@Synapse,

Evolution is not about being selfish *at all*. Evolution rewards any behavior that is *succesful*, whether that behavior is selfish or not. When I kill a fish to eat it, I'm not cooperating with the fish, I'm killing it to eat it and affirming my position on top of the food chain.
However, if I go out fishing with my buddy, and instead of sharing my caught fish with him I throw him overboard, eat the fish, and turn back home, then beside the fact that some critical questions will be asked back at home, I will have killed off a lot of genes that look quite a lot like mine.
The fact that human behavior involves large scale cooperation and altruism that advances all people involved in these cooperations a little bit does not in the slightest refute, or change the theory of evolution. It simply means that in finding a balance between selfish "this fish is mine" behavior and altruistic "this fish is ours" behavior, we possibly tended to one of either side.

Okay except I disagree completely with gene-centric evolution

Since differentiation of species is measured genetically, your rejection of gene-centric evolution is simply foolish….as is the whole notion that nature rewards the cooperative, as a very basic examination of the breadth of life on earth does not support this idea *at all*. Many animals live solo lives, and compete for natural resources not only with other species, but amongst themselves. Your notion is ludicrous.

But….I know why you hold such a belief…because as a human…and I’ll bet $1000 a left-leaning political human…you are all about cooperation, it-takes-a-village thinking and the assertion than man cannot thrive on self-reliance…and thus this is reflected in your utopian view of evolution. Predictable as shit from a cow.

Yeah, the genes don't have a clue what your friend's genes look like... is far more subtle than that.

fyi, left handed humans have an advantage in competitive sports (like baseball) - where they spend all their time training against right-handed pitchers and batters, whereas right-handed player get very little practice against south-paws - in a purely competitive world we would expect there to be about 50:50 lefties to righties. But even baseball is a co-operative sport - (hey it's a team thing) - if we were a 100% co-operative species, you might expect 0% of (pick one, left or right handed-ness), instead we find humans are 10% left handed, except in ultra-competitive areas (like astronaut selection process, where you find 25% of people in space were left handed...)

my 2 left-hand cent.

Every species arises from a pre-existing species. Prior to speciation there exists a protospecies (or race if you prefer). So yes evolution does favour cooperation, but not on the level of the whole species but rather at the level of the race/kin group. Taken on its own in a political context the theory of Natural Selection is indeed reactionary come fascist.

Define "cooperation". It is not *at all* a scientific term. It is an emotional term...it comes from political discussions, not laboratories.

I take that back...it does apply to science...I had a momentary mental breakdown due to the lack of cooperation for my ideas.

That being said...if you have ever seen animals fighting over food...and they don't care if the one next to them is starving, even if it is a sibling...then you would realize this whole notion is, frankly, stupid.

This article isn’t about evolution – Read on:
“Evolution does not favour selfish people” : This article isn’t about evolution

“it pays to be co-operative, shown in a model of "the prisoner's dilemma", a scenario of game theory” : This article isn’t about evolution

“the team says their work shows that exhibiting only selfish traits would have made us become extinct.” Can NOT be proven – this is a politically motivated *theory*: This article isn’t about evolution

This is an article...and a study...about human society, not evolution..and more importantly what they WISH human society was like in their utopian view of non-competitive humans (in which there would be no progress, mind you..)

Total BS...

Well, I didn't read the paper (maybe I will later), but from the article, it doesn't sound that impressive.

"The two prisoners that are interrogated are not allowed to talk to each other. If they did they would make a pact and be free within a month. But if they were not talking to each other, the temptation would be to rat the other out."

But it's always been assumed that the prisoners in the prisoners' dilemma DID have a pact -- and that then they broke it.

Like I say, though, I haven't read the paper, and it's not uncommon for papers to sound a lot dopier in news reports than they really are.

The very idea that you are talking about social constructs and human behavior and trying to tie it to evolution is rather ridiculous, unless you are ascribing a higher level of thought and intellect to pre-humans than anyone has ever suggested, or evidence suggest. It’s useless blather.

Packs of dogs, herds of deer, prides of lions, colonies of bees, ants...................you get the idea

Things I’ve seen *in reality* (not laboratory thought expirements) that make this look ridiculous:
1. Kittens fighting for scraps of food/a nipple, while one dies of illness and starvation
2. Adult dogs, growling and snapping over food, and gorging themselves so that the other can’t have any
3. A snake eating its own tail
4. Wild animals across Africa gorging themselves on food, even dragging it away, so that none others can share in the
5. Birds taking over other bird’s nests, even throwing baby birds out to steal a home
6. Alligators fighting over food with no regards for the needs of others

Shall we go on? Most of the animal kingdom is brutally selfish. Cooperation comes when they feel the need to procreate…and half the time even THAT results in a fight.

...you get the idea. Your human emotional labels to the natural kingdom don't reflect reality.

Really, krellin? Animals like food? That's the best counterargument you can come up with? Anyone who's seen Draugnar at a Ponderosa knows that animals like food. That's not an argument, that's a fact of life.

Animals like food. No shit. But most types of animals display cooperative behavior that is engaged in for the success of the species. Ever seen a lion charge into a pack of zebras? Why do you think zebras (or any animals - gazelle, wolves, fish) travel in packs? Insects build massive nests to house a colony. Monkeys hoot and scream to warn others of attackers. Velociraptors distract park wardens and hunt in packs. Even some PLANTS are able to alert other nearby plants of threats, especially those plants that are poisonous.

Disagree about "cooperative behaviour that is engaged in for the success of the species". In my view this is wishful thinking -see my post at 6.10 pm earlier in the thread

Zebras traveling in packs is quite selfish. They are each individually safer being in a pack than being on their own.

Same for many of those other examples. Cooperation is driven by selfishness. The two ideas are not contrary to each other.

This discussion is funny because SYnapse and krellin both don't know what they're talking about. For SYnapse's sake (though he has me muted) I'll spell this out:

The paper cites both Hamilton and Dawkins and doesn't disagree with them. All it's about is whether (recently discovered) zero-determinant strategies can be evolutionarily stable, given the fact that gene-centric evolution occurs.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130801/ncomms3193/full/ncomms3193.html

And they didn't find any, but near the end they say "it appears possible that evolutionarily successful ZD strategies can be designed that use longer memories to distinguish self from non-self." They didn't try to design those yet.

Krellin you're not invited to this conversation. I have a PhD in evolutionary biology.

Maybe webdiplomacy community aren't the best people to discuss mutual dependance and cooperative traits...

SYnapse...sure you do. And I have a PhD is kicking your ass. NEXT!

If the purpose of this study is not to make the leap to some social/political realm, what is the purpose of it? It is designed and released so that social engineers can make some anti-capitalist argument about how to bet evolve the species...and thereby society. That is the inevitable outcome of such things.

> I have a PhD in evolutionary biology.

I call bullshit. Prove it.

How could someone with a PhD in evolutionary biology fuck up so badly at understanding this paper?

WebDippers are not the best to discuss such things with because we might actually look at the purpose and intent of such socially constructed reporting and call it out for what it is, as opposed to the regular sheeple of society who just consume what it fed them without questions.

And not to be misunderstood here: krellin's misreading is much, much stupider, but there's no point in even engaging with him. Dunning-Kruger effect.

I'd figure that goes without saying, but just in case.

"You might think that natural selection should favour individuals that are exploitative and selfish, but in fact we now know after decades of research that this is an oversimplified view of things, particularly if you take into account the selfish gene feature of evolution.

"It's not individuals that have to survive, its genes, and genes just use individual organisms - animals or humans - as vehicles to propagate themselves."

"Selfish genes" therefore benefit from having co-operative organisms.


This IN NO WAY debunks selfish behavior. It says selfish behavior USES co-operative behavior. It doesn't even suggest that selfish behavior is bad!! It says that it thrives...but has been misunderstood and oversimplified. Selfish behavior works like this....all you unmotivated shmucks that don't have the selfishness to work hard and get rich...I'll create a company, employ you at low wages (because you are cooperative and compliant...) and I get rich off your cooperative backs. Then I will propagate my genes, because you will be too tired too....lol

But seriously...Insects cooperate...for selfish reasons...and ESPECIALLY when you take in to consideration that insects are cooperating TO SERVE THE QUEEN...an *extremely* selfish individual, without whom the insect **ceases to exist!!**

gav - I have no misunderstanding of this BS. I see intellectual masturbation in print.

OK, krellin, here's the paper:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130801/ncomms3193/full/ncomms3193.html

Please quote the parts that you disagree with, and explain why.

We are not insects Krellin. Anyway get out of my thread.