io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 3:38 PM
Mon Dec 7
24 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/17/09
[www.nytimes.com] #madscience
10/17/09
[www.nytimes.com] #madscience
10/16/09
Yay homo sapiens! #madscience
10/17/09
In most of those circumstances, the benefit is either pleasure or self-aggrandizement.
-Kle. #madscience
10/17/09
10/18/09
Yes, just like that! It's exactly the same as murder for the purposes of, say, sexual gratification.
-Kle. #madscience
10/16/09
Second, hunter Gatherers are quite often at least as altruistic as we post-agricultural types.
It's true that agriculture led to hierarchies, but hierarchies are not a sign of altruism--quite the opposite in fact--they're a sign of domination of many by a few.
As a way of life, agriculture is often substantially more labour intensive than hunting and gathering; although it may be more effective in failing environments (esp. with irrigation, etc.). The surpluses of high calorie, low nutritional food produced by agriculture led to growing populations with shorter lifespans, and so forth; and once your population reaches a certain size, you're committed to agriculture because the land won't support that many people in a hunting & gathering subsistence pattern anymore.
With growing populations you get anonymity, and no longer can most economic exchanges be based on personal relationships and long-term trust; they have to be based on mutual immediate personal gain.
You also get things like slavery and wars of conquest, which are generally far less common among hunter gatherers (although they do sometimes occur).
The reason we see far fewer hunter-gatherers around today than agriculturalists is because agriculturalists, with their ever-expanding populations, have this nasty habit of wiping out hunter gatherers and taking their land. #madscience
10/16/09
Maybe it's the expectation of a reciprocated favor later, improved social standing amongst your peers, believing that it will be rewarded by someone or something else later (like the afterlife), or the simple satisfaction that comes with reinforcing your own self-assessment that you are a moral person and a benefit to the world around you.
I think the only pure and selfless altruism is the kind practiced between family and intimate friends. But even then it's partly instinct and co-dependency.
I'm not trying to sound like an emo misanthrope or anything, it's just something I wondered about a lot.
Then again, I suppose the heroic firefighter, or passerby civillan, running into a burning building to save a baby, doesn't fit into that theory.
Hmmm... #madscience
10/17/09
Kin selection comes into that. If you help your family you are really also helping someone that shares your genes. If they reproduce there's an indirect benefit to you and that sort of behavior should be selected. That's why you often see more exaggerated displays of altruism among family. Among nonkin it's often a form of reciprocal altruism. If you're nice to someone they'll be nice to you when you need it.
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
[www.timesonline.co.uk]
10/16/09
Try this: Drop a hotdog on the floor in a place your dog doesn't see, and then call the dog and point at the food, tap your foot next to it or otherwise indicate that "Hey dog, I don't want this but I'll bet you do! Here, have a gift!"
Try the same experiment with a cat. Point at the food and the cat will stare at your finger. Tap your foot and the cat will play with your laces.
Cats don't understand altruism at all - they live solitary lives in the wild. Dogs, on the other hand, live in packs. They know that the health and happiness of their pack member can benefit them later on. The dog understands you want to help him because he would want to help you. The cat does not understand this because, in nature, the cat never seeks or gives help to other cats - because they don't live in cooperative groups.
BTW, cats do grasp the empty food bowl because it's a constantly repeated identical stimuli. They're not stupid - their minds just work fundamentally differently. That's also why dogs beg for food durng dinner whereas cats either ignore or try to steal. #madscience
10/16/09
10/16/09
Try this: Drop a hotdog on the floor in a place your dog doesn't see, and then call the dog and point at the food, tap your foot next to it or otherwise indicate that "Hey dog, I don't want this but I'll bet you do! Here, have a gift!"
Try the same experiment with a cat. Point at the food and the cat will stare at your finger. Tap your foot and the cat will play with your laces.
Cats don't understand altruism at all - they live solitary lives in the wild. Dogs, on the other hand, live in packs. They know that the health and happiness of their pack member can benefit them later on. The dog understands you want to help him because he would want to help you. The cat does not understand this because, in nature, the cat never seeks or gives help to other cats - because they don't live in cooperative groups.
BTW, cats do grasp the empty food bowl because it's a constantly repeated identical stimuli. They're not stupid - their minds just work fundamentally differently. That's also why dogs beg for food durng dinner whereas cats either ignore or try to steal. #madscience
10/16/09
You invoke a comparison with human hunter gatherers, but don't discuss altruism among hunter gatherers, which I suspect also differs from what is observed in chimps.
Then there are mirror neurons, which may differ across species. #madscience
10/16/09
With regard to hunter-gatherers, they vary quite widely. Some groups are quite aggressive to outsiders, but plenty more are very friendly and more than willing to help strangers--at least as altruistic as a person from an agricultural society. #madscience
10/16/09
Bonobo B is struggling with a drink.
Bonobo A takes Bonobo B out for drink, then gets busy with Bonobo B.
Problem solved. #madscience
10/16/09
10/16/09
Chimp B is struggling for the drink.
Chimp A is not able to tell the difference between Chimp B carrying out the needed steps to get a drink and Chimp B struggling to get a drink.
Chimp B has to say something, or Chimp A thinks it's all good.
If they were humans, Chimp A might also just post an embarrassing video of Chimp B on youtube. #madscience
10/16/09
10/16/09
For all the other chimp could know, he was just investigating the jar.
10/16/09
04/15/09
Whatever.
04/15/09
Listen Io9.... we need to have a talk...
04/15/09
Don'cha love extrapolating huge shifts from a single study? It's so invigorating.