Dr Rick

Human behaviour is learned and modified by a multitude of external influences, internal drives, and unconscious thoughts, but what are our "genetic instincts"?

An instinct cannot be educated away because an instinct is not learned. If humans have instincts, how could we out learn them? Are they any specific examples of instincts that have been "masked" in this way?

The surviving family members of the NYPD firefighters and others who died on 9-11 in rescue efforts could probably answer your inquiry. Unlike the insects refered to later in the post, these heroes knew there was a danger to themselves.

The rest of this post is modified from a response on another thread in the E/C forum. The evolved behaviour of honeybees and praying mantis's increases the probabality that the genes of each will be propagated in the future (the honeybee's genes are indirectly passed on through the Queen bee). Neither organism is likely to know that its instinctive actions are going to end its life, and neither is likely to care. Even if one chooses to ignore the lack of conscious thought in their actions, it seems that these organisms are acting for self-benefit and not toward some altruistic goal.

Evolutionary biology hypothesizes that the ultimate goal of any organism is to reproduce its genes. Individual survival is secondary to that cause and only neccessary to the extent that it facilitates reproduction. The "self-sacrifice" cited is no sacrifice at all if the actions help to accomplish the primary goal of the organisms' existence.

webwonderuk

My personal belief is that emotions and education can convince the human brain to override its own biological instinct. I have no direct evidence of this but there are many examples of human behaviour which goes against what is clearly beneficial to the survival of its own genes. I have just finished reading a book, "Maternal personality, evolution and the sex ratio". By a New Zealand psychologist who claims that a woman can influence the sex of a baby by her psychological state of mind with regards to studies of more dominant women giving birth to males. The study was started after well known figures published on the fact that more males are born after wars. Although i am sceptical to this theory as it is very difficult to establish exactly the psychological state of a persons mind it still makes fascinating reading and makes one consider the possibility of an outside influence. Another example is the well written theory on the increase in homosexuality amongst humans, as true homosexuals would obviously not breed there numbers would diminish and eventually dissapear from the human race, which hints to the fact that an environmental or educational force is causing the development of homosexuality and therefore overriding the biological instincts of humans to reproduce. I believe the evolutionary theory to be cut and dry with regards to all living 'things' but when it comes to humans in the current environment there must be another dimension which is interfering with our genetic advancement. I write this purely from my own point of view and would be pleased to hear of any evidence for or against these arguments as i am new to this site and would like to develop these theories further to enhance my own knowledge, enjoyment and education from this fascinating subject.

webwonderuk

This answers the question in itself as not all the population is or would consider taking the risks involved in a career like firefighting, law enforcement etc. Those who do choose this option do so because it is something they want to do and are prepared to take the risks for, they do not do the job to sacrifice their own lives. They are highly "trained" in risk assessment, maintaining a strong mind and body to help cope with psychological trauma within the job and dealing with the fact that the job involves the risks that are contained within it. The evolutionary answer to this question is the fact that a 'lifesaver' is willing to save another persons life and therefore the recipients are able to carry on living , reproducing and ultimately passing on their genes, for the possibility that the lifesaver may one day need his or his offsprings life saving for his personal genes survival and would expect someone to return the favour.

Peter Soderqvist

TO UNCLE UNION

Soderqvist1 I will answer as follows: Survival of the fittest gene or meme cannot explain authentic altruism, because they have no foresights, they are blind selfish replicators. But strange enough, random mutation, and non-random natural selection, has made us in that way, and not in other ways, and I don't know why?

Richard Dawkins can explain the issue better than me!

THE SELFISH GENE CHAPTER 11: MEMES THE NEW REPLICATORS ONLINE!
I now close the topic of the new replicators, and end the chapter on a note of qualified hope. One unique feature of man, which may or may not have evolved memically, is his capacity for conscious foresight. Selfish genes (and, if you allow the speculation of this chapter, memes too) have no foresight. They are unconscious, blind, replicators. The fact that they replicate, together with certain further condition means, willy nilly, that they will tend towards the evolution of qualities which, in the special sense of this book, can be called selfish. A simple replicator, whether gene or meme, cannot be expected to forgo short-term selfish advantage even if it would really pay it, in the long term, to do so. We saw this in the chapter on aggression. Even though a `conspiracy of doves' would be better for every single individual than the evolutionarily stable strategy [=ESS], natural selection is bound to favor the ESS.

It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or another, nor to speculate over its possible memic evolution. The point I am making now is that, even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight -- our capacity to simulate the future in imagination -- could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to foster our long-term selfish interests rather than merely our short-term selfish interests. We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a `conspiracy of doves', and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism -- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our own creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.(8)
<a href="http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html" target="_blank">http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html</a>

INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD DAWKINS REGARDING MEMES!
<a href="http://www.philosophers.co.uk/science/dawkins.htm" target="_blank">http://www.philosophers.co.uk/science/dawkins.htm</a>

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]</p>

Dr Rick

No praying mantis or homeybee would consider any of its instinctive actions. Humans can consider behaviour that is learned.

...whereas the praying mantis and honeybee don't choose or want their respective risks; they just instinctively take them.

In other words, their behavior, unlike that of the honeybee or praying mantis, is learned and not instinctive.

A firefighter that died rescueing a stranger is less likely to promulgate his/her genes then a live one, but a dead honeybee that successfully defended a Queen bee is more likely to have its genes passed to future generations than a live honeybee whoose Queen has died.

Do not wish to be associated w/ II

Dr Rick,

I think the usual response to the last point is that the 'helping of a stranger' would have been of use in our environment of evolutionary adaptedness- that is it might have been beneficial when we were living in smaller groups (because there was a better chance that a 'stranger' would be remotely related at least). I honestly don't have much to say either way about this. I just know that is some people's take on the matter.

tronvillain

That would be kin selection, but there's reciprocal altruism too.

Dr Rick

As webwonderuk pointed-out, some people choose altruistic behavor and some don't. Instincts are inborn behavior patterns, so if altruisim is an instinctive human behavior, how could some people possibly choose to act against it?

tronvillain

So call it a tendency rather than an instinct

Valentine Pontifex

Think in terms of hunter/gathers. Virtually everyone one would indeed be related. Also consider the concept of "us" and "them." Cultural (non-biological) evolution over the last few centuries have let us think of larger and larger groups of people as being, at least to a certain degree, "us." Evolution is unlikely to evolve instant DNA testing to see if someone is related to oneself, but being part of the same "tribe" would act as good enough approximation. In modern society a nation, cause, party, religion, etc. can act as a substitute for the "tribe" of related individuals.

Also most of the time someone risks their life for another, the hero does NOT die in the process. People like firefighters risk their lives on a daily basis and yet usually live long enough to retire.

Of course, as has been pointed out, their is a learning/indoctrination aspect to risking one's life to save others as well whatever biology adds to the equation. Indeed I would expect strong cultural and biological selection for self-sacrifice. Think of how long a society that lacked people willing to die for it would last.