It never enters my head that I am attaching value to my children due to their carrying my DNA! Rather, I attach value to them because I love them…
Dansk - Would it be fair to say that you love them because you attach value to them?
LOVE, ALTRUISM & EVOLUTION
by Dansk 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
trevor
-
Lumptard
I'm an evolutionist. One cannot argue that evolution isn't a fact. However, I'd be interested in the better informed amongst us here explaining in simple terms how the feeling of love evolved. It is a fact that animals can display altruism. Some dogs, for example, have laid down their lives for their masters. Animals have also been seen to show examples of compassion, fidelity, grief, unselfishness, affection, gratitude and acting the Good Samaritan.
For some time now, I have been pondering human relationships, i.e. how some are based purely on sex and others on love (there are also other reasons, such as companionship, etc.). After 28 years I am still passionately in love with my wife. Claire is my rock and my reason for living. Where does this love come from? If it is an evolutionary aspect how did it come about? Humans alone "seem" to be the only species capable of such feelings. You know what I mean, we seem to connect with that special someone and it seems lightening runs through our veins. Can any other creature feel this?
Ian
I'm an evolutionist. One cannot argue that evolution isn't a fact.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact.
Animals have also been seen to show examples of compassion, fidelity, grief, unselfishness, affection, gratitude and acting the Good Samaritan.
And you're wondering how humans evolved the feeling of love? You play fetch with a dog, the dog loves you. Your woman plays hide the salami with you, you love her. Love is a feeling that evolved in order to attract humans together to ensure the survival of the speceis.
Humans alone "seem" to be the only species capable of such feelings.
You already said that other animals have been observed showing similar human emotions. You've negated your own statement.
You know what I mean, we seem to connect with that special someone and it seems lightening runs through our veins
There's no such thing as "that special someone"....It's just a combination of dopamine being released in your brain and your own psychological predispositions that give you that feeling. I'm glad you love you wife because there isn't enough of that around....but don't think it's anything more than a biology party.
-
proplog2
When the biologist Haldane was asked if he would die for his brother he said no but he would die for 2 brothers or 8 cousins.
-
cognizant dissident
I'm an evolutionist. One cannot argue that evolution isn't a fact. However, I'd be interested in the better informed amongst us here explaining in simple terms how the feeling of love evolved. It is a fact that animals can display altruism. Some dogs, for example, have laid down their lives for their masters.I'm an evolutionist. One cannot argue that evolution isn't a fact. However, I'd be interested in the better informed amongst us here explaining in simple terms how the feeling of love evolved. It is a fact that animals can display altruism. Some dogs, for example, have laid down their lives for their masters.
Ian, I have been giving this subject a great deal of thought myself in the last year or so. I have become an atheist just in the last year since leaving the JW's thanks, in part, due to the great debates and logical argumentation of the subject by some of the atheists on this discussion board. I have been seeing a counselor who is also an atheist and has a great interest in evolution, biology, and how human belief systems are formed. I remember one day when we were discussing how I felt like I had nothing to believe in anymore and how I felt that with no external moral compass to guide me, there was no reason to be good, loving etc. It was just survival of the fittest, every man for himself, take what you can get out of life, do what you feel like doing. (I realize now that this was a view of atheists that was taught/conditioned into my mind by JW's). Anyway when I said this to my counselor, he looked me straight in the eye and said with absolute conviction, "there is still something worth believing in: Love". I was very surprised to hear those words coming from an atheist and an evolutionist. I have been pondering them ever since, trying to reconcile how love fits in with evolutionary biology.
If you think of some of the basic principles of evolution: natural selection, survival of the fittest, competition for finite or scarce resources, it is easy to see many examples of these principles in action in the material world and animal societies, including humans. It is less easy to see how love fits into the picture. Love, or altruism, would seem to contradict some of these principles. While it is fairly easy to see how it is beneficial to parents to protect their own children (propagation of the species and their own DNA as Kid A argues, and someone to look after them when they are old and weak), it is less easy explain those humans who sacrifice their time, energy and resources to take care of the sick, the disabled, the poverty stricken, especially those who may never get better or be able to contribute to society or to the people who helped them in any meaningful way. Even more difficult, what benefit, from an evolutionary viewpoint, would there for a healthy human specimen to go so far as to sacrifice their own life to protect or save humans who are weaker and less competent to defend themselves? Yet, we know, there have been many instances where humans have done just that. We also know there are many humans who have done the opposite and exploited the elderly, the young, the weak, the sick, the disabled, for their own greed and personal selfish gain. They very much seem to exemplify the principle, "survival of the fittest" Which type of human do others of the species tend to admire and value and hold up as a role model worth emulating? Generally, in our society, the former. Why?
If we continue to look at the question only from the viewpoint of the individual human of the species, there is no advantage. If we widen out to the human family unit, we can see physical and economic value to the family as a unit if individual members cooperate and work together for the benefit of the family even though those benefits may come at a higher cost to some individuals. In families where the selfishness of one member dominates it is often at great detriment to the entire family as a unit. Now, widen that principle of altruism and self sacrifice to include neighbourhoods, cities, and even entire countries in the circle and it becomes obvious that those larger communities of humans can and do evolve in very beneficial ways to humans as a whole group or species, however, again, it may be at cost or great sacrifice to individuals of the species.
Now, because of advanced technology, what humans do in one country in one part of the world affects not only the humans in thier countries but in other parts of the world, for better or worse. Humans could, and many do, attribute western advancement and technology to superiority, greater success at competition for world's resources, survival of the fittest, might makes right, etc. It may not be loving/altruistic and some may call western over consumption greedy, but hey, it's just the natural evolution of things in the world. Yet, those conditions have now advanced to the point where the survival of large segments of the population in third world countries are threatened. Even worse, we have the capability of damaging the physical environment to the point where we threaten our entire species. This could be a natural evolution of events but it would certainly not be a beneficial one to our species as a whole.
If we define love as awareness and a recognition of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all members of our species on one another and the interdependence between species and the responsiblility to work towards not just the good of our individual selves and our individual families and our individual cultures but the good of the entire species and the planet as a whole, then it becomes clear exactly what role "love" plays in evolution. It is a survival mechanism for the perpetuation of the species.
It also occurs to me, in the act of writing this, that this definition of love is an excellent measuring stick to determine whether religion is truly a benefit to the evolution of mankind as a whole. While every major religious philosophy talks a good game about the meaning of love, and claims that total conversion of the world and obedience to their tenants would be love exemplified, in reality, it seems that most foster an "us versus them mentality" and this has resulted in the opposite of their declared goal, an inability to work together in cooperation for the good of all mankind. The only way they could truly accomplish this feat is to drop their beliefs that they are right and their way is the only way, "the truth". They would have to let go of their excessive attachment to their own community of relgious faithful, and truly accept that their fate is also inextricably intertwined with all others of the human species, not just the members of their own faith.
Cog
-
XJW4EVR
It is a fact that animals can display altruism.
Animals do not display altruism. There are no animal founded and funded animal hospitals. There are no acts of altruism by animals. In fact, there have been cases reported of people dying and their pets living off their master's undiscovered carcasses for days. In the cases of animals acting in an altruistic fashion, I would say that is more a matter of breeding and training than evolution.
One of the things I have learned from watching The Dog Whisperer, is that animals, and dogs in particular, do not think as humans do. They are incapable of independent thought, and incapable of "love." It's not a mean thing I am attempting to point out, but nature.
-
Dansk
Hi Gary:
I think love is action, not emotion.
Sorry, can't agree. I believe it is wholly emotion!
Jeff:
I don't share your premise,
What premise is that?
Wifey and I have been in love for 33 years now. Ain't it great?
It certainly is! Congratulations!!
Trevor:
Dansk - Would it be fair to say that you love them because you attach value to them?
I guess you are partly right. But, for example, let's say one of my children was a black sheep. That wouldn't stop me from loving him/her even though I may not feel them worthy of value. My love is unconditional.
Lumptard:
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact.
Theory, in science, is not theory as used in a general sense (confusing, I know). The theory of evolution is accepted as FACT! Do you deny evolution?
Great post, Cog!
XJW4EVR:
Animals do not display altruism. .................. There are no acts of altruism by animals.
Sorry, you are wrong! Dr. Maurice Burton, a zoologist, wrote an excellent book on the subject Just Like an Animal, 1978, Dent. Burton has compiled many stories of animals that have displayed altruism, not only to their own kind but to other species including man.
Thanks for all your replies. I still don't think the question has been answered. How did love evolve? Where did it come from?
Ian
-
Lumptard
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact.
Theory, in science, is not theory as used in a general sense (confusing, I know). The theory of evolution is accepted as FACT! Do you deny evolution?
If you read my entire post you should find that I do not deny evolution. The difference between Scientific theory and general theory is not confusing and I take offence that you seem to beleive that I am confused.
A fact is something that can be proven to be unconditionally true
A general theory carries the connotation of a hypothesis...that is, something that has been posited to be true but has not been tested.
A scientific theory is an interperetation of facts that has been supported by using the scientific method, but the theory is left open ended and is subject to possible revision.
You cannot revise a fact, therefore a scientific theory (e.g. evolution) is not a fact. It is accepted as fact, but based on the scientific method, it is not actually one.
-
Abaddon
Interesting conversation... I'm away this weekend but my Eurocent's worth is;
Organisms that show what we call 'altruistic' behviour do so because there was a survival benefit to the ancestral organisms for behaving 'altruistically'.
Be it vampire bats feeding other vampire bats, or wolves bringing home food to other sick wolves or cubs that are not their own, those behavious exist because in a community of such organisms the ones WITH these traits had more surviving offspring than those communities or animals without those traits; any altruistic behaviour in nature likely (i.e. we've found some and probabaly it's common when altruism is observed but has not always been documented yet) has with it a set of behaviours for dealing with cheats who don't return the favour. Read up on vampire bats.
Love? Strongest force in the Universe. Maybe it's our name for how we feel when feeling altuistic? But our big brains bend 'the rules' somewhat. Have a fun discussion guys, I gotta go.
-
aniron
In that case does Love mean anything.
If a product of evolution we should not be bother whether we are loved or show love.
-
Leolaia
Biology is the scientific discipline (with all its hypotheses, theories, and experimental studies) that investigates animal, plant, or microorganism biology (i.e. the biological facts that are the focus of biology). Taxonomy is a theoretical approach (or rather, assortment of approaches) of biology that interprets biological facts, genetics is another. Similarly, evolution is a discipline that interprets the facts of evolution, with many evolutionary theories. Evolution can refer to either theory or fact, depending on how the word is used. Since evolution is a very gradual process, one could compare the discipline to plate tectonics, which is a unified geological theory (embracing older theories of continental drift and seafloor spreading) to explain the facts of plate tectonics, i.e. the observed gradual movement of continental plates over time, and their interaction with each other at their boundaries.