Survival of the Kindest

[L.Wood]

,

Social Scientists Build Case for 'Survival of the Kindest'

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct."

Science Daily article here.

.

[kwlyon]

This is nothing terribly new. We are not wired to be selfish...well, not entirely anyways. We are a social species and, like all social species, the Nash hypothesis has played a rather substantial role in our evolutionary development.

[Savonarola]

This is nothing terribly new.

kwlyon's absolutely correct. This hasn't been "controversial" for many, many years.

Darwin hated the phrase, "survival of the fittest." In fact, it's often blatantly incorrect. I always argue that the more accurate picture is "perpetuation of the fittest," which is simply a tautology. I feel that the oversimplified lingo that gets thrown around is likely a result of fighting creationist ignorance; the countless minuscule aspects of what causes variation in organisms over time can't really be explained in one phrase, but any teacher knows that you can't start elementary-level students with college-level technicalities.

[L.Wood]

.

perpetuation of the mutants?

.

[Savonarola]

perpetuation of the mutants?

Sure, if they're still able to reproduce. If they're not so good at it, then maybe not so much. If they're better at it, then we have more of those genes in the population. As I said, it's rather tautological.

Allow me to point out that we're not talking about only mutation. New combinations of already-existing genes can bestow increased (or decreased) fitness. Also consider gene flow and changes in environment.

(And for any readers who aren't familiar with the lingo, "fitness" in biology does not refer to a measure of physical ability or health but to the ability of an organism to reproduce. A typical example of when fitness does not confer survival is the peacock, whose tail attracts mates but also hinders escape from predators.)

[kwlyon]

When we are speaking of purely natural selection, there is only one selective criteria.

1) Does a set of genes endow an individual with a greater probability of successfully passing these genes on. Successful reproduction is the ONLY selective criteria.

Sometimes a gene that makes an individual more "fit" to his environment gives him an edge and these genes therefor proliferate. However life outside of the human created wonderland is a constant struggle for survival and thus "survival of the fittest" is misleading... survival of the barely adequate would be more astute.

[L.Wood]

.

This is nothing terribly new.

Who made that claim?

.

[kwlyon]

.

This is nothing terribly new.

Who made that claim?

.

No one made that claim...I was just stating the obvious. This was a delightfully interesting read.

[Dardedar]

.

This is nothing terribly new.

Who made that claim?

.

No one made that claim...I was just stating the obvious. This was a delightfully interesting read.

DAR
The claim was in the first sentence:

"Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that..."

[kwlyon]

Oh....I misunderstood what you were saying...sorry. I am knee deep in E&M studies and my brain has realized it's retarded potential:)