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