Dumbledore's Unspeakable Word (going OT) and coming back

[nkafkafi]

> Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray): 
> I sorta thought that would be the easy one. My theory:
> 
> Granted a fairly broad and complexly arranged social group, a 
specimen
> (such as Kneasy) demonstrating traits conducive to the survival of 
the
> group as a whole (such as instinctive helpfulness) will be valued 
for
> their role in the group. Granted an implicit consciousness of the 
value
> of such helpful, Kneasy-like specimens, endless flocks of female 
members
> will doubtless be (unconsciously) motivated to chase after such and
> similar specimens in hopes of procreating hundreds and hundreds of 
baby
> Kneasies, ensuring the survival and gradual predominance of the
> helpful-Kneasy-gene.
> 

Neri:
Stories like these were very common among evolutionary biologists in 
the 50s and the 60s, and some of the old geezers still tell them 
today. However, since then most biologists have realized that not 
every theory that sounds reasonable can actually be made to work. 
Today, biologists will usually demand to see a working mathematical 
model, at the very least. The explanations you suggested were 
discussed a lot over the years, but at least for explaining extreme 
altruism they don't work very well, mainly because they are sensitive 
to new mutations with slightly more reasonable behavior. In your 
theory, for example, it's likely  that after a million years or two, 
*some* females would get some brain, and would go for the specimen 
that risk their lives only for females (preferably one female, 
preferably them). The specimen that risk their lives for any stranger 
out there are less likely to stay alive and be there for the kids, 
after all. You'd also think that some males would get the brain to 
perform these risky stunts only when some females are around to be 
impressed. The models show that once very few of the population 
develop a smarter gene like this, they quickly multiply and take over 
the whole population, because they have a survival advantage. They're 
only altruists when it's effective for propagating their genes. 
However, I gathered from Kneasy's story that there wasn't any 
eligable female around. 


> Or put in the kind of language that makes more sense to me: The 
higher
> animals aren't as stupid as we think - and are no where near as
> egotistical. Just like human beings, they appreciate the kind of 
traits
> we call kindness - although this appreciation is counterbalanced by 
an
> appreciation of traits like strength and dominance. Like successful 
(or
> "good") people, successful (or "good") animals are able to keep 
these
> traits in balance. Animals and people who are purely egotistical and
> show no kindness are not lovable, and not being loved, will not 
survive
> very well. 


Neri:
Cooperation and kindness *are* common among the higher animals, and 
as I wrote in my previous post can be explained by working models in 
evolution theory *if* they are directed towards family or towards a 
pack members (or anybody who is likely to return a favour in the near 
future). But risking your life for a total stranger is a different 
matter altogether. In fact, I just tried to find an analogy to what 
Kneasy did in any kind of animal, and my memory seems to be failing 
me, because I can't remember even a single example. Sure, we have 
some (very rare) cases of animals behaving altruistically even 
towards members of a different species: wild dolphins supporting 
humans drowning at sea, female wolves adopting human children, and so 
on, but in none of these cases the altruist was actually putting it's 
own life in serious danger. So until I find some counterexamples I 
must classify Kneasy's deed as a purely human behavior pattern. My 
apologies if this disappoints you, Kneasy <g>.

Neri