The Faithful Hound

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Altruism and evolution

Let me start by saying that this blog entry was inspired by the comments posted on my previous blog entry.
What exactly is altruism? It is an emotion, possibly unique to man (I use the term loosely throughout this essay to include both sexes), to protect others of his species, often at a disadvantage to himself. It is the feeling that inspires charity, social welfare, intervention in foreign genocide and even the bravery of a stranger who rushes into a burning building to rescue an unknown cripple.
While the well-informed reader will quickly point out that most herd or pack based animals display similar sentiments - for example elephant cows nurture motherless calves and penguins stand guard over each other's eggs - I believe there is one fact that makes human altruism truly unique.
We are the only species that goes out of its way to protect those who cannot contribute back to society. In the animal kingdom, the runt of the litter is often deliberately killed or starved at birth. Older, sicker and weaker animals meet a similar fate. Protection within the herd is granted mainly to younger members that will soon grow to be strong and will eventually contribute back to the herd. A slow gazelle slows down the group and is not protected when the lions attack.
In the case of man, altruism has blossomed into a more generous sentiment. Protection is not offered simply to those who can eventually repay the kindness, but even to those who will never be able to fend for themselves, and who will always be dependent on their benefactors. This is more clearly visible in the West. In some American cities generations of a family live off social welfare that provides them with adequate comfort to never feel motivated enough to work. In Germany a growing number of young people are choosing to move back to their parents' homes and live off state funding that often pays more than a start-up job.
While India has not reached the levels of state protection seen in the West, the Indian left wing has not been inactive. The progress of society has often taken a back seat to the protection of the downtrodden. This can be seen in initiatives to prevent global trade, forgive loans to poor farmers, impede the development of large dams and slow the privatization of the incompetent public sector. The fact that you may feel that some of these initiatives are worthy shows the degree to which altruism has become ingrained into our DNA.
This brings me to the second part of this post. What is evolution? It is the process of slow mutation of a species allowing it to better adapt its surroundings. This is accomplished by giving more access to resources to those who are better suited to survive, thereby allowing them to reproduce more.
For example, Darwin studied finches in the Galapagos islands. When a drought caused smaller seeds that the birds ate to disappear, only the finches with beaks large enough to eat nuts had access to food. The rest starved to death. The next generation of finches were the offspring of the survivors and they all had large beaks which now made the species more resistant to drought.
So what am I saying here? Am I saying that altruism is counter-productive to evolution? Yes, in a way that's true. Man's attempts to always provide for the weak ensures that the human species will not evolve any further. Those that are physically or intellectually ill-suited for survival will continue to be cared for and will continue to feed the gene pool. In my opinion this will lead to the creation of two permanent classes of society - those that constantly contribute and those that are constantly dependent.
Now is this a bad thing? I leave that to you to decide. In my view it's not as bad as it sounds. Man does not need to evolve any further. He has already established his dominion over most forms of nature and has no vital threats to the survival of his species. At this point altruism is a luxury that we can all afford. But a luxury is not a necessity.

10 Comments:

  • At 10:36 PM, Blogger Tabula Rasa said…

    Interesting points. But are you sure that man does not *need* to evolve? As Steven Pinker would put it, evolution is a process, not an outcome, and organisms will continue to evolve as long as their environment continues to change. And our environment -- physical as well as social -- is certainly changing .

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    Well, I can't see any impending physical evolution that is particularly urgent. We are already adaptive enough as a species to fend off minor natural disasters and there aren't many of us who constantly worry about being eaten by predators. Of course if global warming kicks off the next ice age its possible that we may have to physically adapt to that.
    Other than that I suppose that man will slowly intellectually evolve to keep pace with an increasingly complex world.
    My point was that unlike in the animal kingdom, there is no urgent need for constant evolution for the survival of our species.

     
  • At 6:29 PM, Blogger wildflower seed said…

    Over here from Tabula's. Deadhead in Boston? That makes two of us! Or three, once TR gets here in mid-April. Want to get together sometime? Lemme know. (Sorry for the off-topic comment.)

     
  • At 12:26 AM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @VentBlues
    Sounds like a plan. Keep me posted.

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Tabula Rasa said…

    o-kay! agree and disagree. disagree that evolution is propelled by urgent or compelling needs. imho, evolution is a *constant* process that a species undergoes as its environment changes, not a set of knee-jerk responses. and our environment is changing all the time. it just happens too slowly for us to notice it on a moment by moment basis.

    after all, how long have we been noticing anyway? and even within that so-brief period, look how much we have changed. (look, for instance, at how the average height in east asia has increased merely over the last century.)

    and agree on the boston meet-up plan. although next month is *so* far away for me right now. i'll be there from 4/17 to 4/21.

     
  • At 1:54 PM, Blogger GhostOfTomJoad said…

    Agree completely with TR...it's not as though it's up to us to decide whether we need evolution. It's an ongoing process that we can do little about.

    I'm no expert and don't have in-depth knowledge about animal behaviour. So, I may be wrong but from the little I know, when lions attack, deer don't hang around to protect the weak. Strong or weak, able bodied or not, it's every deer for itself. Therefore, I'm not really sure about the authenticity of your claim that "A slow gazelle slows down the group and is not protected when the lions attack." However, I wonder if you can explain how/why elephants rally around the baby of the herd, or an injured member, and protect it against lions and other predators?

    The essence of your theory is that there is no place in this world for the poor and the underprivileged. Which means that their supposed unsuitability for this world derives itself not so much from their lack of ability but from the unfortunate circumstances of their birth. Don’t you think it’s a bit odd then that you and I, who may be complete wastrels, can claim greater rights than an underprivileged person, who may be better than us in every respect?

    You say “We are the only species that goes out of its way to protect those who cannot contribute back to society.”

    Just this morning, there was this news item about a young man who has passed out of IIM (Bangalore, I think). He was offered a 8,50,000 salary but refused. Do you know why? B’cos he wants to give something back to society. He was born in the slums of Madras and raised by a single mother in a pokey little room. Obviously, the lady barely ever made enough but, somehow, she managed to give him an education. In the kind of world you’ve described, this poor fellow wouldn’t have had a chance but now, who knows, he may end up doing more for the society and the world than you and I, and the entire blogging community put together, will ever be capable of doing. This should also tell you that the "slow gazelle" from the animal kingdom cannot be equated with the "downtrodden" in the human world. This should also tell you that you and I have no right to decide which member can contribute back to society.

    Remind me to send you this proposal for a TV show we had written once. Called ‘Homespun’, it was meant to be about some illiterate people, from backward and really underprivileged parts of the country, who’ve put together some brilliant scientific innovations that are improving the lives of others like themselves. None of them have ever been to school but, still, have some understanding about science and technology and are using it to make some difference to world around them.

     
  • At 8:02 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @TabulaRasa
    I agree that evolution is a slow ongoing process where traits that give an individual a greater chance to survive increase his odds of reproducing before he dies, thereby causing the trait to carry on to the next generation. However, there are often knee jerk evolutionary steps too (noticable evolution over a few generations). The example of Darwin's finches come to mind, as well as immunological characteristics that allow just a small sub-population to survive an epidemic allowing the entire next generation to be populated by specimen that are more resistant to the disease.
    In the case of man, I don't see any species-threatening dangers on the horizon that are likely to only allow people with a certain physical characteristic to survive.
    That being said, yes, shorter people currently have less of a chance of finding a mate (because we all sub-concsiously prefer taller mates), so the coming generations will be increasingly taller as shorter people contribute less to the gene pool. However, I do not consider this to be a significant evolutionary step.

     
  • At 8:16 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @GhostOfTomJoad
    I have never claimed that man evolves at will. I simply said that I do not see any drastic physical evolution on the horizon as we have made our living environment safe for the time-being. See my response to TR for clarification.
    Regarding animal behavior, you underestimate the maternal instinct among animals. Animals almost always protect their young from predators many times their size. My point was that they do not extend the same protection to their sick or weak. Even domesticated dogs intentionally do not allow a weak puppy (a runt) to feed with the rest of the litter. Caring for the weak is a uniquely human trait, as we are comfortable enough with our safety as a species to allow is to support those who cannot contribute back to the species.
    Now coming to what you call the 'essence of my theory'. I certainly do not think that there is no place for the weak or the poor in our society. On the contrary, my whole essay revolved around the theme that we have reached a comfort zone as a species to allow us the luxury of caring for our weak. It is a luxury that no other animal can claim.
    Regarding the rags-to-riches stories in your post. I am glad for them, even though they are usually the very remote exception rather than the rule.

     
  • At 5:39 AM, Blogger Selma Mirza said…

    Maybe my reasoning is flawed, because I would not think so much into it while helping a lost lion cub or giving food to a poor man. Perhaps I am hampering evolution, but because I am there, maybe I was destined to be there, and when I am destined to be there, maybe I have a bigger role to play than just be a silent spectator.

    Here comes in choice, and the ability to make a calculated decision. When I help out a lost kitten, I may be hampering the chances of survival of another and perhaps stronger kitten, because the saved kitten is going to eat up his resources. Am I then not being unjust to the stronger kitten?

    When i help a poor child who is simply begging in the train, is he not eating up the resources that would have gone towards helping the child who has learned how to play a musical instrument than merely beg?

    These are moral dilemmas I face each day Mockturtle, and I try so hard to find a solution. Pity comes faster to me than rational thinking, and I have to make a conscious effort to slow it down so that I have thought of the consequences before I change the way things are.

    Digressing comment, sorry!

     
  • At 3:01 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @evenstar
    I certainly did not mean to discourage you from kindness. While evolution of the species calls for allowing weaker members to reproduce less in the long term, it is everyday kindness that makes life worth living in the short term.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home