"Homo homini lupus - Man is a wolf to man, Thomas Hobbes said 400 years ago. From state-theoretical perspective, perhaps even justifiable, that is anthro and sociologically very wrong. Not only has he "insulted one of the most sociable and most loyal cooperators in the animal kingdom - and such a loyal, that our ancestors domesticated it wisely" (quote from here ). But the quote is the man who - in addition to all its cruelty - is a thoroughly social and altruistic nature, is also in a false light dar. The compassion, the desire to help others, we socialize with others and in our genes and deep-rooted. But unfortunately, probably not for long. Our current living conditions have in fact removed from the original so much that the millions of years old mechanisms that made us what we are today, now work differently. Therefore, people will change in the near future - and eventually mutate to ill, listless egoists. Sad, is not it?
sick Why? - If we invent better drugs and treatment methods, we take into natural selection. If a child predisposed to myopia (like me) used to eat from the nearest tigers or at least significantly reduced reproductive opportunities, it now gets a fashionable glasses and other equivalent in the biological "fitness". This idea can be generalized. By the - to ensure basic medical care, we prevent natural selection - no doubt a moral imperative so that the gene pool "dirty". Since such "unfavorable" genes are passed, there will be more and more people with more and more aches and pains.
listless Why? - Well, a lecher has previously fathered 20 children in his life, which then wore each of the genes in the libertine (we keep for simplicity in men). These genes were then already numerically an advantage over the wallflower-philosopher, the only wrong three times in his life with a passionate declamation of Thomas Hobbes with a woman and was a lonely child in the world. Today it's different. Since the sensualist can avoid using the latest scientific knowledge simply, it is his Lust, enjoy themselves without getting 20 children. His genes have thus the same statistical distribution opportunities as the wallflower-philosopher. The average sexual desire in the general population will thus decrease with each generation.
What most frightens me, however, is also the next general genetic selfishness. A gene is basically only interested in his own distribution, so basically selfish. All of us familiar forms of altruism and self-sacrifice (donations to helpless, cooking for friends, helping the old lady crossing the street) are - you should not be surprised - that's why only one instance of this same genetic selfishness.
Altruism has evolutionsbioliogische namely two statements - the reciprocal altruism and group selection . The correct assumption of the two, is that people and their ancestors used to always lived in smaller groups . The reciprocal altruism developed as a kind of insurance - I scratch your back and wasting my resources for you, because you know me, you remember the massage and the next time you revanchierst. The group selection is different - we are all in this small group related to each other quite closely, it's worth it for my own selfish genes, me for altruistic Behavior to move. Because if I lose my life to protect my group in front of the big bad wolf, the more or less the same genes of my family will survive from the group. So my genes made copies save in my aunt and my distant cousin, sacrificing myself. Sent, but effective. We are of course one always to have acted from higher motives, but actually it is these genetically branded conduct.
And these millions of years old genetic mechanism is abolished in more and more of us now. Why? - Because the small groups are no longer there. People live in huge collections. If I am an old grandmother who has fallen down on the street, not help, then this will interest no one. I will perhaps look at passers-by evil, but because neither they nor the grandmother know who I am, they can "exclude" do not punish me or otherwise. Even my relatives and genetic similarity with the neighbors out of my panel is pretty straightforward. To them I need not worry about me because I do not favor that the copies of my own genes, but any that concern me. As the extended family than those in Western societies at risk of extinction, there is virtually no evolutionary pressure further to act altruistically. People are always selfish to support their lifestyles, without meaning to.
Our children and grandchildren as sick, listless egoists - where's my cyanide ..? Or - maybe we should just be good to each other and care for each other while we are still inclined to that?
