Some answers by Hamilton
From: Michael Ragland (ragland37_at_webtv.net)
Date: 07/01/04
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt"
- Previous message: John Edser: "Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "RE: Some answers by Hamilton"
- Maybe reply: John Edser: "RE: Some answers by Hamilton"
- Reply: Jim McGinn: "Re: Some answers by Hamilton"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:46:32 +0000 (UTC)
Interviewer:
A general question. Do living organisms behave as if they want to pass
on their own genes, or do they behave as if each of their genes is
trying to replicate itself, possibly at the expense of other genes of
the same genome?
Hamilton:
This is a very deep and difficult question I think. One's impression is
that there is a conflict between selfish genes, but largely it is being
overridden by a kind of democracy that has arisen in the genome. It
combines to suppress this intergene conflict and the outcome is that the
organism acts largely as a whole.
Interviewer:
You write that evolutionary ideas "turn out to have, or are perceived to
have, the unfortunate property of being solvents of a vital societal
glue". What kind of glue is this?
Hamilton:
The glue that I am thinking of is various myths that tend to hold
societies together. When these myths are wrong, I think that they exist
because they have helped people to be more cooperative than they would
be if proceeding with a full understanding of evolutionary theory. This
is the most unfortunate fact about teaching evolution. I also think that
it is the threat that is dimly perceived by all religious people. They
think that if people 'believe' evolution instead of believing, say, the
gospels, they will no longer be able to celebrate simple honesty, or
kindly and warm feelings toward others, as unequivocally 'good'.
I think they exaggerate the danger, but they don't exaggerate a nothing.
There is a danger of that kind.
Interviewer:
How are evolutionists trying to deal with this problem?
Hamilton:
They are trying to deal with it by showing that the implications of a
fully rational and evolutionary theory of behaviour, and that includes
human behaviour, is not such a nasty thing as it may seem at first. If
you believe that we evolved out of animals, are animals, and have the
same kinds of drives, it doesn't mean that we have to be selfish and
inhumane. When you fully work out the consequences of the rules of
kinship and of reciprocation, and ensure maintenance of the standards
implied, you will see that the outcome is in fact quite a moderate kind
of behaviour, avoiding evil and as good in holding the society together
as are the religious myths. Indeed, under a rational theory we should be
able to do better for human happiness by avoiding various naive errors.
Interviewer:
You write that long ago there was a man who claimed that humans
descended from bears, and not from apes. As his theory got rejected and
the man got more and more isolated, he probably looked like an angry
bear. Didn't this description for a long time fit sociobiologists? "The
world doesn't understand us and doesn't like us"?
Hamilton:
I guess it fits anyone who feels himself to be very isolated, so I guess
and hope we have gone recently from being angry bears to being rather
comfortable and accepted bears. I wish I could remember who it was
that founded this ridiculous theory about bears. I am sure that it
exists, but I have not managed to recall the book. Perhaps one of your
readers can help to remind me.
"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value."
Stephen Hawking
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt"
- Previous message: John Edser: "Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "RE: Some answers by Hamilton"
- Maybe reply: John Edser: "RE: Some answers by Hamilton"
- Reply: Jim McGinn: "Re: Some answers by Hamilton"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
