Re: [Paddlewise] Natural Selection at Work

Niels Blaauw wrote regarding Craig's rescue plan of two boys that were likely
to break through the ice in Moses Lake:


>>>>>>>>You'd better beware, Craig, or Darwin might catch up with _you_!
The theory of the Selfish Gene states clearly that you shouldn't risk
your life for just any lunatic getting himself in trouble. You should
weigh the risk against the genes you share with the lunatic. You should
go out of your way to save your children, brothers and sisters, and
parents - and only if they are fertile, and if you're reasonably sure
they really have the genes they claim they have.
Assuming you have some idea of who your children are (not all men
have...) and that these two were not yours, your genes should have known
better than to plan a risky rescue.
On the other hand: Your rescue would have been highly ethical. Bad genes
can result in nice people. Should we congratulate you on your high moral
standard, or condole you on your faulty genes? I chose the former. Genes
are nasty fascist things anyway.

More to the point: How can boys be _that_ bloody stupid!?<<<<<<<<<<<



The theory of the selfish gene has no "shoulds" or "shouldn'ts" involved.
Craig isn't going to reproduce any more. The boys might might well reproduce.
A chimpanzee shares roughly 99 percent of our genes. The boys share far more
than that with Craig and also have yet to reach their reproductive ages while
Craig's breeding days are over. A gene that promotes kinship protection to aid
its own survival would lead the person with that gene to sacrifice their own
life to save the lives of more than two brothers (or sisters), more than eight
cousins, etc. etc., because that would increase that selfish gene's chances
for survival. Since the risk to Craig's survival in the rescue he planned
would be far less than 100%, the selfish gene theory could still easily fit.
Imagine if Craig and the two boys were the last males on earth and, as he
does, Craig knew about the condition he shared with his wife's cat. He might
well have attempted to save those children even knowing he would die doing so.



The theory of the selfish gene is not going to require one to do the math
calculations necessary to get the relationships exactly right (but on average
it is likely to work out that way). Someone living in the vicinity of you
(certainly in tribal times) is likely to share more of your genes than someone
living further away, so the theory would predict that you would be more likely
to take risks to help someone nearby (maybe someone that you've seen before)
than a stranger or someone from a great distance away.



If boys weren't that bloody stupid (risk taking) that might also make their
taking of risks in the future to save even a close relative much less likely.
If boys weren't both genetically (and educationally) programmed to take risks
we would have a lot better chance of putting and end to war though. Stock
markets would be less interesting too.


The theory of reciprocal altruism should also be considered a possible
motivation in this case rather than accusing Craig of having bad (or math
deficient) genes (or high moral standards).
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************