CopyRight @ 1996
########### this stuff is good and belongs towards the end of beliefs 020795
where???
It is sort of like a contradiction. Evolution can only select on
behaviors if they are genetically determined. But behaviors that are
determined strongly by genetics, may fail due to rapid changes in the
ecology. How do you describe a behavior anyhow?
Like a good little ecologist, I looked at the problem as
energetics and reproduction. Apparently, that may be inherently
misleading. It must be energetics, reproduction and behavior. It does
make sense if you consider an extremely close relationship between
genes and behavior. ( An occasional problem by itself ) So here is some
rough stuff about genetics and some kinship consequences. Obviously,
this isn't too well developed.
5b. Altruism --- check
A Genetical Question About Levels of Selection
The word "altruism" is a good example of a word that has a
somewhat ambiguous meaning, when used to describe a behavior. Does it
refer to aiding someone at cost to self or at no cost to self?
Altruism, to a biologist, poses questions about genetic relatedness
and illustrates some ambiguity in genetic theory. Much of genetic
theory is based on relatedness and there is no doubt that Mr. Darwin
will have the last word, but.. let's try to look at some data and see
if it suggests something complex, subtle and powerful going on, that
shows that there is more than the simple mathematics of individual
genetic relatedness.
Right now, it is mentioned that this stuff is not only complex,
it is also quite novel. Approach it as such or do not expect to
figure it out. Be aware that any description of circumstance or
strategy is a statement that must be expanded to a spectrum of
possible strategies, potentials and circumstances. We live in a
functionally complex world. It is hard to believe all the different
ways that humans use to get the same fundamental things accomplished.
Wynn Edwards has discussed some of this from the point of view of
individuals, without a complete consideration of the relatedness of
the individuals. Probably his arguments, though logical, are wrong
because selection will occur wherever it can and will occur at the
group level when the occasion arises.
The biological view of altruism considers a few factors. From
most points of view, altruism would be expected to occur when the
individuals are closely related. In a specie where the offspring tend
to spend their life near where they were born, any individual is
likely to encounter other individuals that are relatively closely
related or even siblings. One interesting variation on this is
species where the males tend to leave the area of their birth, but
the females do not. In any case, humans developed in groups that
were relatively quite closely related. Communities tend to be very
stable. So the genetic situation would be expected to foster
altruism.
Change views. Humans are long lived, complex organisms. The
social behaviors of cooperation, especially hunting, do not
necessarily imply altruism, but common sense does. In the life of a
human, it is quite likely that any individual will be incapacitated
and totally dependent at some time in their life. Also, there will
arise times when an individual can make an immediate action to either
save another individuals life or otherwise that has major impact on
the "survival" of that person. When this kind of situation arises,
an individuals response is likely to be determined as much by training
as by nature. These are circumstances, not behavioral patterns and
yet the consequences are so profound that it starts to elevate the
importance of circumstance and belief in relation to genetics. It is
usually a mistake to really try to differentiate between the learning
of a behavior and the genetic predisposition to exhibit the behavior,
but for humans it may be necessary. There may be a completely
"biologically" new consequence to behavior. Consider some evidence.
First is the problem of numbers. The idea behind the kinship and
altruism is based on genetic relatedness. The theory says that since
siblings should share at least half of their genomes, to help ones
siblings, is to help ones genetic self. Basically, the same thing
is true for other "blood" relationships of various degrees. It must
be remembered though, that there is very little real variation in the
human genome. Most variation in the human race relates to superficial
appearance and behaviors, the traits that are the immediate
responses to variations in the ecology. Those variations are quite
limited. Studies of mitochondrial DNA suggest that all humans are
descended from one woman that lived ? 200000 years ago, not so long
ago. Kinship theories, that nicely explain existing systems, must be
amended to point out that they must apply either to the genes that
commonly differ between individuals or else there is a greater
behavioral component to be considered. It seems it is both. Desmond
Morris described how we look at our personal community. We consider
people to be one of us or else they are others. It is our learned
concept of the world that determines who we believe is related to us.
No specie other than humans has been able to explicitly keep track of
kinship and it has more to do with belief than fact. How much does
an individual display altruism in response to an individuals beliefs.
More importantly, what is the consequence of altruism, for genetic
or genetic/behavior reasons, to an unrelated person. Beliefs -
behaviors, values and strategies are so important to human existence
that differences in genetics become less consequential than
differences in beliefs. Behaviors are reflections of genetics, but
different genetics may lead to similar behaviors. Appearance, the
most obvious display of genetics, may not be closely related to
behaviors or behavioral genetics.
So does this mean anything? Place it in a moral context, since,
as according to Darwin, survival is the only case really worth
studying. In wars, individuals die, for something that is not
obviously genetically to their benefit. A biologist can view a death
in war as the individual promoting their genetic "survival" by
insuring the survival of their relatives / tribe. War also promotes
the belief and value systems of the victor. The same thing is
supposed to apply in the case of two siblings. One can promote their
"survival" by promoting the survival of the other sibling. According
to this theory, what is important is genetic survival more than
direct genetic continuity.
Consider a model. If we found that the earth was about to be
part of a cosmic event, a messy one. What if a decision was made by a
group to devote their resources to producing a way for some people to
escape to another ecology. This would constitute an example of
altruism, but what would it actually mean in terms of genetics and
beliefs? First off, what is the genetic and behavioral relationship
between the survivors and the ones that stay behind? Most of the
genetics would be identical.. except for those small critical
differences. The belief speaks for itself. The action would prove
the moral decision made for survival.
Does an event arise where an individual puts different genetics
or behaviors ahead of their own? Obviously there are cases, but what
is the reason, meaning and consequence. There is much more variation
to humans than most species, corresponding to both old local
variations and many new variations created by the rapidity of recent
evolution. As humans might have to decide to save a few people from
the whole world and sacrifice the rest, that decision has often been
made at all levels of the society from nations to families. It has
been documented where families of cultures living in a marginal
survival zone, may recognize that the whole family is not going to
survive, but that part of it may if part is sacrificed. Eskimoes
apparently had to face that situation regularly in the face of winter.
In this case, the important meaning of this extends a little further.
How much is an individuals action able to effect genetics. In this
case, it can be expected that the decision would usually be to
sacrifice the weakest members of the group. How much does this really
act in a society and what is its genetic consequence? It is one thing
to say that it would act as a selective effect. That is easy, but
if you want to look at the meaning in terms of kinship theory and
genetic relatedness, it is possible that another whole concept could
show itself.
Consider two people of basically the same race or modern tribe.
They are genetically, quite closely related. Call one of them
superior to the other. Name them Bester and Fester respectively.
There is very little difference between them when examined
statistically at the genetic level, but these must be critical
differences if you examine the differences between the two
individuals. Bester is stronger, faster, healthier, more intelligent
and better looking... superior. Bester has all of the traits and
potentials of Fester, many in better forms and even some traits
that Fester does not have. Fester is completely genetically related
to Bester, but Bester is not completely related to Fester. Bester is
not so much different from Fester, but is Fester plus. So if the game
is played as genetic survival, Fester could insure his genetic
survival by promoting Besters success. Is it an issue of genetic
continuity or genetic survival. Now, does it look like real world?
The whole thing suggests limits on variation, like some minimum
size limit of a gene structure or genome.
The simple question is about the genetic nature of the situation.
It could be most easily be answered with a better technical knowledge
of genetics and their expression, than is presently available.
Observational analysis suggests that the genetic relatedness would be
as described and so it would fit nicely into Darwinian evolution.
Does anyone behave this way? Definitely. Humans protect not only
leaders, but they also help people that they respect or admire.
It is possible that all non-adaptive behaviors are a hazard in
relation to the adaptive behaviors that we call intelligence and
learning. It relates to a major question about genetics. How much
can an individual perceive about another persons genetic nature. Some
things can certainly be detected such as beauty, race or aggressive
nature. Darwin called this sexual selection, but it is usually
considered to refer to traits related more directly to reproduction
rather than more general survival traits. What does communication,
especially emotional communication, tell us about another persons
psychology and attendant genetic nature?
Our ecology has changed so much that all natural behaviors must
be highly developed and modified or they will not be adjusted to the
present ecology. This puts an unnatural premium on raw intelligence
as well as aggressiveness.
Since evolution by natural selection is an expression of
thermodynamic law, any violation of it constitutes a misobservation,
misinterpretation or else present physics is in error. Since it
appears that the expression of any particular behavioral traite is
relatively as much under the control of learning as genetic
determination, something else must be examined. First is continuity
of culture. A totally constant culture could always insure the
teaching of the proper lessons. Cultures are not quite that constant.
Instead, often the only traite that evolution could focus on would be
adaptive behaviors like intelligence and aggressiveness.
Something about the nature of human evolution is changing or is
potentially changeable. Probably part of it is that evolution is
starting to focus at a new level of selection as well the different
areas mentioned in the book.
END 5b. Altruism
6. Functional model ############
A model of any organism must look at how it gets its energy
and what it does with it. In a tribal society there is little
division of labor and what there is usually relates to sex or
age. In the stratified society, specialization is the rule and
part of the basis of the social structure. Yet the occupations
reflect the requirements of a single organism. That might be
expected because the problems of a society and an individual
organism are similar. How many of the functions of the society
can an individual perform? What about in the future?
----- Basic Function Model----
One very useful way to examine an organism or biological
system is to consider it in the context of function as a whole
and by parts. This is a useful, but still limited model. A
deficiency of the model is that it leaves out many of the things
that make us human and so can easily lead to an elegant, simple
view that looks complete, but is not. Still, an understanding of
this model is essential as a component of a useful view of
humans. It is a schematic view, useful in the way that simple
descriptions are.
The biological view, based most simply on thermodynamics, is
to say that the function of an organism is as a vehicle for its
genes. It inherently ignores that the organism is unique and is
qualitatively different from its genes.
The second biological view of function is related to
survival, in the sense that Darwin meant it. Survival in the
biological sense is not simply personal survival, it also means
reproductive survival. In the biological sense, survival is
something that refers to more than one generation. This whole
book is written as a view of civilized humans existing for some
long period of time. There seems no reason that humans cannot
survive for geological ages.
A third biological view of an organism is about how an
organism uses an energy source and various other resources in the
environment for growth, homeostasis and reproduction. For humans,
that is usually translated as the needs of food, clothing and
shelter. It is worth amending that list with education, leisure
and perhaps privacy. Humans can be described by their needs and
how they are fulfilled. Since humans operate as a social species,
these functions and needs must be studied in the context of the
society.
A human could be described as an organism with systems that
can detect and acquire food. It has digestive systems, waste
removal systems and a respiratory system to provide the oxygen
that is necessary for the use of the food. Ultimately the food is
used to support the reproductive system. The society can be
described much the same way. There are functional parts
specialized to resource acquisition, distribution, utilization
and waste removal. There are defensive systems, just as in the
individual.
So much for looking at it simply. Be careful of simplified
mechanistic descriptions of individuals. Their simplicity lends a
certain elegance that can be mistaken for Truth. Yet they cannot
be extrapolated to what an individual really is. Too much
attention to mechanistic models tends to make one miss subtle,
but important facts. Yet if any basic point from the functional
model is missing from a complex model, some rethinking is
indicated. A function can be ascribed to anything perceivable,
often it even holds some real meaning.
Where a mechanistic model is far more useful is as
explanations for characteristics of the family and the society.
They are to provide for the needs of the individual. A family can
be described as a group of related people or it can be described
by its functions as a financial unit, child raising mechanism or
for the support of the aged. The society could be said to be a
support unit for the family. It has complex methods of fulfilling
all of the functions of an individual organism. The society is to
the family as the organism is to its genes.
Note that in biology, the word individual is accurate when
applied to a single person or a family. The individual is
identified as their genetics or their genetic investment that is
children. It is peculiar and only meaningful from the genetic
level, but sometimes it serves the purpose for understanding
life.
A functional model of humans, derived from observation in
the context of theory, can give a powerful tool for understanding
human dynamics in any real human system. What humans do and why,
is relatively limited. That is especially true when it is in the
context of survival strategies. So within its realm, the
biological models are very useful and they are part of a whole
understanding. They are the only way to consider the future
consequences of present events.
####
One interesting thing about genetic theories, as they stand now,
is that they are based on degree of relatedness. An individual has
half of the genetics of each parent. The only question is how
genetically related are the parents. The genetics of any two humans
only differs in minute ways, but apparently these small differences
are significant. Present theory suggests that we act as if the
genetics of our parents was totally different.
# This seems like introduction
We must find methods to survive into the future. The methods
that we used as tribes will not work in the future. Human
survival strategies, including law, custom, beliefs, institutions
and techniques, are called moral systems. Different groups
developed different moral systems depending on their different
histories, problems and environments. Some themes and elements
seem to be very common or even universal to extremely different
cultures such as language, law, sanitation, religion and social
forms like the family and community. Careful examination can show
what has been important to human survival and development. Also,
extrapolation can give a great deal of information about what
will be important.
Back