[For Skeptical Quebec. The numbers are obtained mainly by subscription . This is an abridged version without the notes and footnotes.]
Parentèle and reciprocity are the two pillars of altruism in a Darwinian world, but he builds many secondary structures on these two pillars.
Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion , 2006)
In this section on science and ethics in this series, I remember how contemporary biology has solved the riddle of altruism and, by exposing a few, show how this solution has opened the door to numerous and potentially illuminating hypotheses the origins and nature of ethics and hence on his naturalization.
These tests are obviously encouraged scattered attempts at synthesis, which would place them into a coherent whole to understand phenomena related to morality. Such synthesis efforts have not failed in recent years. I will draw the next Once the outline of one of them, given by the well known Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine. Then I ask also the question of the significance of this work for ethics and meta-ethics, especially in relation to Hume's guillotine that I outlined in a previous text (for the record: is it valid to pass descriptive, factual judgments about the origin of morality for the prescriptive judgments of morality? what value and meaning given to works that seem to allow himself this leap?)
issues discussed here are vast and uncultivated land: what follows is inevitably partial and fragmentary. For this reason, I will indicate at the end of this series a few books that will help who wishes to go further.
The problem of altruism in biology
Altruism problematic in biology must be distinguished from the ordinary sense of altruism, which may be called psychological altruism. The psychological altruism is common sense, that of psychology and philosophy usual and it describes an act as if posed for altruistic reasons directed towards the good of others "and without consideration of a any advantage personal future, "as well says Christine Claven. Conversely, an act of altruism is evolutionary if it has the effect of "increasing the value of survival and reproduction of others at the expense of its own value of survival and reproduction."
altruistic behaviors heard in that abound in nature. Among the cases of altruism intrigued as Darwin presented included, we have seen, those of the insect order Hymenoptera, including bees, ants and wasps. It found there sterile females which do not occur and instead spend their lives caring girls being born to their mother and also individuals (like bees), which defend the colony by behaviors that cause their death (for example, by biting the intruder).
But the existence of both of these selfless acts of these sterile individuals that pose a great mystery, already recognized by Darwin's theory of evolution. And no one understands why evil when he presented sociobiology, EO Wilson will write that the question of altruism is the fundamental theoretical problem. Wilson will make as follows: "[...] how altruism, which by definition diminishes the value of selective the individual can evolve by natural selection? . We can not agree more.
Some authors drew the conclusion of the difficulties that other forces than those postulated by the theory of evolution should be at work in evolution, others suggested leaving the framework of classical Darwinism and thinking developments from the group rather than the individual - and this approach still retains a few defenders. A century passed unsatisfactory effort and it was not until the new synthesis, that of neo-Darwinism incorporating the genetic revolution, so that a solution appears.
Under this new synthesis is based on genes rather than individuals that evolution must be understood: Classical Darwinism sought to understand the characteristics of organisms as conferring a benefit or not in competition with others to leave offspring, the new synthesis wondered how these features help (or not) the genes that constitute this organization to ensure their sustainability.
Hamilton and kin selection
Only 1964, William D. Hamilton (1936-2000) will give the answer now generally admitted to some issues we have raised above.
The basic idea is that altruism may develop between organizations that have ties of kinship (referred to for this reason kin altruism) and thus share common genes. This altruism occurs when the benefits drawn by the recipient are higher than they cost the donor. Hamilton makes a rule that now bears his name: rB> C, where B is the benefit to the behavior that benefits altruistic, C is the cost to the agency altruistic and r the coefficient of genetic similarity. It is thus understood that a gene that Dawkins called "selfish" when he popularized the ideas of Hamilton in 1976, its wearer can program to assist individuals who wears one of his lines and that altruism increases its ability to proliferate. This idea is not only intuitively compelling when you think about animals like humans, where children have half the genes of each parent, a quarter with their grandchildren, and so on, but it also brilliantly solved the enigma insects Hymenoptera, the genetic individual. [The following box provides an initial explanation of this complex issue].
************************************************ **************************************
"Among the Bees and in most species of this order, the females are from a diploid zygote. For males cons [...] develop from an unfertilized egg haploid. In this system haplodiploid values of kinship relations are modified and the transmission of genes becomes different between maternal and paternal lines. [... The sociality of bees is based on these observations. A female share more genes with her sisters (three quarters) with its own offspring (half). Therefore, we understand that evolutionary level a genetic system leading to increased production of sisters at the expense of direct progeny can be selected. "
Source: Social Insects: [http://insectesociaux.skyrock.com/2 . html]
******************************************** ******************************************
kin altruism is a first breakthrough, the first pillar as said Dawkins, an evolutionary approach to ethics: it helps to understand that our ancestors had in place something that will allow the development of morality. The reciprocal altruism will provide the second breakthrough.
Reciprocal Altruism Altruism
for our close kin, however, morality appears to imply more than that, puisqu'existent in our societies (and even in some animals) multiple forms of altruism practiced towards beings with whom we disagree or not clearly that very few genes.
But genes that predispose us to practice altruism toward beings that we are not genetically related contribute to the spread of selfish genes and should disappear with time. The solution of this enigma new in 1971 and is largely the work of Robert Trivers, which assumes that altruism emerges as a strategy of reciprocity. The basic idea is this.
reciprocal altruism is a strategy by which an organization is altruistic towards another organization to be able later to turn the beneficiary of their altruism. "Scratch my back and I scratch yours later," after all.
*********************************************** **************************************
reciprocal altruism among vampire bats
Reciprocal Altruism is practiced among the vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus), which were studied by G. Wilkinson. This case is notable because its appearance implies in particular, as discussed, cognitive capabilities for detecting cheaters.
It is common for these animals fail to eat during a given night: now, they would die if they did not eat for several days running.
Here, a hungry bat in seeking another, first by scratching her belly (c) and then licking her face (d) the donor, willing, then regurgitate blood to the requester (e).
[Wilkinson, Gerald S., "Reciprocal Food Sharing in the Vampire Bat," Nature, 1984, 308: 181-184]
********************* ************************************************** **************
But our problem remains. Indeed, where reciprocal altruism is practiced, it is advantageous to give and receive without ever becoming a free rider (commonly called "free-rider"), a cheater who has never had to pay her the benefits of cooperation: in this case, the change should ultimately produce such as cheaters and ban reciprocal altruism: if the random shows such genes, the changes will eliminate. How the cooperation and reciprocal altruism postulle which is clearly there could be deploy?
Game theory, which arises generally and the question of formal cooperation and advantageous conditions for its practice, will help raise and resolve this issue.
game theory to the rescue
Game theory, described in 1944 by John von Neumann (1903-1957) [see sidebar] and Oskar Morgenstern (1902 -1977) became a powerful and indispensable tool in the social sciences. To her the mathematician John F. Nash (1928), made famous by the film A Beautiful Mind, has made his most important scientific contributions. She proved extremely useful to identify some problems concerning the evolution and to study the myriad real dilemmas that arise when one must choose whether to cooperate in the pursuit of our interests that we rationally seek to maximize. To get an idea, consider the following.
************************************************ *************************************
John von Neumann (1903 -1957) was One of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century. In addition to game theory, he contributed significantly to developments in quantum mechanics, functional analysis, computer science, set theory, artificial intelligence, and in many other areas of mathematics.
legends that circulate about his intelligence and memory, which were extraordinary, abound. Here is one.
It is amusing to ask mathematicians early next clue. Two cyclists start 20 km apart at the same time toward each other, both traveling at 10 km / h. Always at the same time, a fly leaves the handlebars of a bicycle and flies to 15 km / h towards the handle of the other, when she reached, she instantly turned around and returned to the first bicycle, and so on, until that both bikes come together. It asks how far the fly has so traveled.
People trained in mathematics typically want to resolve this conundrum by summing the series of distances: this is long and complicated. But if we notice that the bikes will meet one hour after their departure and that the fly will have flown for an hour, so you know as soon as it traveled 15 miles. They say you
one day put this puzzle to von Neumann. He immediately replied: "15 km". "You knew," said his questioner. "No," replied von Neumann. I just ordered the series. "
************************************************ *************************************
Suppose two people, John and Thierry were arrested by police who suspect them of a serious crime, but could not prove it. The police, however, can prove their guilt for a lesser offense. They were questioned separately, each in a different room. Each prisoner may admit or not admit the crime more serious, but he does not know what else will.
If both confess, each will make a prison sentence of 5 years if neither confesses, they will be incarcerated for one year - the penalty for the crime less serious than the police can prove, but they also promises that if one of them confesses, he will be free, will bail while his partner of ten years in prison.
Game theory examines such conflicts (scenarios can be infinitely more complex) and seeks by preparing a "payoff matrix" to determine the optimal rational strategy.
Note that in the dilemma presented here, the pursuit by each of its sole interest maximized (do not go to jail) leads both players to prison for five years, whereas if they cooperate and give up their personal interest maximized, they get the best collective outcome (each scooping one year in prison) and people are better off if they cooperate than if they are selfish.
back to our reciprocal altruism. He will find out how some animals placed in certain circumstances and playing repeatedly for such a prisoner's dilemma will eventually generate a reciprocal altruism would be the best strategy. Robert Axelrod has identified the conditions that must be met. Organizations must first meet many of the same agencies, they must recognize these organizations already crossed and distinguish them from foreign agencies, they must finally remember how they were treated by the bodies they have crossed, because detection cheaters is crucial. But if these conditions are met, long term cooperation and reciprocal altruism will be fixed in the populations concerned and they are therefore compatible with natural selection and could have emerged from it.
One of the most interesting work in this context has just been completed by Robert Axelrod. Many people see it as a promising avenue towards a neo-Darwinian left - as a kind of update of the reflection of Kropotkin.
In a word, he organized tournaments in which various strategies of behavior in situations of possible competition or cooperation clashed - Strategies that can still go to work, do not cooperate and covering a vast spectrum of other options in between. Many people were invited to write a computer program to creatures prescribing behavior in reaction to the behavior of other creatures with whom they interact. Axelrod then had them compete each against each other to see which would be more successful. This is the simplest and shortest of all programs that competed in this competition that prevailed. Called Tit-for-tat, that is to say, give and take, he recommends starting by cooperating with each other creature that we just met and continue to cooperate if the other cooperates, but not to cooperate if the other does not cooperate and continue to react that way in subsequent meetings, by responding in cooperation with cooperation and a refusal to cooperate by refusing to cooperate.
These two pillars in place, we guess they probably call for building a very large number of these "secondary structures" referred to Dawkins and which concern not only morality, but many other subjects.
A plethora work and avenues of research
The research in question are now realized in sociobiology, psychology (evolutionary), anthropology, biology, philosophy and game theory. They cover the evolution of social behavior and altruistic, and the conditions necessary for their appearance.
Claven draws up the inventory summary: "In reality, they give interpretations of the function and necessary conditions for the emergence of phenomena associated with morality: social feelings, thinking skills, cultural transmission, propensity to punish certain conduct, standards of conduct, etc.. This area of investigation, though still largely unexplored, is both lush and bright. Here are some results that seem particularly interesting. Firstly a number of research shows that effective social norms must be reinforced by the sanction or by emotions strong enough to motivate action. On the other hand, it seems that the stability of social groups depends on the presence among their members, some social trends, including the tendency to conform to the majority or to imitate prestigious individuals. Finally, more generally, the emergence and stabilization of behavior and moral thinking are various explanations: the morality would have for example been selected because it encourages coordination and cooperation between individuals in a society as other authors, she was selected because it allows for a certain equality among members of a society. "
Given these facts, what follows for understanding what we are and ethics in particular ? Dawkins has made an outstanding issue in the opening classic book in which he popularized the ideas I have outlined. He asks us to imagine a man who is not that long survived, and even lived in was very prosperous in the world of Chicago gangsters. It would, he said, reasonable to conclude that this man has certain characteristics - say it is hard, ruthless, he has the easy relaxation, etc..
Dawkins continues: "As the triumphant Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This leaves us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I will indicate that the predominant quality expected in a triumphant gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will lead usually to selfishness in individual behavior. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can better achieve its own selfish goals by promoting a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals.. "
Next time, I will summarize this work attempted by Michael Shermer and suggest a critical distance on these efforts naturalization of ethics on their scope and meaning.
0 comments:
Post a Comment