From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:44:08 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <1992Nov4.215643.19998@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.190627.24936@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>>In article <ceqe02Zm29YI01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Nov2.152851.20701@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
>>>hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
>>>>
>>>> Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that there 
>>>> is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to save 
>>>> members of another species.
>>
>>Maybe the scope or sophistication of the question has not been fully
>>appreciated, but how does your hypothesis deal with actual recent events
>>like these occurring near my home:
>>
>>     1.Woman and children escape burning house.  Woman then dies of smoke 
>>	inhalation, after running back in to save pets.
>
>   Not a particularly good example.  First, the woman didn't KNOW she'd die
>   in the attempt.  Had she known, she might well have made a different
>   choice.  Second, she didn't attempt the rescue to save the pets, she did
>   it because she wanted to avoid the bad feelings which would result from
>   not making the attempt, i. e., she wouldn't have been "able to live with
>   the knowledge" that she might have been able to save the pets, but hadn't
>   tried.

But Martin's question did not address the motivation of the behavior. 
He simply asked for an example of a "species that would sacrifice its
own members to save members of another species." Whether or not the
woman intended to sacrifice herself, she most likely knew that her own
death was a possibility and for whatever reason she was willing to take
the risk for members of other species.  The result of her decision was
that her life was sacrificed.  This appears to satisfy the literal
challenge, but perhaps Martin was searching for something more. 

It's possible that Martin was hoping to show that all successful species
are speciesist by demonstrating that inter-species altruistic behavior
was nonexistent - when it came to the ultimate sacrifice.  However it's
debatable whether this approach will lead him to that endpoint. 

But you seem to be extending the scope of his claim to include
intra-species altruism.  If it turns out that Martin agrees with you,
then his challenge loses a lot of its impact, because behavior of the
type he seeks to exalt would fail to exist not only when directed toward
other species but also when directed toward one's own species. 

>>     2.Pit bull attacks young girl while horrified family looks on.
>>	Family German shepherd intervenes between pit bull and girl,
>>	thereby slowing the attack long enough for help to be summoned.
>>	Shepherd dies but the girl's life is saved thanks to the extra
>>	time provided by the shepherd for help to arrive.
>
>   Another unfortunate example.  First, the German shepherd thinks that its
>   human companions are just strange-looking fellow members of the pack (at
>   least as far as anyone can tell).  Given this, it simply reacted in the
>   way ANY dog would act when a pack member is attacked by a member of a
>   different pack.

It's interesting here how you seem to differ with Martin on whether all
species are speciesist, since under this explanation the shepherd is not
making a distinction based on species but one based on pack membership.
I'll be interested to hear his view on whether this disproves his "All
species are speciesist" hypothesis.

>  Second, the German shepherd didn't know that the result
>   of its intervention would be its own demise.  Given a choice, many species,
>   and most who actually raise their young, will even abandon offspring if
>   that is what's required to maintain the life of the parents, so the
>   German shepherd's actions might well have been different had a threat to 
>   life been perceived as certain.

Possibly, but I would claim (but I can't prove it) that the German shepherd,
like the woman, knew in advance that there was some significant risk.

>
>   Martin's claim stands.

I don't think so - if he meant literally what he wrote.  He did not, in
the challenge he issued, introduce the idea of any motivation, whether
it be altruism or something else. 

>  Science will rush to the feet of anyone who can
>   demonstrate pure altruism; that's why the possibility that such a demon-
>   stration had actually occurred generated a multi-page article in SCIENCE
>   NEWS a couple of years ago.
>

Some questions:

1.  How would pure altruism be PROVED?

2.  How would the ABSENCE of it be proved?

If an actual experiment or even a thought experiment can not be devised
to answer these question, then does it really make a big difference
either way?


Q:  Why did the epistemologist cross the road?
A:  I don't know.
---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals