Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsstat.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Instinctive altruism? Message-ID: <781@utcsstat.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Jul-83 17:16:59 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsstat.781 Posted: Tue Jul 12 17:16:59 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jul-83 22:49:25 EDT References: <341@houti.UUCP> Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada Lines: 27 Tom Craver's article is full of biological inaccuracies with respect to the behavior of real animals. There are pleanty of altruistic animals, or rather pleanty of altruistic seeming animals. There is no need to believe that a gene for "altruism" cannot exist. There is no need to believe that a gene for "selfishness" mustnt exist. I could go on at great length about this. I can present a proof of why total altruism cannot exist in any society even a human one using game theory. i can present a proof for observed altruism and observed selfishness as a direct consequence of the genetic makeup of the relavent species (which explains altrusim in insects, for instance even the death of 'worker bees for the good of the hive' as in effect selfish behavior). I can do a really good job, too, but Richard Dawkins does a better one in his book THE SELFISH GENE. It is a 220 page paperback with English large type, it will take you one night to read it. I would love to debate this whole point with both Tims, but until you have read at least this book then I will have to give 400 line soliloquays and explanation before I get to make even the smallest of points. Please go read the book! Both of you have valid points but there are huge gaping errors in the sweeping generalisations you make which are driving me nuts and I cant do anything about it until you have read... Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura