> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Andrew Crystall
[snip]
> You can only really talk about whole organisms for behavior...it can
> be said that uit is selfish for your body to work properly togeather
> because it has a 100% genetic relatedness to itself :P So kinda
> makes a nonsense of community arguments...
[snip]
> AT the smalest levels, you can look at our gut bacteria for a
> mutralistic relationship. We get vitamen K and the protection them
> simply being there (they prevent colonisation by pathogenic
> bacteria), and they get protection and nutrients from what we eat in
> return. Is it both good for both and selfish for both in this context.
And we don't have a "100% genetic relatedness" with them, yet they are an
utterly essential part of us. Ditto with mitochondria.
> Right, you're talking about instinctive reactions. Human instinctive
> reactions are the same, running from danger, protecting our
> children, etc. Intinctive reactions are inherently selfish.
Steven Pinker makes a fine case for language being largely instinctual. Is
language selfish? I realize one can choose to make an argument that it is,
but those arguments look like round pegs being pounded into square holes, as
far as I'm concerned. I'd throw out other examples, but I suspect we'd end
up arguing about the definition of instinct -- and I think most people
define instincts as the selfish things we do in spite of knowing better...
;-)
Nick
