September/October issue of Psychosomatic Medicine.

The study is one of the first to track the positive health benefits of altruistic behavior, say Carolyn Schwartz, Sc.D., of the University of Massachusetts Medical School and colleagues.

“The findings really emphasize how helping others can help oneself,” Schwartz says.

Schwartz and colleagues analyzed data collected by the Presbyterian Church for 2,016 congregation members. The members were asked about how often they “made others feel loved and cared for” and “listened to others” in the congregation, and how often they received this attention in return.

The members also answered survey questions about their mental and physical health. Most of the congregation members were in good physical and mental health to begin with, experiencing only normal levels of anxiety and depression.

While the researchers did not find any significant differences in physical health specifically related to giving and receiving help, they concluded that giving help was a better predictor of good mental health than receiving help.

But feeling overwhelmed by others’ demands — giving until it hurts — can have negative psychological effects, according to the researchers.

“Although our findings suggest that people who help others experience better mental health, our findings also suggest that giving beyond one’s own resources is associated with worse reported mental health,” Schwartz says.

Church leaders, older individuals, women and those who took satisfaction from prayer were more likely to be helpers rather than receivers, according to Schwartz and colleagues.

People who give help to others may be less likely to focus inward on their own anxieties and depression or more apt to see their own troubles in perspective, leading to better mental health, say the researchers.

Alternatively, it may be that “people who are functioning well psychologically are better able and hence more likely to give help,” Schwartz says.

# # #
Health Behavior News Service: (202) 387-2829 or www.hbns.org.
Interviews: Contact Carolyn Schwartz at (781) 890 8882 x335 or Carolyn.schwartz@deltaquest.org.
Psychosomatic Medicine: Contact Victoria White at (352) 376-1611, ext. 5300, or psychosomatic@medicine.ufl.edu. Online, visit www.psychosomaticmedicine.org.

Center for the Advancement of Health
Contact: Ira R. Allen
Director of Public Affairs
202.387.2829
press@cfah.org

my rant was a bit crazed perhaps but looking back from a couple of days ago I've changed my perspective a bit, now I feel that as long as you're a contributing member of the society and a good person than life extension should be anyone's choice. I'm still angry at apathy and laziness and I feel strongly about this. And just because I or someone else has the chance to live longer as long as I'm helping others than in a sense that is pure altruism despite the fact that I know I will live longer etc.

Nature 425, 785 - 791 (23 October 2003); doi:10.1038/nature02043

The nature of human altruism

ERNST FEHR AND URS FISCHBACHER

University of Zürich, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, Blümlisalpstrasse 10, CH-8006 Zürich, Switzerland

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to E.F. (efehr@iew.unizh.ch).

Some of the most fundamental questions concerning our evolutionary origins, our social relations, and the organization of society are centred around issues of altruism and selfishness. Experimental evidence indicates that human altruism is a powerful force and is unique in the animal world. However, there is much individual heterogeneity and the interaction between altruists and selfish individuals is vital to human cooperation. Depending on the environment, a minority of altruists can force a majority of selfish individuals to cooperate or, conversely, a few egoists can induce a large number of altruists to defect. Current gene-based evolutionary theories cannot explain important patterns of human altruism, pointing towards the importance of both theories of cultural evolution as well as gene–culture co-evolution.

That's interesting CarboniX I personally think the two do go together hand in hand. And it is fascinating how this co-dependance may have evolved. It seems bizzarre how one's most benevolent intentions can turn to selfish intentions so easily. The example of the person who gets selfishly power hungry working for starving people in Africa. I've met many would be altruists who become self absorbed in trying to "save" the world and in the process start seeing themselves as a superman or even a God. Now this doesn't bother me because I know I'd rather have these kind of people around than people who are lazy and don't do anything.

Link: http://www.emory.edu...2/altruism.html

---

Media contacts:
Kathi Ovnic, 404/727-9371, covnic@emory.edu
Janet Christenbury, 404/727-8599, jmchris@emory.edu
July 19, 2002
Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis for Human Cooperation
Functional MRI scans have revealed a "biologically embedded" basis for altruistic behavior, with several characteristic regions of the brain being activated when players of a game called "Prisoner's Dilemma" decide to trust each other and cooperate, rather than betray each other for immediate gain, say researchers from Emory University. They report on their study in the July 18 issue of the journal Neuron, published by Cell Press.

For many years, evolutionary biologists, behaviorists, economists and political scientists have attempted to understand why cooperation exists between human beings, even though that cooperation may not result in a direct or immediate reward. This unselfish behavior called "altruism" is almost uniquely a human trait.

Up until now, almost all brain imaging experiments that have studied the social brain have done so by exposing subjects to static 2-D images inside the scanner. "This study represents an attempt to learn about the social brain by scanning people as they are engaged in a true social interaction," said James K. Rilling, Ph.D., principal investigator in the Emory study, who is currently serving a postdoctoral fellowship at Princeton University. In the Fall of 2003, Dr. Rilling will return to Emory as a faculty member with a joint appointment in the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (CBN) at Emory University School of Medicine and the Emory University Department of Anthroplogy.

In two separate experiments, the researchers used fMRI to scan the brains of 36 women while they played the "Prisoner's Dilemma Game," a decades-old model for cooperation based on reciprocal altruism. Two players independently chose to either cooperate with each other or not (defect), and each was awarded a sum of money that depended upon the interaction of both players' choices in that round.

In the first experiment, 19 subjects were scanned in four game sessions designed to observe neural function during cooperation and non-cooperation during both human interactions (social) and interactions with a computer (non-social). The results of the first experiment revealed different patterns of neural activation depending on whether the playing partner was identified as a human or a computer. In the second experiment, 17 subjects were scanned during three game sessions, focusing specifically on human interaction.

Mutual cooperation was the most common outcome in games played with presumed human partners in both experiments, even though a player was maximally rewarded for defecting when the other player cooperated. During the mutually cooperative social interactions, activation was noted in those areas of the brain that are linked to reward processing: the nucleus accumbens, the caudate nucleus, ventromedial frontal/orbitofrontal cortex and rostral anterior cingulate cortex.

"Our study shows, for the first time, that social cooperation is intrinsically rewarding to the human brain, even in the face of pressures to the contrary, " said Gregory S. Berns, M.D., Ph.D., co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry in the Emory University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and member of the CBN. "It suggests that the altruistic drive to cooperate is biologically embedded-- either genetically programmed or acquired through socialization during childhood and adolescence."

"Reciprocal altruism activates a reward circuit, and this activation may often be sufficiently reinforcing to override subsequent temptations to accept but not reciprocate altruism. This may be what motivates us to persist with cooperative social interactions and reap the benefits of sustained mutual cooperation," said Dr. Rilling.

"The combination of game behavior and functional brain imaging also provides a unique paradigm to explore the neural basis of social behavioral disorders such as autism, drug addiction and sociopathy, that are characterized by deficits in social reciprocity, impulse regulation, or social reward processing," adds Clint Kilts, Ph.D., co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry at Emory. "It defines the most complex form of the human genesis of a social bond. It may help us define why wars are fought and loves are lost."

The study was sponsored by the Markey Center for Neurological Sciences Fellowship, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD). Other Emory researchers involved in the study were David A. Gutman, Thorsten R. Zeh, and Giuseppe Pagnoni, Ph.D.

Please also read this study on the evolution of Altruism and its relationship to socioeconomics as I see them under Evolutionary Economics. This relates to human behaviors that are converging on urban species behavioral models quite nicely.

http://endeavor.med....1/altruism.html

Also even as I flipped back to news analysis here is an example of "altruistic survival synergy" that is straight off the presses

Mexican Woman Performs Caesarian on herself

Thanks for the Eric Strong article in the first link Laz.. I especially liked the mathematical rabbit.

Although altruism decreases an individuals fitness within its own population, it is shown in the article that the fitness of a group is increased overall by the trait thus providing a rationale for its perpetuation despite the obvious negative impact on the fitness of the individual.

It occurs to me, and it seems common sense actually, that the increased mobility of populations in recent years also coincides with a decrease in the 'down home' altruism experienced by the relatively immobile populations of the past. Neighbors helping neighbors is certainly not something we see as much of these days. This makes sense from the 'kin selection' hypothesis.

That the development of altruism and ways of taking advantage of the altruistic are proposed as the driving force behind the development of intelligence I found interesting..

On top of the development of emotions, Trivers even suggests that in a complicated form of coevolution, the combined selective pressures of finding subtler ways of cheating one’s neighbors and increasing one’s ability to detect such subtle cheaters may have contributed to the expansion of man’s mental capacities and led to his current state of high intellectual ability.

It would seem that meme patterns that allow for the obtaining of the maximum amount of resources with the lowest cost are important for 'cheaters' while altruism also has its scale of risk to the individual vs benefit to the group to consider. That intelligence evolved as a more complex mechanism for assessing these benefits and risks is a chuckle to me as instead of an overarching purpose behind the development of intelligence, which is something I like to play with once in a while, again we are left with competition for resources as the prime mover.

As altruism is counter intuitive to individual fitness, it has generally been ascribed to some 'spiritual' influence and been the province of the religious. As it is increasingly shown that altruism for the greater good is a BIOLOGICAL phenomenon, I hope we see a shift in the moral conscience based on science and what is REALLY good for people as opposed to the denial of the benefits of developing technologies.

I think Greg Stock has the right of it when he suggests that when these technologies show themselves to be safe and effective, they will be used, irregardless of any of the prosetylizing of increasingly irrelevant social structures.

"altruism is it selfish? "

No, but selfishness often disguises itself as altruism.

everything is selfish.
Donating money is selfish (unless you do it annonymous)
Caring about others is the most selfish thing you can do cause you only care about others so that they will like you.

Everyone is selfish, hoping to live forever is selfish. There is no one here who is not selfish.
Freud divided us in the I, the ego and the superego (dunno if my translation from swedish is correct there but i guess that my english is better than your swedish )

Anyone who disagrees?

"Anyone who disagrees?"

I do. Love is not selfish. It is is, then it is not love.

baal_zebul:

You've obviously got it all figured out... chuckle..

you say everyone is selfish but you also talk about anonymous donations. sooo

What about people who give up resources for others completely anonymously? There are such situations, although you may find them strange.

What do you say about the many individuals who give up their lives for others? Do they want to be liked even though they won't be around to experience it? Doesn't sound like a great evolutionary adaptation for survival to me.

Although I believe it is embedded in our genes, altruism does not always serve the best interests of the individual organism. Perhaps a glance at the links Laz provided or some of the other papers and studies discussed is in order as your perspective really only tells a small part of what is a very complicated story.

k, maybe 1 to 5 percent of all actions are unselfish but...

Kevin you said:

What do you say about the many individuals who give up their lives for others?

nah, that is selfish too.
If anyone sees you then you have failed really. The only way to make something unselfish is to make sure that no one sees you and that you do not profit from it. That is an unselfish deed.
And niggler lets not talk about Love cause that is bloody selfish. (Unless your parents decide who you will mary and you really hate that person (as it is in some religions). That might be considered unselfish.)

Can anyone say that they are unselfish really?
Even answering that would be selfish since you would only do it to raise your status amongst the others.

Only the self can decide to be selfless or selfish.

The external expectation of such a behavior contradicts the aspect of it being individual choice and it defaults to obsessive, compulsory, oppressive or some other form of obligatory behavior that is not intentional or volitional and thus doesn't follow as either selfish or selfless as it is not voluntary.

This is another example of why it is contradictory to consider generosity obligatory. It is an oxymoron.

Only the self can strive to be selfless but this should not be confused with altruism, they are related and can overlap but are not the same. It basically means to consider the needs of others (human, principle or 'other') over first the desires and perhaps even the needs of one's own.

Altruism does not require the total abnegation of the "self," this is a common fallacy. Nor does it require the elimination of selfishness, again a fallacy. It does however require setting selfishness aside and choosing to NOT be selfish.

altruism
SYLLABICATION: al·tru·ism
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: ltr-zm
NOUN:
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

ETYMOLOGY: French altruisme, probably from Italian altrui, someone else, from Latin alter, other.

OTHER FORMS: altru·ist —NOUN
altru·istic —ADJECTIVE
altru·isti·cal·ly —ADVERB

abnegation
SYLLABICATION: ab·ne·ga·tion
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: bn-gshn
NOUN: Self-denial.


self-abnegation
SYLLABICATION: self-ab·ne·ga·tion
PRONUNCIATION: slfbn-gshn
NOUN: The setting aside of self-interest for the sake of others or for a belief or principle.
OTHER FORMS: self-abne·gating —ADJECTIVE

I just thought it time to apply a dictionary to the discussion

Saying that all motivations are selfish is a stupid concept. Whereas you as an individual may be completely selfish, there are other people in the world who do things simply to benefit other people. This makes perfect sense if you look at how this behaviour could have evolved: Benefitting the population rather than the individual increases the odds of the population surviving.

I hope you haven't suggested that I am saying that heg?

I am arguing something far subtler on the parallelism between beliefs and know edge, emotion and logic, and motivation with reason.

Obviously not all motives are selfish as some are selfless, but the motive is still intrinsic to the individual or it is not a "motive", it is externally compulsive.

I find it amusing that when most people think of an Age of Reason they fixate on the logical aspects of rational thought but forget that the idea is supposed to also encompass the psychological aspects of rational motivation; "Cause" as a self imposed choice that is consistent with behavior and transcendent of the fatalism of causality.

http://education.yah...1/a0139100.html
age of reason
NOUN: 1. An era in which rationalism prevails, especially the period of the Enlightenment in England, France, and the United States.
2. An age at which a person is considered capable of making reasoned judgments.


http://education.yah...5/m0441500.html
motive
SYLLABICATION: mo·tive
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: mtv
NOUN: 1. An emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as an incitement to action.
2. (mtv, m-tv) A motif in art, literature, or music.
ADJECTIVE: 1. Causing or able to cause motion: motive power.
2. Impelling to action: motive pleas.
3. Of or constituting an incitement to action.
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: mo·tived, mo·tiv·ing, mo·tives
To motivate.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English motif, motive, from Old French motif, from Late Latin mtvus, of motion, from Latin mtus, past participle of movre, to move. See meu- in

http://education.yah...1/r0074100.html
reason
SYLLABICATION: rea·son
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: rzn
NOUN: 1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.
VERB: Inflected forms: rea·soned, rea·son·ing, rea·sons

INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To use the faculty of reason; think logically.
2. To talk or argue logically and persuasively.
3. Obsolete To engage in conversation or discussion.
TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To determine or conclude by logical thinking: reasoned out a solution to the problem.
2. To persuade or dissuade (someone) with reasons.
IDIOMS: by reason of Because of. in reason With good sense or justification; reasonably. within reason Within the bounds of good sense or practicality. with reason With good cause; justifiably.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French raison, from Latin rati, ratin-, from ratus, past participle of rr, to consider, think. See ar- in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS: reason·er —NOUN

SYNONYMS: reason, intuition, understanding, judgment These nouns refer to the intellectual faculty by which humans seek or attain knowledge or truth. Reason is the power to think rationally and logically and to draw inferences: “Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its [the Christian religion's] veracity” (David Hume). Intuition is perception or comprehension, as of truths or facts, without the use of the rational process: I trust my intuitions when it comes to assessing someone's character. Understanding is the faculty by which one understands, often together with the resulting comprehension: “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding” (Louis D. Brandeis).Judgment is the ability to assess situations or circumstances and draw sound conclusions: “At twenty years of age, the will reigns; at thirty, the wit; and at forty, the judgment” (Benjamin Franklin).See also synonyms at cause, mind, think.


http://education.yah...8/r0053800.html
rationalism
SYLLABICATION: ra·tion·al·ism
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: rsh-n-lzm
NOUN:
1. Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action.
2. Philosophy The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.
OTHER FORMS: ration·al·ist —NOUN
ration·al·istic —ADJECTIVE
ration·al·isti·cal·ly —ADVERB