Have you ever noticed...

Conrad

Almost all people vote and think along lines that benefit themselves although many wont recognise this reality of course.
The classics - "it's a damned shame the village pub / post office is shutting" - but on questioning you find these suddenly vocal folk never used those services.

Or 'it's a shame the super markets have taken over'....... 'oh yea, who do you shop with then, the local greengrocers'.......'oh no, I use Tescos' dohhhhhhhh

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

although I agree with this I would point out that people do put other people forward. e.g. I've ofered to work christmas in the past so that people with kids could have that off. People donate to charities and causes they believe in or feel connected to.

Oh I agree people do put themselves out, but I am talking about the mechanics of survival.
So you are more likely to do good if you are surviving OK. If skin't you are less likely to work for nothing etc.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Many animals do actually.

Not put themselves forward to be eaten, per se, but many animals conciously tak the decision to pay the ultimate price for the benefit of others.

And many MANY people put themselves forward, not to benefit themselves, but to benefit others. We have thousands of heroes to thank, as an example.

Can you name the animals, as I guess you are talking about saftey in numbers, pack behaviour etc.
That is the same as what we have said, they want do what is best for everyone and a the same time that includes them.
But put it to one Vs one any animal fights to survive to protect them and theirs(in this case redundancy).
So fail to see where you are disagreeing?

As for the second line you have compleatly misunderstood my point. I was stating when things get bad people want what is best for themselves more.
EG
You are living month by month in terms of money and have 3 kids.
It is announced that they are making 20 redundant or the company goes down the pan. So

• You would not want any one to be made redundant
• You do not want every one to be made redundant
• You will struggle to feed your kids if you get made redundant

In that kind of situation self preservation takes over and the protection of your DNA.
You do not put your self up for redundancy so your children and yourself struggle to survive.

Clearer?

As for heroes, there are many people who do great work, but they still have some ingrained desire to survive and look after their own.
You can do good for others and also want what is best for your family also, Bill Gates for example.

The armed forces do a great job but non join up with the desire to die.
I don't think anyone in a war classes themselves as a hero, they tend to be fighting people employed to do the same as them and for the same reasons they are told (the other side are bad).
My grandfarther often wished he had never killed in WWII, he is a war hero, but to him all he did was kill other lads like himself, who were being told the same as him.
Best for everyone (hero, good) is very subjective.
Albert Einstein never developed nuclear for the reason it was first used for.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Can you name the animals,.

We can start with Salmon if you like?

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

Can you name the animals, .

I'm afraid I'm groping at the back of my mind and can't think of the name of the theory or paper, but there is fairly old school of thought that looks at genetic inheritance in altruism in animals. apparantly it is more likely that an older animal will sacrifice itself for its young than a younger animal. The reasoning behind this ''instinct'' being interpreted by the theorists that a young animal can maximise its genetic output best by living to breed anopther day where the older one has a better chance of being ''genetically successful'' by maximising the chance of its current young surviving. A typically Lir vague post....

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We can start with Salmon if you like?

No they die through exaustion to guarantee reproduction. So to preserve their DNA.
Non of it is done for the good of others, it is for the most basic of lifes codes.

Unless you are talking about the ones John West tins.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm groping at the back of my mind and can't think of the name of the theory or paper, but there is fairly old school of thought that looks at genetic inheritance in altruism in animals. apparantly it is more likely that an older animal will sacrifice itself for its young than a younger animal. The reasoning behind this ''instinct'' being interpreted by the theorists that a young animal can maximise its genetic output best by living to breed anopther day where the older one has a better chance of being ''genetically successful'' by maximising the chance of its current young surviving. A typically Lir vague post....

I dare say it could be a debatable subject, but one that could easily be put down to survival of the fittest also. So as you age get larger and slower you could also be more likely to be caught/eaten.
Elders may protect their young, but that is usually for own DNA reasons, not others of the same species young.
There are many cases of animals eating the sames species young to protect their own DNA.

Graham_Devon

Ok, didn't like Salmon.

Spiders.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

I dare say it could be a debatable subject, but one that could easily be put down to survival of the fittest also. So as you age get larger and slower you could also be more likely to be caught/eaten.
Elders may protect their young, but that is usually for own DNA reasons, not others of the same species young.
There are many cases of animals eating the sames speices young to protect their own DNA.

Everything is debateable (although I feel inclined to nitpick about survival of the fittest and animal science as put forward in this thread I'm not going to because I'm about to have a house meeting and need to concentrate on that on animal science )

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, didn't like Salmon.

Spiders.

Not a case of not liking salmon but more of a case it fitted with what I was saying not what you were arguing.

Spiders starve to protect their own young. Again same reason GD.

Think about what you debated.

You need an example of animals that sacrifice their selves to protect others DNA.

I can only think of one and it is not done as a selfless act, it's accidental as they think they are protecting their own DNA.
That is some birds lay eggs in other birds clutches and the other species look after them, usually to the extent their own chicks die.
But again it is not done for any other reason than that believe the chick is their own.

Animals in general look after them and their own otherwise their DNA tends to end.
so finding examples may be very hard as animals that don't protect their DNA tend to die out.

So to get back to the point people do tend to like what is good for them and for others. But also tend to dislike what is bad for them also.