[Skandaria]

Do animals(including humans) who develop altruistic behaviour have a greater evolutionary success compared to to those who dont develop this? What do you think and why

[E.Blackadder]

just depends on the selective pressures acting on the species. if the situation required an "everyman for himself" approach those that are altruistic would be killed or not selected for procreation.

[SoulfulBoy]

BehaViour.
I hope you made that mistake purposely.

[Skandaria]

(Original post by SoulfulBoy)
BehaViour.
I hope you made that mistake purposely.

lol give me a break man it happens even to me.

[Skandaria]

(Original post by E.Blackadder)
just depends on the selective pressures acting on the species. if the situation required an "everyman for himself" approach those that are altruistic would be killed or not selected for procreation.

hmm surprisingly strong altruistic instincts in an animal lead to it having more offspring than those who lack the instinct. modern humans may well have genuinely altruistic motives which are hard wired precisely because this is an effective survival strategy, and those of our ancestors who were not so moral died out lol found that interesting.

[JCC-MGS]

I believe so, there's a book by Peter Kropotkin called Mutual Aid which argues just that, I think you'd enjoy it

[DontWantYourBloodMoney]

Well yes, in the sense that their collective sense of well-being for others means that they will form alliances and so survive longer than those who do not, allowing more time for this evolution to take place.

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by Skandaria)
hmm surprisingly strong altruistic instincts in an animal lead to it having more offspring than those who lack the instinct. modern humans may well have genuinely altruistic motives which are hard wired precisely because this is an effective survival strategy, and those of our ancestors who were not so moral died out lol found that interesting.

my point was more for animals in general than specifically modern humans. as we are now i think you are right in saying that the altruistic behaviour of parents is effective (i would say necessary) for survival. baby humans are completely dependent on parents to survive so the parents must have a hard wired instinct to protect the child at all costs.

having said that however, there is evidence that mothers often imagine killing or their children, or themselves after childbirth (it is one of those social taboo topics that are common but not talked about - who would want to admit to this?). how much of that is due to postnatal depression and prevented by societal pressures i am not sure. but it is interesting to think that maybe social pressure prevents filicide or abandoment.

[RawJoh1]

(Original post by Skandaria)
Do animals(including humans) who develop altruistic behaviour have a greater evolutionary success compared to to those who dont develop this? What do you think and why

How is this philosophy? This is surely a technical question for scientists.

[paperclip]

(Original post by Skandaria)
hmm surprisingly strong altruistic instincts in an animal lead to it having more offspring than those who lack the instinct. modern humans may well have genuinely altruistic motives which are hard wired precisely because this is an effective survival strategy, and those of our ancestors who were not so moral died out lol found that interesting.

To some extent, this is true. But there are many examples of species that have survived that aren't very altruistic.

Bees (and meerkats IIRC) are an excellent example of altruistic animals, they have an evolutionary division of labour and benefit from this greatly. How each bee within a hive are related to eachother is quite interesting if you're into this sorta thing, drones only exist to mate with the queen for example, and die immediately after.

Mirror neurons are how humans are hard wired for empathy, and therefore altruism.

(Original post by RawJoh1)
How is this philosophy? This is surely a technical question for scientists.

It's philosophy because there isn't a highest evolved species so it's quite subjective and open to interpretation/debate on the evolutionary advantages of altruism. It's more psychology actually, but psychology is a philosophy to a large extent and as this is a subforum under "debate and current affairs" it's quote appropriate, imo.

Obviously, what's more likely is that each animal will develop its own methods to propagate its species which will vary enormously dependant on the advantages of a particular species and environment.

[Cariie]

(Original post by Skandaria)
Do animals(including humans) who develop altruistic behaviour have a greater evolutionary success compared to to those who dont develop this? What do you think and why

Ah how I enjoy this question Altruism is measured in how much benefit the recipient receives and how much it 'costs' the parent (giver). It's not usually measured in terms of evolutionary success, but rather to success of gene transfer to the next generation. I'll use the example of some breeds of octopus, they guard their eggs right up until they hatch, to the extent that they don't feed them selfs so they don't leave the clutch. The mother then let the eggs feed on them when they hatch. This is beneficial in that the eggs will survive incubation, but the mother only gets one chance to pass on her genes, so its worth her while being successful.
Alternatively, some couples in some birds species who don't manage to breed one season will help to feed the youngsters around them. This is at a smaller cost, and may mean they receive help next season when they have a brood However if food was scarce it would be at a greater cost to these brood-less birds who aren't even passing on their genes . . .
Being altruistic has some benefits, but it depends on the situation and the approach taken by the animal There will always be some who just have as many offspring as possible, not bother looking after them and plenty will survive (e.g spiders)

If you want a really good example google altruism in vampire bats

Oh and if anything, altruism is keeping human evolution static we have to be altruistic because we have only one offspring at a time which is dependant until its long into adolescent, the longest of basically any animal

[paperclip]

(Original post by Cariie)
Ah how I enjoy this question Altruism is measured in how much benefit the recipient receives and how much it 'costs' the parent (giver). It's not usually measured in terms of evolutionary success, but rather to success of gene transfer to the next generation. I'll use the example of some breeds of octopus, they guard their eggs right up until they hatch, to the extent that they don't feed them selfs so they don't leave the clutch. The mother then let the eggs feed on them when they hatch. This is beneficial in that the eggs will survive incubation, but the mother only gets one chance to pass on her genes, so its worth her while being successful.
Alternatively, some couples in some birds species who don't manage to breed one season will help to feed the youngsters around them. This is at a smaller cost, and may mean they receive help next season when they have a brood However if food was scarce it would be at a greater cost to these brood-less birds who aren't even passing on their genes . . .
Being altruistic has some benefits, but it depends on the situation and the approach taken by the animal There will always be some who just have as many offspring as possible, not bother looking after them and plenty will survive (e.g spiders)

If you want a really good example google altruism in vampire bats

Oh and if anything, altruism is keeping human evolution static we have to be altruistic because we have only one offspring at a time which is dependant until its long into adolescent, the longest of basically any animal

I thought that was eusociality? By my understanding, altruism is the general goodwill with more varying definitions (egoistic and recirpricol altruism, for example)

Regarding your argument of human evolution, that would depend on the advantages the altruism poses to the offspring; if it significantly increases the reproductive success of our species then your argument would be wrong. It's not as straightforward as you put it because when discussing things like this you also need to think about how it will impact on the resources (in our case, money, therefore food, shelter, etc) available to the organism, and the impact on lifespan (and resources will influence this). Having fewer, healther, more successful offspring certainly does benefit us, as opposed to everyone having 10 babies (would we have developed so much as a species if we weren't taken care of for so long (schooling, etc)?)

[tonberry]

Wouldn't altruism counter 'survival of the fittest' and allow weaker genes to continue?

[paperclip]

(Original post by tonberry)
Wouldn't altruism counter 'survival of the fittest' and allow weaker genes to continue?

Not necessarily. See here and here. I can't explain it as well

It's argued quite reguarly that many species have an evolved mutual support structure, it's been extended to humans a fair bit too, and computer simulations. The distinction needs to be made between egoistic altruism (aka genuine altruism) and recipricol altruism - whilst we don't like freeloaders we rely on mutual support.

[Cariie]

(Original post by paperclip)
I thought that was eusociality? By my understanding, altruism is the general goodwill with more varying definitions (egoistic and recirpricol altruism, for example)

Regarding your argument of human evolution, that would depend on the advantages the altruism poses to the offspring; if it significantly increases the reproductive success of our species then your argument would be wrong. It's not as straightforward as you put it because when discussing things like this you also need to think about how it will impact on the resources (in our case, money, therefore food, shelter, etc) available to the organism, and the impact on lifespan (and resources will influence this). Having fewer, healther, more successful offspring certainly does benefit us, as opposed to everyone having 10 babies (would we have developed so much as a species if we weren't taken care of for so long (schooling, etc)?)

I did purposely try and write a simplified argument, it is an internet forum As for the cost benefit business, I copied that straight from my altruistic behaviour lecture notes, the concept can be applied to eusociality too though. I was just going for altruism mainly from a non-human level there.
I did vaguely mention resources, in that if an animal is having to make a sacrifice by giving food etc to its offspring as opposed to its self it's potentially limiting its own lifespan. And for humans there's certainly the argument that parents give up their own quality of life to support their children (long working hours, lack of leisure time etc) Altruism is needed in humans because we're so helpless for so much of our lives (in comparison to other mammals) what I was referring to in evolutionary terms is that since we're so successful at raising our young in a caring manner, less natural selection acts on us as a species, so a greater of variety of genes remain in the population as successful. But at the same time we only have a few offspring, slowing down the rate of new genes becoming prominent in populations, that's why I think that human evolution isn't taking great leap forwards. Obviously in early stages as humans being altruistic has benefitted us because we're still here, but it makes you wonder if altruism came before or after our offspring became reliant on us for so long . . .
But then I am a first year and that's only my interpretation, I don't pretend to be 100% right here

[tonberry]

(Original post by paperclip)
Not necessarily. See here and here. I can't explain it as well

It's argued quite reguarly that many species have an evolved mutual support structure, it's been extended to humans a fair bit too, and computer simulations. The distinction needs to be made between egoistic altruism (aka genuine altruism) and recipricol altruism - whilst we don't like freeloaders we rely on mutual support.

I suppose there is a difference between altruism for the sake of others and altruism which in the end is beneficial to the originator (i.e. being altruistic just because it helps YOU survive, which in a way is the opposite of the meaning haha) - it's quite the paradox!

[RawJoh1]

(Original post by paperclip)
T
It's philosophy because there isn't a highest evolved species so it's quite subjective and open to interpretation/debate on the evolutionary advantages of altruism. It's more psychology actually, but psychology is a philosophy to a large extent and as this is a subforum under "debate and current affairs" it's quote appropriate, imo.

Obviously, what's more likely is that each animal will develop its own methods to propagate its species which will vary enormously dependant on the advantages of a particular species and environment.

That there isn't a "highest evolved species" doesn't mean that the debate over whether altruism is evolutionarily advantageous is subjective. Presumably, something is evolutionarily advantageous if it promotes the passing on of one's genes better than if that mutation etc were not there. This is a technical scientific question. It is not a philosophical question.

[Skandaria]

having said that however, there is evidence that mothers often imagine killing or their children, or themselves after childbirth

haha really? i can see how some would as humans tend to think about things they dont want to think about.

[Skandaria]

(Original post by RawJoh1)
How is this philosophy? This is surely a technical question for scientists.

well it can be but since altruism is the bases of most theories on morality i would think it philosophy.

[RawJoh1]

(Original post by Skandaria)
well it can be but since altruism is the bases of most theories on morality i would think it philosophy.

"Does behaving in an altruistic fashion change the PH level of the glass of water you're holding?"

- science, not philosophy.