X-Message-Number: 7287
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: answers.to.Platt.and.Ettinger
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:46:08 -0800 (PST)

Hi again!

To Charles Platt:

If you read a bit on this subject you will hear of various kinds of altruism,
too. They all have explanations in terms of promoting an individual's genes,
though some require more intelligence that others.

The most obvious kind of altruism is the response of (some) animal parents to
their children. It is also the most obvious way in which animals can promote
their own genes. But there are others, with the same feature. One which very
few animals show --- because it does require intelligence --- is reciprocal
altruism: I help you now because you may help me in return at some later
time. Human beings do this a lot and it can explain many such cases. What
is rare is altruism WITH NO BENEFIT TO PROPAGATING THE INDIVIDUAL'S GENES.
Trade, which is one case of reciprocal altruism, is hardly altruism in that
sense. And yes, I think dolphins are intelligent too, so the story you
tell doesn't really mean very much about altruism in the normal sense.

To Bob Ettinger:

We really are talking past one another now. The very first point I would
make is that right now we are all being selected for our ability to 
propagate our genome. What we feel about that doesn't matter. Nor does our
technology matter, either. AS for CroMagnon man, we still remain close to
him; and that is what I meant when I said we still existed under natural
selection. True, we may very well grow into something else, but since I
was talking about NOW that's not so important.

I will add, though, that one possible development and basically one only
will change our current relationship to natural selection. If we are able
to edit and change our genes, and someday we may learn how to do, then
we may see a different kind of selection: rather than selecting between
entire genomes, we may see individual genes or collections of genes (since
most traits aren't controlled by a single gene) become the units on which
selection acts. That will make things very interesting, and even fun to
watch. But we cannot do that now, and will probably only reach that 
state gradually. Nor would that mean that human beings would be able to 
choose their genomes arbitrarily: we still live in the world, and that   
world will apply its own criteria about what is a good or bad combination
of genes. Generally when it does so it won't do so gently.

The point of all this is that it simply isn't enough to set out principles
about how we "should" or "ought to" act. We already know a good deal about
how humans work (independent of how they should work), about their biology,
and their brain and their hormones. Any philosophy which tries to ignore
these things simply becomes irrelevant. And as we learn more, it becomes
even more irrelevant. A statement that human beings ought to behave 
according to XYZ is meaningless unless it fits human beings. And even as
we cease to be human beings, we will still have traits to fit whatever
milieu we live in, they will not be arbitrarily chosen. This issue will
not disappear merely because we all find a way to make ourselves more
intelligent, or able to live unprotected in space or underwater, or 
whatever we choose.

		Best wishes, and long long life,

			Thomas Donaldson


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7287