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