Are there any evidence that human selfishness is not innate? I think almost all organisms are selfish, except in the case of parent-child relations sometimes and collective animals, like ants.
Let me put it another way. Selfishness is no more human nature than cooperation is. If we can build a civilization based on rewarding selfishness we can build one off rewarding cooperation.
Yes, both selfishness and cooperation are traits of human behavior but it seems natural that humans only cooperative if it benefits them i.e. Bob helps his village now because Bob is fairly confident the village will help him in the future if he needs help. In situations where there are not enough resources for all, don’t people usually fall back to every-person-for-themselves?
I’ve been watching past seasons of the US reality show “Survivor” and it’s a common strategy to stay in alliances throughout the competition but it’s not uncommon for these alliances to breakdown towards the end in the form of backstabbing, because there can only be a single winner. I’ve only seen a handful of seasons so far and it seems split at best that the winner of a season won with little/or no use of deceit and backstabbing.
My point is, when there’s lots to go around, sure, people will help each other. But when resources are scarce, it’s every person for themselves. And scarcity is a feature of life itself, therefore, human selfishness is natural and I’d guess is prioritized over cooperation when things get really tough.
Thats not selfishness though. It isn’t selfish to contribute to a group that benefits you. Its selfish if you contribute to a system that harms others because it benefits you. These are very different things.
In the various crucibles of civilization people came together precisely because resources were scarce. Yes they would eventually collapse when resources became too scarce to sustain whatever system they had built and infighting wasn’t uncommon but resources are not scarce now. We produce enough food, we have enough homes, we have enough water (for humans not for our current technological setup). The issue we are currently struggling with is not scarcity its distribution. The technology produced by the capitalist era is more that sufficient to provide for us all.
Don’t disagree with this. From what I understand, from a tech point of view and ignoring existing systems we use to distribute resources, we can technically provide a decent life for everyone on Earth but resources aren’t distributed in a such a way, for various reasons.
Even collective animals have to fight against selfishness. Worker bees detect and kill upstart queens. Human cells are being destroyed all the time (apoptosis). Cancer is the result when that mechanism fails.
Not sure what this has to do with selfishness. Is the worker bee killing an upstart-queen from its own hive? If so, what’s its motivation to kill the upstart-queen? How does this benefit the worker bee, causing the behavior to be selfish?
Human cells are being destroyed all the time (apoptosis)
In the case of body cells and apoptosis, I’d view the actual human being as equivalent to the entirety of the hive/the queen bee, in which case, the process of apoptosis is selfless from the point of view of the cells killing themselves or other cells - in theory it’s for the good of the human being as a whole.
Yes, the upstart-queen is from within the bee’s own hive. The hive permits only 1 queen and others are destroyed. The selfishness is not on the part of the worker who kills it, it’s on the upstart-queen who is trying to replace the main queen.
In the case of body cells and apoptosis, I’d view the actual human being as equivalent to the entirety of the hive/the queen bee, in which case, the process of apoptosis is selfless from the point of view of the cells killing themselves or other cells - in theory it’s for the good of the human being as a whole.
Yes, apoptosis is selfless. Cancer is the selfishness it fights against: a group of cells in selfish rebellion against the body.
Yes, the upstart-queen is from within the bee’s own hive. The hive permits only 1 queen and others are destroyed. The selfishness is not on the part of the worker who kills it, it’s on the upstart-queen who is trying to replace the main queen.
Ah, OK. I’m assuming at some point the upstart-queen does take over the existing hive, maybe once the existing queen dies from sickness or age or the upstart-queen escapes or moves somewhere else to start its own hive?
Yes, apoptosis is selfless. Cancer is the selfishness it fights against: a group of cells in selfish rebellion against the body.
I agree with this. Though, it’s a bit odd talking about ‘selfishness’ in the context of body cells, which I think most people don’t think are sentient. But I think we both understand the gist of what we’re talking about.
The upstart queen can replace the main queen if she dies, yeah. Queens produce a pheromone that triggers the killing of upstart queens. In the absence of a queen, an upstart queen can survive and take over.
The idea with cancer being selfish comes from an idea of organisms functioning at different levels of organization. Single-celled organisms, colonial microorganisms, multicellular life, social animals, larger societies, civilizations, ecosystems, the whole planet.
Perhaps one day we may colonize other planets and form yet another, higher level of organization. How it will function is still to be discovered but I think selfishness of individual units is always a potential.
The upstart queen can replace the main queen if she dies, yeah. Queens produce a pheromone that triggers the killing of upstart queens. In the absence of a queen, an upstart queen can survive and take over.
This makes sense. From the hive’s point of view, there are at least two ways to ensure there is always a queen:
always birth upstart-queen but kill them so long as the active queen is still alive. Once the active queen is sick or dead, an upstart queen will take over.
Only birth an upstart-queen when the active queen is sick and about to die.
Since the latter is more risky e.g. active queen might die before birthing a new queen, the hive goes with the former strategy.
The idea with cancer being selfish comes from an idea of organisms functioning at different levels of organization. Single-celled organisms, colonial microorganisms, multicellular life, social animals, larger societies, civilizations, ecosystems, the whole planet.
I’ve had similar thoughts regarding the “scope” of an organism. How human individuals think of themselves as separate from other humans but the earth might think of humanity as a single organism.
Are there any evidence that human selfishness is not innate? I think almost all organisms are selfish, except in the case of parent-child relations sometimes and collective animals, like ants.
Let me put it another way. Selfishness is no more human nature than cooperation is. If we can build a civilization based on rewarding selfishness we can build one off rewarding cooperation.
Yes, both selfishness and cooperation are traits of human behavior but it seems natural that humans only cooperative if it benefits them i.e. Bob helps his village now because Bob is fairly confident the village will help him in the future if he needs help. In situations where there are not enough resources for all, don’t people usually fall back to every-person-for-themselves?
I’ve been watching past seasons of the US reality show “Survivor” and it’s a common strategy to stay in alliances throughout the competition but it’s not uncommon for these alliances to breakdown towards the end in the form of backstabbing, because there can only be a single winner. I’ve only seen a handful of seasons so far and it seems split at best that the winner of a season won with little/or no use of deceit and backstabbing.
My point is, when there’s lots to go around, sure, people will help each other. But when resources are scarce, it’s every person for themselves. And scarcity is a feature of life itself, therefore, human selfishness is natural and I’d guess is prioritized over cooperation when things get really tough.
Thats not selfishness though. It isn’t selfish to contribute to a group that benefits you. Its selfish if you contribute to a system that harms others because it benefits you. These are very different things.
In the various crucibles of civilization people came together precisely because resources were scarce. Yes they would eventually collapse when resources became too scarce to sustain whatever system they had built and infighting wasn’t uncommon but resources are not scarce now. We produce enough food, we have enough homes, we have enough water (for humans not for our current technological setup). The issue we are currently struggling with is not scarcity its distribution. The technology produced by the capitalist era is more that sufficient to provide for us all.
Don’t disagree with this. From what I understand, from a tech point of view and ignoring existing systems we use to distribute resources, we can technically provide a decent life for everyone on Earth but resources aren’t distributed in a such a way, for various reasons.
Even collective animals have to fight against selfishness. Worker bees detect and kill upstart queens. Human cells are being destroyed all the time (apoptosis). Cancer is the result when that mechanism fails.
Not sure what this has to do with selfishness. Is the worker bee killing an upstart-queen from its own hive? If so, what’s its motivation to kill the upstart-queen? How does this benefit the worker bee, causing the behavior to be selfish?
In the case of body cells and apoptosis, I’d view the actual human being as equivalent to the entirety of the hive/the queen bee, in which case, the process of apoptosis is selfless from the point of view of the cells killing themselves or other cells - in theory it’s for the good of the human being as a whole.
Yes, the upstart-queen is from within the bee’s own hive. The hive permits only 1 queen and others are destroyed. The selfishness is not on the part of the worker who kills it, it’s on the upstart-queen who is trying to replace the main queen.
Yes, apoptosis is selfless. Cancer is the selfishness it fights against: a group of cells in selfish rebellion against the body.
Ah, OK. I’m assuming at some point the upstart-queen does take over the existing hive, maybe once the existing queen dies from sickness or age or the upstart-queen escapes or moves somewhere else to start its own hive?
I agree with this. Though, it’s a bit odd talking about ‘selfishness’ in the context of body cells, which I think most people don’t think are sentient. But I think we both understand the gist of what we’re talking about.
The upstart queen can replace the main queen if she dies, yeah. Queens produce a pheromone that triggers the killing of upstart queens. In the absence of a queen, an upstart queen can survive and take over.
The idea with cancer being selfish comes from an idea of organisms functioning at different levels of organization. Single-celled organisms, colonial microorganisms, multicellular life, social animals, larger societies, civilizations, ecosystems, the whole planet.
Perhaps one day we may colonize other planets and form yet another, higher level of organization. How it will function is still to be discovered but I think selfishness of individual units is always a potential.
This makes sense. From the hive’s point of view, there are at least two ways to ensure there is always a queen:
Since the latter is more risky e.g. active queen might die before birthing a new queen, the hive goes with the former strategy.
I’ve had similar thoughts regarding the “scope” of an organism. How human individuals think of themselves as separate from other humans but the earth might think of humanity as a single organism.