My understanding is that the question comes up because of the apparent contradiction between the notion that an organism giving away resources would presumably be reducing its own chances of propagating its genes, and the fact that altruistic behavior does exist. But that contradiction gets resolved if traits can be selected at the group level, because then something that increases group survival will tend to spread. And I do think there are similar discussions regarding why humans play sports and games.
Like I say, I have a STEM degree I understand the argument. It only makes sense from a ridiculous genetic reductionist perspective though.
We aren't amoeba. We have sophisticated behaviours informed at least partially, often primarily, by complex culture. This one crusade against altruism just seems very highly motivated is all.
My understanding is that the question comes up because of the apparent contradiction between the notion that an organism giving away resources would presumably be reducing its own chances of propagating its genes, and the fact that altruistic behavior does exist. But that contradiction gets resolved if traits can be selected at the group level, because then something that increases group survival will tend to spread. And I do think there are similar discussions regarding why humans play sports and games.
Like I say, I have a STEM degree I understand the argument. It only makes sense from a ridiculous genetic reductionist perspective though.
We aren't amoeba. We have sophisticated behaviours informed at least partially, often primarily, by complex culture. This one crusade against altruism just seems very highly motivated is all.
I guess my point is more that I've never heard it as a crusade against altruism, is all. But maybe that's just me.