Philosophical Question:

perfectingpatti

Clearly we think very differently about the world - I work as an evolutionary biologist and neuroscientist; I think about human behaviour from a largely scientific perspective. So while I'm quite sure of my facts here, I respect your opinions as they differ from mine. So let's agree to disagree and let everyone else have their say too?

The main problem with your comments as I see it, is that there are too many examples of self-sacrificial acts. The exceptions to your claims undermine them. Further, I suspect your commitment to evolutionary biology and neuroscience (not that both don't have important things to say) might lead to a reductionist approach to human nature and therefore to incomplete explanations. In this case your theory would lead to the conclusion that self-sacrificial acts are not possible. There are self-sacrificial acts. Therefore the theory is false or incomplete.

RobynC79

Clearly we think very differently about the world - I work as an evolutionary biologist and neuroscientist; I think about human behaviour from a largely scientific perspective. So while I'm quite sure of my facts here, I respect your opinions as they differ from mine. So let's agree to disagree and let everyone else have their say too?

The main problem with your comments as I see it, is that there are too many examples of self-sacrificial acts. The exceptions to your claims undermine them. Further, I suspect your commitment to evolutionary biology and neuroscience (not that both don't have important things to say) might lead to a reductionist approach to human nature and therefore to incomplete explanations. In this case your theory would lead to the conclusion that self-sacrificial acts are not possible. There are self-sacrificial acts. Therefore the theory is false or incomplete.

Its not that self-sacrificial acts are not possible, there is nothing in the theory I explain here to imply that. The theory states simply that self-sacrifice is not optimal, and the degree to which they are not optimal depends mainly on the genetic relatedness of the individuals involved. The existence of self-sacrificial acts does not disprove the theory.

There is a well-accepted understanding among evolutionary biologists that 'animals are not optimal' - individuals do not always do what is best for them, but taking a a large sample, the average converges on optimality. And the theory that underlies that is what I have described above. I'm not denying that humans will self-sacrifice under some circumstances (obviously there are examples of this), I am providing an explanation of why in most cases, humans (like other animals) should not.

iAMsmiling

Clearly we think very differently about the world - I work as an evolutionary biologist and neuroscientist; I think about human behaviour from a largely scientific perspective. So while I'm quite sure of my facts here, I respect your opinions as they differ from mine. So let's agree to disagree and let everyone else have their say too?

The main problem with your comments as I see it, is that there are too many examples of self-sacrificial acts. The exceptions to your claims undermine them. Further, I suspect your commitment to evolutionary biology and neuroscience (not that both don't have important things to say) might lead to a reductionist approach to human nature and therefore to incomplete explanations. In this case your theory would lead to the conclusion that self-sacrificial acts are not possible. There are self-sacrificial acts. Therefore the theory is false or incomplete.

Its not that self-sacrificial acts are not possible, there is nothing in the theory I explain here to imply that. The theory states simply that self-sacrifice is not optimal, and the degree to which they are not optimal depends mainly on the genetic relatedness of the individuals involved. The existence of self-sacrificial acts does not disprove the theory.

There is a well-accepted understanding among evolutionary biologists that 'animals are not optimal' - individuals do not always do what is best for them, but taking a a large sample, the average converges on optimality. And the theory that underlies that is what I have described above. I'm not denying that humans will self-sacrifice under some circumstances (obviously there are examples of this), I am providing an explanation of why in most cases, humans (like other animals) should not.

Perhaps 1 reason why they should? So they are humans and not animals.

perfectingpatti

There is a well-accepted understanding among evolutionary biologists that 'animals are not optimal' - individuals do not always do what is best for them, but taking a a large sample, the average converges on optimality. And the theory that underlies that is what I have described above. I'm not denying that humans will self-sacrifice under some circumstances (obviously there are examples of this), I am providing an explanation of why in most cases, humans (like other animals) should not.

I don’t mean to be obstinate but it seems to me rather obvious that humans have a desire to live and therefore death is never perceived as “optimal” relative to that desire. We are capable of self-sacrificial acts, however, when we are driven by motives that we deem “higher” than individual survival. I don’t know that evolutionary biology is particularly important in this analysis. I’m not sure that evolutionary biology is very helpful in explaining why some are willing to forego their own survival or well-being for good of another or, better yet, why humans are characterized by a strong desire (at least most, it seems) to protect the weak and focus on things that don’t pertain to biological survival (e.g., high-level math, astronomy, black holes, hospitals, mental health institutions, churches). I’m simply suggesting that evolutionary biology is, at best, a partial explanation of human behavior and that there is more to the story.