Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows

HeathfieldRoad1874

Vital Football Legend
#1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849

Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research.





And there we have it. we don't need a Moral code forced upon us, it's there already, in our Nature.
 

HeathfieldRoad1874

Vital Football Legend
#3
Lol. I will take note, and try and use it more myself, just for your entertainment.

I find it interesting that Darwin himself looked at this, and was concerned that selfishness did not seem to show up in Nature as it should do. He was an hugely intelligent man, a century or more before his time. He would have loved Genetics.

 

BBJ

Vital Champions League
#5
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 4/8/2013 18:48

Lol. I will take note, and try and use it more myself, just for your entertainment.

I find it interesting that Darwin himself looked at this, and was concerned that selfishness did not seem to show up in Nature as it should do. He was an hugely intelligent man, a century or more before his time. He would have loved Genetics.
I don't know. I never had a lot of time for Phil Collins and I suspect Darwin might have seen through their inherent shallowness.
 

HeathfieldRoad1874

Vital Football Legend
#6
BBJ - 5/8/2013 07:46

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 4/8/2013 18:48

Lol. I will take note, and try and use it more myself, just for your entertainment.

I find it interesting that Darwin himself looked at this, and was concerned that selfishness did not seem to show up in Nature as it should do. He was an hugely intelligent man, a century or more before his time. He would have loved Genetics.
I don't know. I never had a lot of time for Phil Collins and I suspect Darwin might have seen through their inherent shallowness.
LOL. I'm sure if he gets it on Vinyl he'll see the added depth. It's just the CD and MP3 that have reduced the overall quality. The first Album I bought was by "Genetics"!!!!!
 

kefkat

Vital Football Legend
#8
Read it now and will go back and re-read later. I like to digest these type of articles as 1 read doesn't do it for me. I always see more 2nd time around.

Our genes play a part in everything bringing me to emotional/inner life arguments of how we become who we are, How much is nature and how much is nurture? Which came first the chicken or the egg.

Has to be some type of balance of all genes for us to survive. The survival of the fittest? Some would call that selfish, which then means it starts with the fight of the sperm and the egg at conception.

Depends on your outlook on life. I guess my first off the cuff thought is we all need our emotions/feelings etc to survive whether they be good bad or indifferent, depending on your perception.

Everything has a place.
 
G

Guest

Guest
#9
The problem with scientific reports is that they tend to change month by month. One minute we are told Coffee is bad for you, next minute we are told the opposite.

Selfishness does not favour evolution?

The pecking order in the majority of all living species, could this not some how be classed as a selfishness for putting one's own survival 1st?
 

kefkat

Vital Football Legend
#10
It's a perception thing GT. What some people would call selfish others would call self-care.

Funnily enough I have just caught the last half an hour on the human body and brain and why the body/brain works as it does. Quite interesting but would have been better if I had seen it all. Will have to watch it on catch up.
 

HeathfieldRoad1874

Vital Football Legend
#11
Green Tea - 5/8/2013 12:45

The problem with scientific reports is that they tend to change month by month. One minute we are told Coffee is bad for you, next minute we are told the opposite.

Selfishness does not favour evolution?

The pecking order in the majority of all living species, could this not some how be classed as a selfishness for putting one's own survival 1st?
Could you describe an example of a pecking order that is classed as selfishness? In most species, it's what adds order, just like our own "pecking order" does.
 

BodyButter

Vital Football Legend
#12
BBJ - 5/8/2013 16:46

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 4/8/2013 18:48

Lol. I will take note, and try and use it more myself, just for your entertainment.

I find it interesting that Darwin himself looked at this, and was concerned that selfishness did not seem to show up in Nature as it should do. He was an hugely intelligent man, a century or more before his time. He would have loved Genetics.
I don't know. I never had a lot of time for Phil Collins and I suspect Darwin might have seen through their inherent shallowness.
Hahahaha, quality!
 
G

Guest

Guest
#13
Classed?

Its easy to just say pecking order cannot be "classed" as a selfishness. But take any pack of wild animals and see what happens if the runt decides to eat before the strongest. Take a look at our own species too = When we all discuss politics in these forums, we have a few on here that think the rich look after themselves whilst the poor, get poorer. Are the rich not being selfish in the way they fiddle tax etc?
 

HeathfieldRoad1874

Vital Football Legend
#14
Humans have distorted the norm that nature created, so there are many grey lines when it comes to any subject related to our evolution.

In terms of the runt in a wild environment not getting food, it is not selfish. It would be selfish if the runt ate food that ultimately reduced the chances of the group surviving. As it is, when there is a shortage of food, the ones procuring that food need to be at their peak. It is a co-operative method of existence.
 
G

Guest

Guest
#15
Green Tea - 5/8/2013 12:45

The problem with scientific reports is that they tend to change month by month. One minute we are told Coffee is bad for you, next minute we are told the opposite.

Selfishness does not favour evolution?

The pecking order in the majority of all living species, could this not some how be classed as a selfishness for putting one's own survival 1st?[/QUOTE

Im not religous far from it, but even i think this scientific research is way over hyped, how can you class so many different species and how many there is living there lives and say just cos you ain't seen selfish acts in nature it doesn't exist lol

Ive seen my dog be selfish and take my sausage of my plate when i left it on the coffee table, is that not a selfish act? Also animals kill each other for food is that not a selfish act?
 

HeathfieldRoad1874

Vital Football Legend
#16
We're not talking inter species, Clive. We're talking about family groups supporting each other. You just have to see a family of Chimps to see there is order, discipline and a hierarchy, but everyone in the family is still cared for in some way. When they come across members of another family, it's not so nice!!!
 
G

Guest

Guest
#17
I just think we are all animals anyway, all this ''us and them'' towards nature makes me laff tbh, i see brainless idiots everyday that my dog Duke would put to shame on intelligence ;)
 
G

Guest

Guest
#19
I think we all know deep down our animal instincts are there, its just we try and make out our so called ''intelligence'' is the massive difference between ''us and them'', when if you take a look at ant colony's they are efficent and keep in order naturally, all having a purpose working together, then you take a similar view at us humans and you think ''we are dumbass''
 
G

Guest

Guest
#20
What I do find interesting is when we see different species working in unison to survive. There was a great program on Whales, Dolphins, sharks and birds all working together to keep a school of fish together so they could all feed at various times. Each would take turns in feeding and keeping the school together.

Obviously this spectacle was a great show of non selfishness working in the natural world. However to rule it out altogether as something not favoured by evolution seems strange. Like Kat said in her post, even at the beginning of our own life's journey as sperm, we are acting selfish in our own pursuit of survival.
The same as a litter of kittens all fighting for the teat, enough milk will likely be available for the whole litter but selfish survival techniques by others could mean one or two could die. Or a stronger chick pushing the weaker chick from the nest to plummet to it's death, in order to get more food for itself. This can be observed with 2,3,4 or more chicks - so its not like there is said number that will survive. One year 3 could survive, the next year only one - yet the same aim of selfishness to survive will remain in each chick..