Evolution or Culture: Willingness to let others suffer/die.

[Eleanor Ritas]

I knew this (EDIT: ****In this context, "Ayn Rand Guy" refers to a guy who was really into Ayn Rand, much like one might say "I knew this skater guy" or "He's a total car guy." Sorry for lack of clarity*****) Ayn Rand guy once many years ago. He read all her books and really enjoyed the love scene in The Fountainhead. He flat out will admit (or rather I should say exclaim proudly, as he considers it no crime, as may not you, dear reader) that he would have no problem letting great masses of the poor starve to a suffering death in front of his bay window if they have nothing to offer that he wants, even if he had more food than he could eat in 1,000 lifetimes.

And I believe he meant it. And I kind of realize, a lot of society means it.

Where does that come from? Did we evolve a tendency to recognize when an ailing fellow primate was suffering from need, that might mean resources are becoming scarce, so hoard all you can? I read somewhere that for a particular species of migratory waterfowl, if one flockmate becomes injured or ill and has to fall out of formation on a long trip, two others will instinctively fall out and stay with the sick/injured bird. They stay with it in until it recovers and resumes, or it dies. But then again, if it can't fly anymore, they can't carry it. So maybe usually it dies.

Or is it instead culture? Could people be raised with a greater pity that will abandon blame and just give them food? Could people be raised to have no problem watching them die? (Also, I'm listening to Pandora and Dire Straits came on and their awesome, so let's keep this a happy thread and be nice to one another, please.)

They say family is often more likely to have such pity, but what when the whole family falls? What if the family were all dependent on one, and (s)he/they fell? Are we monkeys that know that sometimes the weaker monkeys need to starve to death so we can be better monkeys? Or are we more social, evolved that we save everyone we can, because then our group is stronger?

Will we learn soon? I think we will learn something terrifying about ourselves, and many of you might make offerings to the Anal God of Lysis in the forms of your historic references that may answer my question.

What do you think, forum people?

I think we evolved that when shit hits the fan it's sometimes every monkey for himself. And that makes me sad. But Dire Straits makes me happy. Don't forget to vote in the poll.

[The Liberated Territories]

For the most part, even if society was socially darwinistic, most people do not want to see others starve to a point, and would voluntarily help others out, even only out of their self interest to not feel feelings of guilt.

The problem is that I believe that human's capacity to be altruistic is capped. It's one thing to help your neighbor, or even someone who you may not know a lot but you kind of sympathize with. It's another thing to help out some random bum on the street who you don't know (and possibly may hurt you). And so people let them starve since they do not want to be taken advantaged of, or be negatively affected. And speaking of evolution, it makes sense that these potential "threats" go unaided, or weeded out.

[Dyakovo]

I knew this Ayn Rand guy once many years ago. Really enjoyed the love scene in The Fountainhead. He flat out will admit (or rather I should say exclaim proudly, as he considers it no crime, as may not you, dear reader) that he would have no problem letting great masses of the poor starve to a suffering death in front of his bay window if they have nothing to offer that he wants, even if he had more food than he could eat in 1,000 lifetimes.

And I believe he meant it. And I kind of realize, a lot of society means it.

Where does that come from? Did we evolve a tendency to recognize when an ailing fellow primate was suffering from need, that might mean resources are becoming scarce, so hoard all you can? I read somewhere that for a particular species of migratory waterfowl, if one flockmate becomes injured or ill and has to fall out of formation on a long trip, two others will instinctively fall out and stay with the sick/injured bird. They stay with it in until it recovers and resumes, or it dies. But then again, if it can't fly anymore, they can't carry it. So maybe usually it dies.

Or is it instead culture? Could people be raised with a greater pity that will abandon blame and just give them food? Could people be raised to have no problem watching them die? (Also, I'm listening to Pandora and Dire Straits came on and their awesome, so let's keep this a happy thread and be nice to one another, please.)

They say family is often more likely to have such pity, but what when the whole family falls? What if the family were all dependent on one, and (s)he/they fell? Are we monkeys that know that sometimes the weaker monkeys need to starve to death so we can be better monkeys? Or are we more social, evolved that we save everyone we can, because then our group is stronger?

Will we learn soon? I think we will learn something terrifying about ourselves, and many of you might make offerings to the Anal God of Lysis in the forms of your historic references that may answer my question.

What do you think, forum people?

I think we evolved that when shit hits the fan it's sometimes every monkey for himself. And that makes me sad. But Dire Straits makes me happy. Don't forget to vote in the poll.

I think that if you're going to reference Ayn Rand you should know her gender. Also, you should feel bad for lending any credence to the "thoughts" of Ayn Rand.

[Bombadil]

First.. what people say and what people do are different so I wouldn't take too much stock into what someone says..

Second.. circumstance, outlook and mood are the major factors in our level of altruism (disregarding whether altruism exists.. it's a concept, live with it)

I would view ourselves as very complex equalizers, where despite hearing the same song, different settings create different effects and there's an almost infinite array of settings and therefore effects.. a trigger can change any one or a number of these and thus change the overall output, and they're constantly being triggered regardless of whether we trend around an average.. (but then even that average can change over time.. creating a larger average that is less precise to define..)

We evolved to be complex equalisers, one could argue that when we her a Dire Straits song on different machines, we're hearing different songs - and hence we're not one single person as such but almost a quantum vibration of personalities..

[Eleanor Ritas]

For the most part, even if society was socially darwinistic, most people do not want to see others starve to a point, and would voluntarily help others out, even only out of their self interest to not feel feelings of guilt.

The problem is that I believe that human's capacity to be altruistic is capped. It's one thing to help your neighbor, or even someone who you may not know a lot but you kind of sympathize with. It's another thing to help out some random bum on the street who you don't know (and possibly may hurt you). And so people let them starve since they do not want to be taken advantaged of, or be negatively affected. And speaking of evolution, it makes sense that these potential "threats" go unaided, or weeded out.

Ah, so those who are maddened to the point where many others will see them as potential threats are naturally selected out. They still seem to be occurring, though. When will the very poor or mentally sick die out completely?

Or will they keep being born to die again?

[Eleanor Ritas]

I knew this Ayn Rand guy once many years ago. Really enjoyed the love scene in The Fountainhead. He flat out will admit (or rather I should say exclaim proudly, as he considers it no crime, as may not you, dear reader) that he would have no problem letting great masses of the poor starve to a suffering death in front of his bay window if they have nothing to offer that he wants, even if he had more food than he could eat in 1,000 lifetimes.

And I believe he meant it. And I kind of realize, a lot of society means it.

Where does that come from? Did we evolve a tendency to recognize when an ailing fellow primate was suffering from need, that might mean resources are becoming scarce, so hoard all you can? I read somewhere that for a particular species of migratory waterfowl, if one flockmate becomes injured or ill and has to fall out of formation on a long trip, two others will instinctively fall out and stay with the sick/injured bird. They stay with it in until it recovers and resumes, or it dies. But then again, if it can't fly anymore, they can't carry it. So maybe usually it dies.

Or is it instead culture? Could people be raised with a greater pity that will abandon blame and just give them food? Could people be raised to have no problem watching them die? (Also, I'm listening to Pandora and Dire Straits came on and their awesome, so let's keep this a happy thread and be nice to one another, please.)

They say family is often more likely to have such pity, but what when the whole family falls? What if the family were all dependent on one, and (s)he/they fell? Are we monkeys that know that sometimes the weaker monkeys need to starve to death so we can be better monkeys? Or are we more social, evolved that we save everyone we can, because then our group is stronger?

Will we learn soon? I think we will learn something terrifying about ourselves, and many of you might make offerings to the Anal God of Lysis in the forms of your historic references that may answer my question.

What do you think, forum people?

I think we evolved that when shit hits the fan it's sometimes every monkey for himself. And that makes me sad. But Dire Straits makes me happy. Don't forget to vote in the poll.

I think that if you're going to reference Ayn Rand you should know her gender. Also, you should feel bad for lending any credence to the "thoughts" of Ayn Rand.

I'm sorry, it was meant to refer to this male Objectivist I once knew, who I still think of as an Ayn Rand guy, meaning he's a guy who is into Ayn Rand. That's the he.

I did not structure that well, my bad.

[The Sotoan Union]

I think under normal conditions humans are more altruistic than not. We don't think for ourselves until shit hits the fan, and frequently it safely makes it to the toilet.

[The Serbian Empire]

Evolution is often cruel. Humans are just an outlier.

[Pandeeria]

While we have a cooperative nature, we do have a competitive/selfish side that in the end does win out if the situation calls for it. Mostly.

Ehhhh, tough call, but I would say culture now. While evolution does effect it to an extent, the culture ultimately decides exactly how selfish-selfless you are.

[Eleanor Ritas]

First.. what people say and what people do are different so I wouldn't take too much stock into what someone says..

So you say, says you. But I put stock in what you say, because you often tell the Hobbits stories of what you've done, which is just a song about what you do, and you are eldest, to boot.

Second.. circumstance, outlook and mood are the major factors in our level of altruism (disregarding whether altruism exists.. it's a concept, live with it)

You speak to that we are men that live in moments, and moments have context, and with our big mighty lobes of abstract reasoning we feast on that context like were-pig on a silver spit roast? How shall I live with such a thing? Oh, I just have to live with using altruism in a context in which it is very useful as a spectrum for an idea? Shant.

I would view ourselves as very complex equalizers, where despite hearing the same song, different settings create different effects and there's an almost infinite array of settings and therefore effects.. a trigger can change any one or a number of these change the overall output, and they're constantly being triggered regardless of whether we trend around an average.. (but then even that average can change over time.. creating a larger average that is less precise to define..)

You are truly a strange attractor. Make a phase diagram of your heart and mail it to me in February.

We evolved to be complex equalisers, one could argue that when we her a Dire Straits song on different machines, we're hearing different songs - and hence we're not one single person as such but almost a quantum vibration of personalities..

Does that mean if someone sees us, our superposition will collapse into something grossly binary, and we will be like the primitive computers of this time, unlike the q-bit monsters that will give us a heaven they can't understand, and we will have to outsmart sun-powered quantum gods that live forever and love us and have no fucking clue what is best for us? Are we really going to win that argument if we don't start it now, before they are born?

[Eleanor Ritas]

I think under normal conditions humans are more altruistic than not. We don't think for ourselves until shit hits the fan, and frequently it safely makes it to the toilet.

That last part has a poetic cadence.

[Eleanor Ritas]

Evolution is often cruel. Humans are just an outlier.

Yes, I suppose ants don't often comfort one another aside from whatever chemical emission means "The queen says calm down" or whatever.

Did I read once that a blind horse will be cared for an led to food and water by other horses in its group? Is there any truth to that?

[Eleanor Ritas]

While we have a cooperative nature, we do have a competitive/selfish side that in the end does win out if the situation calls for it. Mostly.

Ehhhh, tough call, but I would say culture now. While evolution does effect it to an extent, the culture ultimately decides exactly how selfish-selfless you are.

That seems solid.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I knew this Ayn Rand guy once many years ago. ...

I highly doubt that.

Ayn Rand, despite any conspiracy theory otherwise, was female.

[Eleanor Ritas]

I knew this Ayn Rand guy once many years ago. ...

I highly doubt that.

Ayn Rand, despite any conspiracy theory otherwise, was female.

I'm really very sorry, I should have edited what was trying to say earlier.

In this case, "Ayn Rand guy" refers to a guy who was really into Ayn Rand. Much like one might say "I knew this skater guy" or "He's a total metal guy". I was referring to a Male Objectivist as an "Ayn Rand guy" in that way, and it was unclear, and I should edit it now.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I highly doubt that.

Ayn Rand, despite any conspiracy theory otherwise, was female.

I'm really very sorry, I should have edited what was trying to say earlier.

In this case, "Ayn Rand guy" refers to a guy who was really into Ayn Rand. Much like one might say "I knew this skater guy" or "He's a total metal guy". I was referring to a Male Objectivist as an "Ayn Rand guy" in that way, and it was unclear, and I should edit it now.

'Twas mostly for comedic effect anyways.

To answer a pretty well thought-out topic with a very brief response, I think it is mostly cultural, though certainly with an evolutionary harshness that is ready to arise. Currently, cultural attitude, and even most people's, is not nearly so harsh, primarily as a result of forming families and societies to begin with.

[Eleanor Ritas]

I'm really very sorry, I should have edited what was trying to say earlier.

In this case, "Ayn Rand guy" refers to a guy who was really into Ayn Rand. Much like one might say "I knew this skater guy" or "He's a total metal guy". I was referring to a Male Objectivist as an "Ayn Rand guy" in that way, and it was unclear, and I should edit it now.

'Twas mostly for comedic effect anyways.

To answer a pretty well thought-out topic with a very brief response, I think it is mostly cultural, though certainly with an evolutionary harshness that is ready to arise. Currently, cultural attitude, and even most people's, is not nearly so harsh, primarily as a result of forming families and societies to begin with.

Forgive me, I am entirely unversed in any of the sciences relevant to this discussion, but do societies and modes of family structure evolve as sort of meta-organisms (if that's a word) and either thrive or disappear, subject to destruction or characteristic-preserving survival, and thus subject to their own natural selection of heritable traits?

Biology is my worst subject, amidst a wide array of contenders for incompetence.

[Luziyca]

I'm really very sorry, I should have edited what was trying to say earlier.

In this case, "Ayn Rand guy" refers to a guy who was really into Ayn Rand. Much like one might say "I knew this skater guy" or "He's a total metal guy". I was referring to a Male Objectivist as an "Ayn Rand guy" in that way, and it was unclear, and I should edit it now.

'Twas mostly for comedic effect anyways.

To answer a pretty well thought-out topic with a very brief response, I think it is mostly cultural, though certainly with an evolutionary harshness that is ready to arise. Currently, cultural attitude, and even most people's, is not nearly so harsh, primarily as a result of forming families and societies to begin with.

Basically this.

[Bombadil]

So you say, says you. But I put stock in what you say, because you often tell the Hobbits stories of what you've done, which is just a song about what you do, and you are eldest, to boot.

I'm not saying I'll do anything so you are free to take stock, but add a pinch of salt to that stock to suit your particular taste.

You speak to that we are men that live in moments, and moments have context, and with our big mighty lobes of abstract reasoning we feast on that context like were-pig on a silver spit roast? How shall I live with such a thing? Oh, I just have to live with using altruism in a context in which it is very useful as a spectrum for an idea? Shant.

Altrusim, like personality, is one of those things where the harder you try define it the more exceptions arise.. but to view it vaguely, like watching the news.

You are truly a strange attractor. Make a phase diagram of your heart and mail it to me in February.

Wait, make the diagram and then send you my heart, or send the diagram of my heart?

Does that mean if someone sees us, our superposition will collapse into something grossly binary, and we will be like the primitive computers of this time, unlike the q-bit monsters that will give us a heaven they can't understand, and we will have to outsmart sun-powered quantum gods that live forever and love us and have no fucking clue what is best for us? Are we really going to win that argument if we don't start it now, before they are born?

Probably.

[Eleanor Ritas]

So you say, says you. But I put stock in what you say, because you often tell the Hobbits stories of what you've done, which is just a song about what you do, and you are eldest, to boot.

I'm not saying I'll do anything so you are free to take stock, but add a pinch of salt to that stock to suit your particular taste.

You speak to that we are men that live in moments, and moments have context, and with our big mighty lobes of abstract reasoning we feast on that context like were-pig on a silver spit roast? How shall I live with such a thing? Oh, I just have to live with using altruism in a context in which it is very useful as a spectrum for an idea? Shant.

Altrusim, like personality, is one of those things where the harder you try define it the more exceptions arise.. but to view it vaguely, like watching the news.

You are truly a strange attractor. Make a phase diagram of your heart and mail it to me in February.

Wait, make the diagram and then send you my heart, or send the diagram of my heart?

Does that mean if someone sees us, our superposition will collapse into something grossly binary, and we will be like the primitive computers of this time, unlike the q-bit monsters that will give us a heaven they can't understand, and we will have to outsmart sun-powered quantum gods that live forever and love us and have no fucking clue what is best for us? Are we really going to win that argument if we don't start it now, before they are born?

Probably.

When you entered the thread, it was "Into the Mystic" by Van Morrison.

Now as I read your response, it's Stairway to Heaven. I don't know the band. Maybe Zepellin.

[The Serbian Empire]

Evolution is often cruel. Humans are just an outlier.

Yes, I suppose ants don't often comfort one another aside from whatever chemical emission means "The queen says calm down" or whatever.

Did I read once that a blind horse will be cared for an led to food and water by other horses in its group? Is there any truth to that?

Yes, the problem comes with more predatory animals such as housecats where the mother may eat the runt of the litter.

[Eleanor Ritas]

Yes, I suppose ants don't often comfort one another aside from whatever chemical emission means "The queen says calm down" or whatever.

Did I read once that a blind horse will be cared for an led to food and water by other horses in its group? Is there any truth to that?

Yes, the problem comes with more predatory animals such as housecats where the mother may eat the runt of the litter.

It seems humans are often very predatory, particularly during the last 200,000 years or some big figure?

[Dracoria]

I have to admit to being a social Darwinist. I usually talk about evolution when hanging out with others.

On a more serious note, I'd say we evolved as a species existing in small tribes. The creation of such things as organized religion and government was in part to maintain control over ever-growing societies that had grown beyond their original size, including broader and broader groups of less and less related peoples.

In olden times, we had less skill with reaping resources from nature. We needed to hunt and gather and could not store our food for long; we had to make our own tools; and we needed shelter. There have been a number of paleolithic human remains found with evidence of injury from worked tools, which tells one that we've likely been fighting over resources as long as we've been a species. Human tribes probably traded, mingled and perhaps even merged at times, but if the other tribe had nothing the first wanted and threatened its resources, there would probably be aggression of some sort.

As society grew beyond the tribe, things naturally grew more complicated. We had non-related groups, sometimes visibly different, mixed in a society. Laws and traditions that favored the continued existence of the society would necessitate cutting down on aggression among members of that society. Over time, we've been conditioned to be less physically aggressive and frequently more accepting of those not closely related.

Our distant but human ancestors likely would have put the family above all, and the newer generations ahead of the older when possible. More recent ancestors put non-related friends in the same category as family. These days, we put the distant offspring of wolves in adorable little shirts and booties and call them family. We have an abundance of resources to the point where we give to others we have never even met (both by choice and otherwise). It's just society, keeping itself alive. Unless society completely fails and we have to take care of our families and selves first, like, say, a zombie apocalypse, it'll continue to be that way.

[Scomagia]

It's cultural, mostly. From an evolutionary standpoint cruelty serves little purpose and is very disadvantageous compared to cooperation.

[Dracoria]

It's cultural, mostly. From an evolutionary standpoint cruelty serves little purpose and is very disadvantageous compared to cooperation.

Active cruelty perhaps. Depending upon scarcity of resources, passive cruelty is another matter.