Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houti!trc
From: trc@houti.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: instincts and genes
Message-ID: <346@houti.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Jul-83 19:08:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: houti.346
Posted: Wed Jul 13 19:08:42 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Jul-83 06:14:26 EDT
Lines: 50

Response to Laura Creighton:

You state that my "article is full of biological inaccuracies with respect
to the behavior of real animals".  However, you do not state exactly what
inaccuracies you see.  

My major claims (with respect to biology) were that 1) not all species 
exhibit altruism, and many of those that do also exhibit selfish behaviors   
2) there does not seem to be any conclusive evidence that humans have 
instincts because 3) cultural factors seem to be predominant in humans, 
and so would obscure such an instinct unless a precise experiment were 
arranged to expose it.  I also made a comment on the meaning of "Tabula
Rasa".  

I have not yet read "The Selfish Gene", but I have read some reviews and
letters discussing it.  While I dislike the "anthropomorphization" of genes
implied in terms like "selfish" or "altruistic", the general idea that
survival of genes as the "motivation" of evolution seems reasonable.  I
suppose that such terms are justified for getting the idea across, but
I hope the author carefully noted that they are really being used 
metaphorically, not literally.  What I believe the author means is that the 
pattern encoded in the gene survives and interacts through the creatures
it helps form with the real world.  Thus, the creatures are, relative to
the gene, the method of survival.  

Our genes are not "concerned" with our survival, and we need not examine
their genetic code to determine what is right for us - that genetic code
is expressed in the nature of humans.  Regardless of how their genes may 
have evolved and survived, humans are what they are.  They do have a specific 
nature, which is obvious - they are alive and have the ability to reason.  
The latter is what distinguishes them from other animals.  Morality, and 
hence rights, should be in accord with this nature, or else they will be 
anti-survival.  Humans are not bees or ants.  "Species altruism" may be 
instinctive (IE beyond choice) for those creatures, but that does not imply 
that they are for humans.  Humans have *demonstrated* the ability to act
in practically every physically possible manner.  This implies that, if
there are tendencies built into humans, that in other creatures would be
instincts, they are easily overcome by the human mind.

Altruism is not compatible with consciousness and reason.  This is because
humans are able to realize the value of their own lives, for themselves, and
altruism (or species altruism) opposes this individual life.  Perhaps
this will turn out to be a poor survival trait (I doubt it - but then I'm
biased), but that does not mean we should try to circumvent it.  That would
require that we change our nature, so as to give up intelligence.  Again, 
I may be biased, but I see rational intelligence as the most interesting 
"experiment" ever to be conducted by evolution.

	Tom Craver
	houti!trc