Nathan Larson: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Views on altruism
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
:However, we see a different phenomenon happen in reference to sex ratio, which is described in Robert E. Ricklef's ''The Economy of Nature''. A gene that causes one to produce more male offspring than female will temporarily reproduce rapidly, since a male, by impregnating a number of females, can produce many times more offspring than a female. However, this gene will eventually produce a population with a disproportionately large number of males, actually hurting its efficiency in reproduction in the long run. So species tend to evolve to an equilibrium approximating a 1:1 sex ratio (in humans, 105 males for each 100 females). This phenomenon is known as Fisher's Principle. | :However, we see a different phenomenon happen in reference to sex ratio, which is described in Robert E. Ricklef's ''The Economy of Nature''. A gene that causes one to produce more male offspring than female will temporarily reproduce rapidly, since a male, by impregnating a number of females, can produce many times more offspring than a female. However, this gene will eventually produce a population with a disproportionately large number of males, actually hurting its efficiency in reproduction in the long run. So species tend to evolve to an equilibrium approximating a 1:1 sex ratio (in humans, 105 males for each 100 females). This phenomenon is known as Fisher's Principle. | ||
:Similarly, our altruistic act of getting involved in politics makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It may not seem advantageous, within the context of an individual person's life, for | :Similarly, our altruistic act of getting involved in politics makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It may not seem advantageous, within the context of an individual person's life, for him to make sacrifices for others. But it makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of the population as a whole. The key to understanding it is to the see the larger picture, both in terms of time and population. As the founders of this country noted, their self-sacrificing efforts (putting their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line) to preserve liberty were not just for themselves, but for themselves and their posterity. | ||
:In understanding how altruism plays out, it is also worth noting that in nature, the ratio of specialized individuals is not always 1:1; sometimes it is rather lopsided. Consider, for instance, the castes in an ant colony or beehive. They produce large numbers of workers compared to the queens and drones. Over time, the ratio has become calibrated to a level optimal for maximum survival and reproduction. I think that the human species as well has evolved to produce a certain number of individuals with an altruistic streak. These are people born with a strong drive to work for the betterment of society, even at great cost to themselves. Many altruists get dismayed at how few in number they seem to be. But I suspect that, like the ratio of queen bees to worker bees, the ratio of altruistic humans to selfish humans, and the degrees of their altruism, evolved for a reason - and that reason is that it is does not take many strongly altruistic people to suffice for society. Compared to the population of the country as a whole, it would only take a small number of Libertarians, sacrificing their own interests for the interests of society as a whole, to pull the country in a Libertarian direction and keep it that way - and once there, we would move on to other altruistic endeavors, no doubt providing the voluntary charity and so on that most Libertarian proposals (for privatized education, for instance) would depend on to provide for the poor. | :In understanding how altruism plays out, it is also worth noting that in nature, the ratio of specialized individuals is not always 1:1; sometimes it is rather lopsided. Consider, for instance, the castes in an ant colony or beehive. They produce large numbers of workers compared to the queens and drones. Over time, the ratio has become calibrated to a level optimal for maximum survival and reproduction. I think that the human species as well has evolved to produce a certain number of individuals with an altruistic streak. These are people born with a strong drive to work for the betterment of society, even at great cost to themselves. Many altruists get dismayed at how few in number they seem to be. But I suspect that, like the ratio of queen bees to worker bees, the ratio of altruistic humans to selfish humans, and the degrees of their altruism, evolved for a reason - and that reason is that it is does not take many strongly altruistic people to suffice for society. Compared to the population of the country as a whole, it would only take a small number of Libertarians, sacrificing their own interests for the interests of society as a whole, to pull the country in a Libertarian direction and keep it that way - and once there, we would move on to other altruistic endeavors, no doubt providing the voluntary charity and so on that most Libertarian proposals (for privatized education, for instance) would depend on to provide for the poor. | ||