From: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter)
Subject: altruism and will to live/ not likely
Summary: Altruism and Will to live -NOT
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:14:57 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Keywords: altruism evolution will survive

I want to argue my belief that we all just act selfishly, and anything that
seems altruistic is either just a means to selfish goals or an error in
judgement.  You can't say that you always have the proper knowledge of the
facts or the time to think all your actions to their end result.
    Now I anticipate that some people will say that this is rather a bleak
outlook, that doesn't make it less plausible.  Personally, that doesn't make
things seem bleak to me.  In the end society is cooperative and apparently
generous.  In the end I am generous and I like to see people happy, that makes
me happy.
    I must admit that it may not be in my own interest for everyone to realize
that they ultimately act selfishly, since society benefits more when they
think they are acting benevolently.  Am I making my point here, in my attempts
to be concise, I tend to leave things out?  Let me know.

An aquaintance on the board here gave me this example (I can't get to his name
right now while I am writing this, I apologize):

>                                        The reciprocal altruism and
>familial altruism that you cite omit still one other category: the
>unexplainable altruism of a human being giving his or her life for
>another person he or she does not know. No benefit accrues to the (dead)
>altruist, no indirect contribution to the composition of the gene pool.
>It is simply an act of personal will, an act not describable by
>scientific rationality.

    I am just commenting from my own thinking on these subjects so feel
free to point out any mistakes I might make (ok).  At first what you said
about altruism having no benefit appears  reasonable.  That is societal
conditioning.  Just one point I would argue is that what you call altruism
that doesn't benefit the species on the whole will acually lessen or cause
the species to extinct.  If you realize that we have evolved to a point where
we are conscious and can philosophize, this is a trait that suceeds and allows
the species to continue.  However, just because the traits we have as a result
of the complex relationship between our genes, the environment, our culture
(don't think that evolution is only DNA, DNA is part of the whole picture).
Even though the process has allowed us to be what we are today (ex. sit here
and debate altruism) doesn't mean that every trait that has evolved is always
working for our individual or species survival.  It is also a possiblility
the trait we feel is consciousness, will lead to the end of the human species.
    With respect to the unexplainable altruism, if it were realy 
unexplainable then it would be dismissed as accident, not providence.
Say I saw you were going to get hit by a car I realized that I could save
you but I would die in the process.  Say I did it, I die.  The question is am
I altruistic.  In one perspective, everyone else's, I am.  But I argue that
as it turns out that either I reasoned or by some sort of knee-jerk reaction
based on my system of beliefs I actually valued your life at that instant at
least, more than my own.  Furthermore, I value your survival such that I
feel like I lose less in myself dying than in you dying.  I will anticipate
you saying that it is still altruism.  If so please use a better example or
clarify this example.

    My feeling on this is related to my feeling about the 'will to
survival' related to evolution.  Will to survive is not part of evolution.  I
can say will to survive and survival are very different, survival is necessary
for species continuation, the will to survive is not.  In addition, I should
mention that the species does not even have to try to continue as far as
evolution is concerned, however as a result of evolution it does continue.  
Wanting to survive, thinking you are altruistic, or being Christian for that
matter comes from the individual and it's capabilities defined by the
expression of its genes, it is not explicitly designed in the process.  It
appears to be a will to survive at first glance because unless you look
deeper, you either consiously or unconsciously personify evolution giving it
characteristics that you have such as desires. 

    On a side note consider this.  I feel like I want to live to the next
moment, at least it seems like I do (that is the crux).  But I reflect
and say that I have to perform actions that lead me to surviving to the
next moment.  This is a continuous sequence of desire(s) that lead to what
actions I perform at any moment.  This does not restrict me to be
conscious at all times about surviving.  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  I
don't have to think about breathing, wheras I have to do something about
eating consciously.  So do you survive because of your will to survive or is
it just something that has come about.  You can do things to help your
survival, but do you do that because somehow you want to survive?  You
may have consciously decided that you want to survive, I am saying that
it is not _necessary_ for you to come to that realization, nor is it
necessarily desireable for you to come to that point of view?  Do you grant  
consciousness to bacteria, do they survive, do they need to contemplate
survival to survive?  I know these would be strange ideas to you, I can't 
recall ever hearing such a line of thought.

-- 
==============================================================================
Internet: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu | Horse of Ren&Stimpy:  "No sir, I don't 
       or cdminter@eng.uiowa.edu   |   like it!"
  Q-Link: EarthsWake (was Chaos0)  | Stimpy:  "Happy Happy. Joy Joy."
"The universe is unfinished, you know?"  -Dune Messiah