HTML version with supportive links at: http://lifesciences.secureid.org/

The Life Sciences Initiative promotes a world view based on scientific understanding. Considering the constant and proliferate mass-deaths due to suicide, the religious tension and bigotry that justifies current wars, the rise of anti-pleasure politics and continuous social injustice based on outmoded religious dogma and irrational politics, it is time for a scientific and life-affirming world-view. This world view is based on 8 Essential Realities: the Atom, the Cell, the Body, the Self, Reputation, Group, Norms and Laws.(1) In the short term Life Sciences will promote a way living that recognises the 8 Essential Realities, through teaching, counselling, activism and celebration. From these 8 Essential Realities, guiding principles and projects are being developed.

the Cell

Traditional marriage practices are reducing human genetic potential, not to mention increasing genetic diseases. Making it safe and easy to have a sex-affirming lifestyle, even in repressive environments, should be a priority. The desire for free love, for more than one lover, otherwise known as polyamory, is in the genes. Free love is not infidelity, but natural. Free love and pansexual acceptance would make for a sex-affirming lifestyle and species. We can be free from the domination of traditional ideas that are not necessary in the modern world.

Safe sex is a priority now that 40 million people worldwide have AIDS and it will kill 70 million people over the next 20 years unless the rich nations of the world step up their efforts to curb the disease.

the Body

Saving women from forced marriages and increasing the status of women, so they can control their own sexuality, has got to be a priority. Worldwide, women are still subject to oppression. Woman still have to face forced marriages, the slavery of illegal prostitution, segregation from many activities like work, education and religion, and genital mutilation. One in five woman are raped, tortured, beaten and assaulted. Women are emotionally tormented, and exploited.

the Cell and the Body

The enormous waste of human resources has got to be stopped. Health, education, and basic needs must be available to all. Not to mention avoiding wars and stopping the other destructions of humans. Escape from our current condition of mass-death, destruction and rapine waste is imperative if we and our children are to survive. Population growth is not the problem, the distribution of wealth is. People are needed for industrialization of space, basic research, etc. Given space colonization, we need a population doubling every seven years, to fill available living areas. This means more sex, more children, and better support and emancipation for women and children. As things are set up now, the most capable and gifted members of society are having the fewest children.

the Self

Given the need for research and industrialization, meaningful roles for the population can be developed. So, high esteem can be a general condition, not only for the 500 richest persons on the planet.

Reputation

"Reputation is an externalized self. In the simplest case, it is merely the memories of experiences with that person within a social group. Reputation is of social value because it allows prediction of and, to a certain extent, control of individuals' behavior. In modern societies, the concept of a "legal person" has been developed. This concept can associate certain objects, accomplishments, obligations, and rights with a given physical person. Computerization has led to a vast expansion in the amount of personal data that can be acquired, stored, and mobilized in decision making. One of the earliest applications was the "credit rating," permitting the transfer of goods and services without immediate payment, thus formalizing a form of trust. Detailed information about people is now collected routinely, permitting one to know what products they use, how they spend their time, whether they have health problems, and so on."(2)

Reputation development means having the same security for soft qualities that we now only have for financial transactions. Online privacy and online security are the only ways to maintain a reliable reputation.

Group

"The group is crucial to survival of the individual, both physically and as a social being, that is, as a body and as a self."(3) Therefore, a software system that can work in a networked environment, permitting spontaneous formation of groups is essential. Recent developments in mobile phone technology should facilitate networked social encounters away from the desktop.

Support for group Norms and Laws via a storage system, etc. should be developed. This includes the question of minority group rights, that is, the social, economic, and political rights under the UN Charter, which the US has never endorsed. Scientific communication can be a basis for governance using computer-network based democracy. "A democratic system must incorporate both protections for individuals and mechanisms for coordination. Access to information is crucial for democratic decision making. If people withhold information, however, then even free distribution of available information will not ensure democracy. One problem is that people may be punished if they speak in opposition to power holders. More often, persons censor themselves because they fear that speaking out will damage their career possibilities. Finally, people may prefer to avoid the duplication of effort that occurs when many people write comments simultaneously in response to an event or statement. These problems of protection and coordination must be solved before direct democracy is feasible with large populations."(4)

the Atom

Basic social and scientific research should be supported on a grand scale, so we have a chance of surviving contact with advanced alien civilizations (the likely hood of which is high - one chance in 50,000 per year. Also, if we have been sent any message by our "Creator", it would have to be embedded in the fundamental physical parameters of our Universe. For example, it has been suggested that the endless sequence, pi, could encode a message.

The Future

In the long term we - as a species - have no choice but to aim to survive a Gamma Ray Burst. Space is our safe haven where we can avoid catastrophic galactic events like this. Supporting space colonization and space travel in general will free us from the constant threat of being wiped out by a single Earth destroying event like a meteor strike, the Sun heating up or global environmental disaster. Space offers untold opportunities, resources and discoveries.

A more complete understanding of the Essential Realities can be found at the home of the "Immortal" list which deals with "immortalism as a practical philosophy. That is, the attempt to achieve vastly extended life spans via technological means and the socio-political sources and impacts of such attempts.

"Discussion of faith-based approaches to eternal life (resurrection through belief in a god, reincarnation, time travel, near-death experiences as evidence of an afterlife, etc.) is specifically excluded.

"Technological advances form the foundation for discussion, but are not themselves the topic of the list. Thus articles concerning new developments in medicine, nanotechnology, information technology, and so on, are welcome, as long as they come from reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed journals. Such articles should include a citation to the source. These posts are likely to trigger discussion of social and political dynamics, which are the focus of the list.

"The most central topic of the list is how social conditions promote or retard the acceptance of immortalism as a life philosophy and what the effects of such a philosophy are on those who hold it. Thus, the coverage includes philosophy, law, sociology, psychology, gerontology, anthropology, political science, thanatology, and religious science (the study of religions). Only specific topics within these subjects are relevant. For example, existential psychology is directly relevant:

'The attempt to escape from death anxiety is at the core of the neurotic conflict . . . . The neurotic life style is generated by a fear of death; but insofar as it limits one's ability to live spontaneously and creatively, the defense against death is itself a partial death (Yalom. [1980]. Existential psychotherapy. NY: Basic Books. p. 146.)'

"This quote illustrates that discussion is not only concerned with life extension, but also the impact of immortalist beliefs on the quality of life."(5)

The Immortal List home page: http://secureid.org:8100/Lists/Immortal/List.html

You can subscribe, view archives, and perform some other administrative operations there.

Stodolsky, D. S. - Essential realities and their meanings (v. 3.2)
Stodolsky, D. S. - Essential realities: Reputation
Stodolsky, D. S. - Essential realities: Group
Stodolsky, D. S. - Computer-network based democracy
Stodolsky, D. S. - "Immortal" List charter and administrative information


[This message has been edited by Walpurgis (edited 01-02-2003).]

Walpurgis,

This is nothing more than the modern version of the Utopian philosophy. This stuff is great on the esoteric level. However, when the realities of human nature are applied, the philosophy crumbles. Example, the theory of Communism should make the average Christian and Muslim jump for joy. The realities of same have added greatly to the martyrs list of each.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
This is nothing more than the modern version of the Utopian philosophy.

---

How so?

quote:

---

However, when the realities of human nature are applied, the philosophy crumbles.

---

You talk of "human nature" as if it is essentially selfish. This is highly unlikely. People have always cared for each other. Those that did not act of basically good motivations have not survived. Here�s why:

In evolutionary terms, a survival strategy which calls for greedy, malicious and individualistic behaviours will spell doom for high order mammals such as humans. Greedy, malicious and individualistic humans would kill each other, or be killed off (as they probably have throughout evolutionary history) and as Darwin stated, "Those communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring." Infighting and fighting between pre-human groups would be the end of them. In our early history, small hunter-gatherer groups had to care about each other, or else the survival of the group would be in jeopardy. Those humans that didn�t care are now dead, the losers in the system. Care and co-operation have become evolutionary habits and were hardwired into the brain; these habits ensure our survival. Not to care, is not to survive.

Greedy, malicious and individualistic behaviours are almost always perverted expressions of basic and benign instincts. Like the people who assassinate abortion doctors, they do not betray their moral sensibilities. They think they are doing good.

The greedy, malicious and individualistic behaviours may actually be expressions of the primal limbic instincts for self-preservation, in which case there will be no fundamental change in human nature as care and co-operation are already imprinted in deeper brain structures. We have but to find the social source of frustration which is eliciting these negative drives.

"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races." -- Darwin The Decent of Man

For my complete theory, please see: http://noumenal.net/exiles/primeaxiom.html

Walpurgis

Looks like the politicians stole Darwin's clothes.

Walpurgis

What other "higher orger mammals" are you suggesting live by this altruistic creed? Suggesting that patterns of cooperation are the norm and expressions of selfish violence an aberration ignores the fact that ALL animals behave selfishly to ensure that THEIR genes are passed on.

In mammal communities, where I'll grant you organisms help provide for others besides themselves in terms of gathering food, there is still a level of selfish violence inherent in the system. Males kill one another for the right to pass their genetic material on; they even go so far as to kill all offspring of a previous male if they depose him.

Competition doesn't function on a group basis; basic evolutionary science talks about individuals maximizing their own chances at reproduction, not maximizing the species' capability to reproduce en masse. "Caring for one another" is not the same as "giving up personal success at reproduction for the success of another."

The hardest part about this idea is, as you say, explaining why people have formed such intricate social webs and in many cases renounced the impulse to reproduce---or to find ethical significance in the survival drive gone amok.

I'll stop now since philosophy is not my cup of tea. As a polticial scientist, I don't ask "why?" I ask "how?" and "how will this affect us in the future?" Morality has little to do with global politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
You talk of "human nature" as if it is essentially selfish.

---

It is. It is also possible that you and I will disagree on this point. We will continue to disagree until you have really been out in the world and found out what it is 'really' like out there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
Those that did not act of basically good motivations have not survived.

---

False. The ones you mentioned were also known as slave owners, the others were slaves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
In evolutionary terms, a survival strategy which calls for greedy, malicious and individualistic behaviours will spell doom for high order mammals such as humans.

---

My friend, in the books I read, this called survival of the fittest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
In our early history, small hunter-gatherer groups had to care about each other, or else the survival of the group would be in jeopardy.

---

Only as long as that group member had the potential to add to the common good. Case in point, the Native Americans. The old and infirm would leave the tribe and go out and die when they could no longer contribute. Malformed and sickly children were also left to die.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
For my complete theory, please see: http://noumenal.net/exiles/primeaxiom.html

---

We disagree.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
Walpurgis

What other "higher orger mammals" are you suggesting live by this altruistic creed? Suggesting that patterns of cooperation are the norm and expressions of selfish violence an aberration ignores the fact that ALL animals behave selfishly to ensure that THEIR genes are passed on.

In mammal communities, where I'll grant you organisms help provide for others besides themselves in terms of gathering food, there is still a level of selfish violence inherent in the system. Males kill one another for the right to pass their genetic material on; they even go so far as to kill all offspring of a previous male if they depose him.

Competition doesn't function on a group basis; basic evolutionary science talks about individuals maximizing their own chances at reproduction, not maximizing the species' capability to reproduce en masse. "Caring for one another" is not the same as "giving up personal success at reproduction for the success of another."

The hardest part about this idea is, as you say, explaining why people have formed such intricate social webs and in many cases renounced the impulse to reproduce---or to find ethical significance in the survival drive gone amok.

I'll stop now since philosophy is not my cup of tea. As a polticial scientist, I don't ask "why?" I ask "how?" and "how will this affect us in the future?" Morality has little to do with global politics.

---

Higher order mammals that exhibit 'this altruistic creed' include most apes and some canines, possibly more species as well. And contrary to your assertion dominance displays do not normaally end in death for either party. Neither does social dominance gaurantee reproductive success. In most species of anthropoid (apes aand monkeys)that have social structures larger than a single family unit the females with mate equally with dominant and non-dominant males.
As for individual animals, an altruistic tendency would not help thier gene line directly survive but it would greatly enhance group survival. The importance of this must be realized in an evolutionary context. Altruism would greatly benifit a *species* not an individual. And as it is only species that evolve and survive, altruism would be selected for despite individual abberations.
I think to a large extent this all holds true for humans as much as it does for other anthropoids, the problem is scale. We have huge cities, some that hold upwards of 20 million people. If humans were NOT inately altruistic then i doubt our world aas we know it would be possible.
The problem with all this is that we no longer have evolutionary constraints acting on us in the same way as we would in the wild. The subversion (repression some would say) of nature has allowed us to move our culture to a point where we actively encourage traits that are detrimental, in the long run, to all humans.

P.S. I'd suggest you do some reading on evolution (modern, not darwin) as it would probably cover these points much more thoroughly than I have.

Walpurgis:
You talk of "human nature" as if it is essentially selfish.

Nox writes:
It is. It is also possible that you and I will disagree on this point. We will continue to disagree until you have really been out in the world and found out what it is 'really' like out there.

An arrogant assumption.

Nox:
The ones you mentioned were also known as slave owners, the others were slaves.

You have been reading too much Nietzsche.

Granted, slavery, class stratification etc. existed and exists, but not until late into human development. Most of our evolutionary time has been spent in small groups who had to co-operate to survive. Selfish members would have been subject to sanction and would have changed their ways or died.

Nox:
My friend, in the books I read, this called survival of the fittest.

"Fittest" does not mean "most selfish" but "whomever is best at surviving". Thus we run into Darwin's most famous tautology: those that survive, survive.

Basic Darwinian evolution is nonsense. The idea that every individual in every species is fighting each other, plus that every species is fighting each other is crazy. Modern evolutionary theory shows that creatures co-operate more than fight.

Nox:
Only as long as that group member had the potential to add to the common good. Case in point, the Native Americans. The old and infirm would leave the tribe and go out and die when they could no longer contribute.

Eh!? not only is generalising about Native Americans absurd, but many tribes had elders who had plenty to contribute: wisdom.


At least you didn't mention selfish genes and memes.

you don't believe in selfish genes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
An arrogant assumption.

---

No it is not and just because you say so doesn't make it true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
You have been reading too much Nietzsche.

---

False ... I don't read that guy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
Granted, slavery, class stratification etc. existed and exists, but not until late into human development. Most of our evolutionary time has been spent in small groups who had to co-operate to survive. Selfish members would have been subject to sanction and would have changed their ways or died.

---

False. 'Stratification' began in the earliest of primitive society. There always had to be a decision maker for the group. Even the animals had a 'leader of the pack' (aka Alpha male).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
"Fittest" does not mean "most selfish" but "whomever is best at surviving". Thus we run into Darwin's most famous tautology: those that survive, survive.

---

This is semantic hairsplitting and doesn't alter what I said at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
Eh!? not only is generalising about Native Americans absurd, but many tribes had elders who had plenty to contribute: wisdom.

---

I refer you back to my post ... I said that when the individual could no longer contribute to the group and that is not generalizing, it is factualizing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walpurgis:
At least you didn't mention selfish genes and memes.

---

Thank you for noticing.

Nox

4ot

Although I've only really studies anthropology and evolution in a passing manner, and am certainly not an expert, I do remember the point being driven home that altruism is not a dominant behavior, existing only in some rare situations. By altruism I mean one organism helping another of the same species when this action has either no effect or is harmful to the altruistic organism. Sure, animals will help one another hunt, but only because their survival depends on it as well, and they will share in the result. Animals, even in anthropoid circles and wolfpacks, will not, for example, gather food or kill a prey animal, and then give it all away to a group member (unless that member has a direct bearing on the first animal's genetic survival, ie is its offspring, mate, or potential mate).

And while dominance displays do not always mean death for either combatant, they most certainly do mean severe limitation on the loser's ability to mate in all circumstances, not to mention those animals where excess males are expelled from the group to fend for themselves. Every textbook and lecture I've ever seen about reproduction in group societies makes the clear point that, contrary to your statement, those males in dominant positions actually do mate far more frequently than non-dominant males, both through their displays against the latter as well as females choosing to mate with dominant males more often than non-dominant.

In larger groups, as you mention, non-dominance does not mean that an animal will NEVER mate, it just means that he won't be the one doing it with every female possible at each cycle of estrus. And the fact remains that in anthropoids (and other animals that live in social groups with alpha male-dominant structures, such as lions), infanticide is very common upon the ascendance of a new alpha male to the dominant position. This is because animals are never concerned with the survival of the species, they are concerned about the survival of their own genetic material. Species survival and evolution is only a by-product of this selfish pattern.

Traits that are selected for are not selected from their enhancing survival of the species, again contrary to a statement you make. Selection is based on the survival of the individual with a certain trait, and if individuals with this trait survive then the trait is passed on to a population. Altruism that does not directly influence the individual's reproductive success therefore does not help select for the trait that causes the altruism.

Of course, that's just the school of thought I learned under, and there are many more. My professor was Dr. Don Symons, Emeritus at the University of California (his research focus is on primate social behavior and human evolutionary psychology---pretty much everythig we're talking about here). I'm obviously a reflection of my teacher, especially on a subject I have little other experience in, so...

Despite all this, I agree with the last part of your post, which makes theoretical arguments based on evolutionary psychology a little suspect when they're applied to modern human behavior. Probably the only place we're still controlled by our instincts is in sexual psychology, and if you've ever been to a bar on friday night, you know that members of the same species are not at all interested in helping eachother reproduce unless "she's got a friend."

FuckOffandDie:
you don't believe in selfish genes?

No. Popularist simplification.

Walpurgis:
An arrogant assumption.

Nox:
No it is not and just because you say so doesn't make it true.

The same can be said of your assertion: "We will continue to disagree until you have really been out in the world and found out what it is 'really' like out there."

Nox:
'Stratification' began in the earliest of primitive society. There always had to be a decision maker for the group. Even the animals had a 'leader of the pack' (aka Alpha male).

Disagree. Usually these small groups were optimal size for group decision making (any group larger than 20 is usually too big).

The "alpha male" has been successfully criticised by feminist anthropology as a male interpretation of other animal behaviour. (see below).

Walpurgis:
"Fittest" does not mean "most selfish" but "whomever is best at surviving". Thus we run into Darwin's most famous tautology: those that survive, survive.

Nox:
This is semantic hairsplitting and doesn't alter what I said at all.

Of course it does. If you have no understanding of what "fittest" means, then how can you argue that it is the most selfish humans that have survived (i.e. have been the fittest)? If "fittest" means "best at surviving", I contend that "surviving" necessitates co-operation and altruism among many animals, including humans.

Nox:
I said that when the individual could no longer contribute to the group and that is not generalizing, it is factualizing.

Suicide may be the option is some cultures, but not others.

Vox:
"altruism is not a dominant behavior, existing only in some rare situations."

You may find this article of interest: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm

"Animals, even in anthropoid circles and wolfpacks, will not, for example, gather food or kill a prey animal, and then give it all away to a group member (unless that member has a direct bearing on the first animal's genetic survival, ie is its offspring, mate, or potential mate)."

A contrary example: lions. Female lions will take turns to hunt on behalf of the pride. THe pride is made up of others who only have a bearing on her genetic survival in the sense that they are all helping each other survive.

"infanticide is very common upon the ascendance of a new alpha male to the dominant position."

The "alpha male" is something of a fantasy... Lions provide another good example. Lionesses hunt (together), rear young (together, and not always their own young), choose mates (*they* decide who has won in a male fight), and order the pack. Male lions inside thep ack do little but provide sperm. Who's in charge?

"This is because animals are never concerned with the survival of the species, they are concerned about the survival of their own genetic material."

If this was the case, there would be no intra-species co-operation, but instead a form of all-out war.

"Species survival and evolution is only a by-product of this selfish pattern."

Selfishness does of course exist, but it is not the primary driving force.

"Traits that are selected for are not selected from their enhancing survival of the species, again contrary to a statement you make. Selection is based on the survival of the individual with a certain trait, and if individuals with this trait survive then the trait is passed on to a population."

Which enhance the species.

"Probably the only place we're still controlled by our instincts is in sexual psychology,"

Probably more so by fear of death.
http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/

[This message has been edited by Walpurgis (edited 01-02-2003).]

isn't the "manifesto" above also populist simplification?

Walpurgis

Here is the paragraph which basically sums up both your article and how it doesn't support you:

"Our study shows, for the first time, that social cooperation is intrinsically rewarding to the human brain, even in the face of pressures to the contrary, " said Gregory S. Berns, M.D., Ph.D., co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry in the Emory University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and member of the CBN. "It suggests that the altruistic drive to cooperate is biologically embedded-- either genetically programmed or acquired through socialization during childhood and adolescence."

If you'll notice, at the end our grant-seeking Doctor's quote, he (in passing) mentions that the "intrinscially rewarding to the human brain" altruism could simply be a product of socialization. And you probably know enough about psychology that it's not really an exact science...I have brain activity that these guys might measure as "rewarding" when I look at bukkake internet porn, but that doesn't actually qualify as an example of effective natural selection.

Furthermore, your article mentions that "[The] unselfish behavior called 'altruism' is almost uniquely a human trait." I couldn't agree more, and hence most of your examples of primate and lion pride "altruism" must be immediately discredited...if we take this article at face value, that is (we don't have to do this, you know).

Speaking of lions, how many adult males are there in a pride of lions? 1-4, that's right. And if there's more than one, they're brothers, with the same interest in the same genes. All the others are forced to leave before they get grow up, and lions are fiercely protective of their (pride's) hunting grounds.

Let me break it down to you why the male is the boss: he does none of the hunting, takes his fill from the kill, does none of the young-bearing or rearing, and has a receptacle to help continue his genetic material basically whenever the girls are in estrus---which if memory serves me, is something like every month, for a few days each time.

And the females "choose" their mate inasmuch as when he comes, they say "yes" or "no." They go with the male that was boss when they were born. Sounds to me like he's in a dominant place in in terms of reproductive success vis-a-vis other males, don't you think?

The female (of any species) obviously is selective at mating, because she has to. She'll go with the one whose genetic pattern is most likely to help her offspring be big and strong, and able to pass on their genes. And since, she contributes so much more time and energy to the process, through her pregnancy, nursing, and rearing her young, she'll be more interested in protecting this investment. Unlike males, who like you say only contributed a load and the time they took to introduce it (except in some animals, where you'll notice the pattern of dominance and competition is the same---albeit the gender roles are reversed).

You don't explain the killing of a previous head-of-pride's offspring by an ascendant alpha male. This is because this can't be explained in terms of species survival, another point you make but have no real evidence for. I'd like to see a pattern (not an instance) of inter-species altruism. Symbiosis is either parasitic, mutualistic, or commensalistic. The symbiont generally benefits from the exchange.

There are times when different species cooperate. Maybe even several times a year. But ask a gazelle if it feels like cooperating with the lioness that's crushing its windpipe, or the salmon if it wants to help the bear that just pulled it from the stream with its teeth. And ask any animal, from any species, if it feels like it's been helped by people this week. The animal with a "proven" "biologically embedded basis for altruism" is the most brutally expoitative of them all!

Your point of view does not necessarily make you correct, as you seem to think with some of your answers. Our unit of selection debate isn't just between a knower and an unknower; it's going on at pretty high levels, and most evolutionary biologists seem to agree with me.

I don't say the species isn't enhanced by natural selection, I just say that isn't a conscious choice of the animals. They don't know how they've mutated or that their variation is helping the species survive by enhancing it. They're operating under the assumption that "I need to survive, so my genetic material can be passed on," and "if my offspring survives, my genetic material can better be passed on, so I'll mate with someone that will help this happen." Species as a whole doesn't fit into this anywhere.

You make counter-arguments to side comments of mine that still help prove my point. Ernest Becker foundation? This page is funny, especially the part that says

quote:

---

* Becker strongly objected to cults of personality so, respecting that, his photo is seen as through ground glass. He is a background figure, urging us to advance his work, not enshrine it.

---

Hahahahaha! How modest of him. Right under a greyscale picture of the guy. "Enshrine" it! I suppose this is some kind of jab at the mainstream scientific community, but it's a lame attempt if that. "Background figure" is right, though, as in behind the backdrop or in the wings.

Since I'm not going to waste time looking through that site for a point, I'll come out and ask you: what's the point of EBF: the Ernst Becker Foundation, founded to advance the works of Ernst Becker, who is abhors the cult of personality so much that he has a Foundation named after him and has his name plastered all over the literature?

I think the basic argument here is that people have something "special" about them, something divine that makes them want to help one another. What a load of horse manure. That must be why we've continued the violent pattern of nature, killing one another and competing for the precious resources of our planet to the point of massive overindulgence while others starve?

It's good to think the way you do; it probably gives you warm fuzzies in your "proven" altruistic brain-activity-places. But fantasizing about a world where everybody finally understands about their intrinsic goodness and just learns to apply it...I'd rather look at the reality of it and make decisions based on that, thank you.

needed some cleaning and added a later post:

By the way, there is a form of all out war between animals in the world. The only problem is that a food chain exists, meaning animals are hopelessly outclassed in terms of their ability to be violent, and so they know they're better off not fighting...hence the illusion of cooperation. As if any animal wouldn't do everything necessary to protect its own life over that of another species.

[This message has been edited by Vox (edited 01-02-2003).]

FOAD
"isn't the "manifesto" above also populist simplification?"

No - its a statement of intention.

Vox
"Here is the paragraph which basically sums up both your article and how it doesn't support you:"

I liked the article, but don't agree with everything in it.

Vox
"If you'll notice, at the end our grant-seeking Doctor's quote, he (in passing) mentions that the "intrinscially rewarding to the human brain" altruism could simply be a product of socialization."

No doubt it is both. Biology and society do not exist in isolation - they help each other evolve. Its a hermeneutic circle. "Nature of nurture" is a false dichotomy.

Vox:
"Let me break it down to you why the male is the boss: he does none of the hunting, takes his fill from the kill,"

He feeds when allowed.

Vox
"And the females "choose" their mate inasmuch as when he comes, they say "yes" or "no."

Exactly. They can refuse by fighting him off.

An analogy: a human male stays at home, sleeping and fucking while the female raises the kids, earns money and brings home goods. Who's the boss?

Vox:
"You don't explain the killing of a previous head-of-pride's offspring by an ascendant alpha male. This is because this can't be explained in terms of species survival, another point you make but have no real evidence for."

Uh... The fact that you exist is evidence. if the behaviour of individuals as a whole didn't contribute to species survival then there would be no species. Its this simple: species survive because of individual behaviour within larger groups.

Vox
"I'd like to see a pattern (not an instance) of inter-species altruism."

See my previous illustrations.

Vox
"Symbiosis..."

This is different to altruism.

Vox
"There are times when different species cooperate. Maybe even several times a year."

It is more often than you think. For example, hunting groups of African lions, wild dogs, and spotted hyenas cooperate by not hunting at the same time of day.

Vox
"But ask a gazelle if it feels like cooperating with the lioness that's crushing its windpipe,"

Again I reiterate: I am not denying competition or selfishness.

Vox
"Your point of view does not necessarily make you correct,"

Ditto.

"most evolutionary biologists seem to agree with me."

You're a leader in the field I take it?

Vox
"I don't say the species isn't enhanced by natural selection, I just say that isn't a conscious choice of the animals."

Of course not. this isn't the argument. Perhaps only geneticists make that choice.

Vox
"Species as a whole doesn't fit into this anywhere."

Not with regards to conscious, daily living - but it is the big picture.

Your comments on the Ernst Becker Foundation are irrelevant. I sited the place because it deals with death anxiety. I could have mentioned Simone de Beauvoir or TMT or a number of artists as support for my point.

Vox
"I think the basic argument here is that people have something "special" about them, something divine that makes them want to help one another. What a load of horse manure. That must be why we've continued the violent pattern of nature, killing one another and competing for the precious resources of our planet to the point of massive overindulgence while others starve?"

Sure we do this. The reasons why are complex, but no doubt religion and ego contribute. But this does not refute the roles of cooperation or altruism in our evolution or society.

Vox
"It's good to think the way you do; it probably gives you warm fuzzies in your "proven" altruistic brain-activity-places."

No doubt you get a kick out of your cynicism and are abl to justify selfish acts with shrugs of "its just natural - who cares?" Such individualist mantras always forget the wider scope of things.

Vox
"...a world where everybody finally understands about their intrinsic goodness and just learns to apply it..."

Not possible, as my essay illustrates. Nevertheless, a clear ethical basis for living is provided when we look closely at history an biology.

This may interest you: http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/5.htm#_edn6