Blackfish documentary on CNN - anyone else watch it?

[kandrathe]

I feel like I made a pretty good effort at explaining my points of view in my reply to FIT. It would be a great relief to me if you could take the time to gloss over that post before reading the rest of this one, so that we may understand one-another; if I do bring up topics I already covered in that post, I won’t be elaborating because the thoughts are already fleshed out in that post. Thank-you!

You've restated your position without addressing any challenges. I fully understand the concept. I was taught it in evolutionary biology courses I took in the 80's.

Our species has gradually learned to expand our emotions from these three principles to feel deep love, remorse, or even hate, all in an evolutionary effort to not only survive, but surpass our last iteration, which I suppose is itself really just another form of variation/protectionism.

If we were merely a jangle of emotional expression, you might have a decent argument. We are a mixed bag of emotions, and reason.

It’s true that most of us can “relate” to how others feel by placing ourselves in their shoes and when we see someone else or something else in danger or in a state of suffering, we often conflate these protectionism emotions we’ve evolved from protecting our young or ourselves into the urge to save others.

Childish anthropomorphism aside, I disagree. When the "save the whales" crowd risk their lives intentionally to stop whaling, you will not convince me that they've confused the whale with anything resembling offspring or are churning up deep emotional mat/paternal protection feelings. More likely it involves a more complex sense of justice, and not merely simple morality.

My point here is that you cannot stop the origin of these emotions because they come from our evolved need to protect our offspring and ourselves meaning, while we always have freewill to make the “right” or “wrong” decision, we will always feel the urge to do deeds we perceive as right or moral not because of some god-driven need of morality, but because of the RNA in our system telling us it’s the right thing to do!

In the whole nurture versus nature debate, this too is not clear. Nature provides humans the typical mammalian instincts for maternalism, early learning, and such things as suckling behaviors and maybe even swimming -- but complex social contracts (involving concepts, such as justice, and equality) are so obviously learned behaviors. So much so, that they are not a typical innate feature of anthropological observation in tribes. A 2009 study by MIT of identical twins found that any genetic inheritance of altruistic traits accounted for about 20% of the variation. My (well founded) assumption then would be that the other 80% of unselfishness is learned behavior.

True altruism can only come from the realization that any deed you do that makes you feel “good” is a selfish act to begin with; you are actually the beneficiary of the act because you’re the one who feels good by doing the act.

This is not the definition of altruism. What you are describing is the opposite, which is psychological egoism.

If an act benefited others but made you feel “bad”, or you were disinterested, you would not commit to the act any longer because it would not be logical for you. A good analogy here would be giving a gift to a relative who never thanks you and perhaps even openly mocks you regarding your gifts; sure, you might continue giving a little longer in the hopes that things might turn around but once reality sunk in this relative was completely ungrateful, you would not continue to give them gifts thus proving your supposed act of kindness was nothing more than a selfish act of unfulfilled gluttony to begin with because unless your act made YOU feel good inside, you’d stop doing it. This analogy can be applied to all aspect of life.

No, it cannot be applied to hardly any aspects of life.

You've describe a series of interactions without fully describing all of the assumptions. Like; was the gift needed? was the gift a "thoughtful" gift? Is there other emotional baggage, a psychological condition, or some psychosis preventing the receiver from appreciating the givers intentions. And... There may be converse "feelings" that the "ungrateful" recipient is unable to fully express, such as a sense of obligation to reciprocate, or that they are not ready to "be that close yet". I understand it, because this is a relationship I had with my father. We share our birthday (1 day apart), so every time it came around I'd spend time to know what he would like, and spend time to go get him something special. He'd send me a check, which I'd thank him for politely and never deposit. I expected more than a transaction.

So, to perpetuate an act of true altruism requires one to commit to actions that benefit others without any care of the end result for themselves or of their recipients…

Here is some of your confusion, since that is not the definition of altruism. Altruism is an unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. If it is in any way intentionally self serving, then it is not altruism. There are many examples that defy any self interest, such as, tending to the wounds and life saving of fallen enemies on the battlefield. Say what? In Afghanistan, it floored me to see after the fire fight that our medics not only tended our wounded, but all the wounded. Even though, it may very well be likely that these same individuals may come back to fight again, or cause other mayhem in the future.

...and that never happens. And the reason that never happens is because of the three principles I mentioned in my first paragraph, thus the influence of RNA on every aspect of our being, and the reality that even with freewill, we cannot escape our desires to follow our instincts. This is the reason there is no true altruism in this world!

You keep reaffirming your position, which I understand to be your position, but are unable to rationally defend how *real* selfless acts occur. So, I can only point you at research that reveals higher mammals to be more than bags of pre-programmed RNA, and "reptilian" amygdala driven autonomic reflex. Reason coupled with emotion in higher mammals is more complicated, while it is true the proto-brain features remain. Most of us have learned how to not fight or flee, when commanded by our low brains.

I didn’t have to write that to make a point, and I’m not sure why I did in that context, but it was unwarranted so I’m truly sorry I offended you.

No drama. It's already forgotten.

Why do I come across as a religious bigot?

I guess because of the way you tossed that assumption gasoline into the discussion. Like many people, I've lived a complicated life that is different than other people, and so like you, I would not want to be prejudicially stereotyped.

... and the deeply-religious drumbeater will still explain how you are mistaken because “it is written…” I’ve shown the most cynical believer of their faith exactly how the bible came to be and how it was no more god influenced then a preschoolers krayola sketched notebook, but yet somehow even if they have the faintest sliver of “hope” in their brain they will surly find a way to block what was said and hear only what they want to hear.

I know that you know that this is not me. However, because of how I believe, I feel all people are worthy of respect. Their ideas may not be. And... to me, it makes little sense to shout at closed minds. The reality in our country is that we live with majority rule, not the most enlightened rule. The blessing and curse of our particular form of government is that everyone's ideas are heard.

... I know you believe that all “good” comes from him above as it is written in the bible. To not believe this is to refute the philosophy of the bible and the very existence of the trinity itself (since God is incapable of seeing sin). I believe this is the main reason you have such difficulty accepting my point of view on this subject, which is also why I wrote that religious statement you quoted. I feel in conversations like these, it is your strong religious beliefs that hold you back from seeing what other people are actually saying. This is of course just my opinion.

And, it is assumptive, and unfounded. I could just as well tell you that I follow the Buddhist eight fold path. You really don't know that I am like you were, or really what I believe in regards to faith, because we don't really talk about it much, and I'm not really willing to publish my treatise on my beliefs. Its usually not relevant to our logical discussions, unless we delve into systematic theology, epistemology, existentialism, or meta-physics. But, in a short paragraph I'll try to suggest where I "come from"; The simplest description of my "belief system" is that I seek truth supported by evidence, wherever it leads. From a societal perspective, I prefer functional systems, to broken utopias. I can accept that societal changes are driven by the ideas and mores of the majority, which move at a glacial pace. Forcing change leads to discord, and ultimately harm. Instead, I usually work on teaching change, and rely on tenacity to eventually communicate what I see as truth. But, I also know when to cut bait. I tend to err on the side of seeking social harmony, but I truly believe in social justice. That's probably because I was the middle child who played that role in family dynamics, but its a life skill I've put to good use, and profit.

And, so to once again allay your misconceptions... I offer for consideration; Altruism and Volunteerism: The perceptions of altruism in four disciplines and their impact on the study of volunteerism by Dr. Debbie Haski-Leventhal, Macquarie University - Macquarie School of Management. While not a purely RNA based biological endeavor, it more reasonably approaches the topic in a truly multidisciplinary manner.

Let me jump to her conclusion, which is reflective of my opinion which was not as completely described in my prior posts;

"The approach of socio-biology to altruism is based on the notion that in the struggle for existence, people (and animals) would do anything to assure self-survival and the survival of close ones (mainly genetically). As such, socio-biology has explained altruism through the concepts of kin-selection and group-selection. Since the two concepts cannot count for all altruistic behavior, the concept of reciprocity-selection was offered, which also cannot explain why people sometimes help complete strangers while risking their own lives, when reciprocity is uncertain.

Therefore, it is clear that none of the four disciplines here studied can offer an inclusive theory of altruism, since they base most of their research on the perception of rational, economical and utilitarian man. It is time to more broadly acknowledge the possibility of a moral and alter-centered humanity, and to see that not all altruism demonstratively serves the helper. First, altruism can be perceived as a continuum and not as a dichotomy. Second, an alter-centric approach recognizes the impact of values, conscience and altruistic perspective on altruistic attitudes and behavior."