This is News For Objectivists--"Microbes may encourage altruistic behavior
Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
Maybe it's more than (or simpler than) religion or faulty philosophy that leads to the animosity that Objectivists encounter when we try to explain why we are opposed to a philosophy that encourages Altruism and we propose "selfishness" as a morally justified and rational approach to life. Makes a lot of sense to me. From the article:
"Why do people commonly go out of their way to do something nice for another person, even when it comes at a cost to themselves—and how could such altruistic behavior have evolved? The answer may not just be in our genes, but also in our microbes.
In a new paper, researchers Ohad Lewin-Epstein, Ranit Aharonov, and Lilach Hadany at Tel-Aviv University in Israel have theoretically shown that microbes could influence their hosts to act altruistically. And this influence could be surprisingly effective, with simulations showing that microbes may promote the evolution of altruistic behavior in a population to an even greater extent than genetic factors do.
"I believe the most important aspect of the work is that it changes the way we think about altruism from centering on the animals (or humans) performing the altruistic acts to their microbes," Hadany told Phys.org.
This places an entirely new perspective on the idea of a physical Gulch or just avoiding those that don't get Ayn Rand.
I always knew that the "Others"" weren't well.
'
"Why do people commonly go out of their way to do something nice for another person, even when it comes at a cost to themselves—and how could such altruistic behavior have evolved? The answer may not just be in our genes, but also in our microbes.
In a new paper, researchers Ohad Lewin-Epstein, Ranit Aharonov, and Lilach Hadany at Tel-Aviv University in Israel have theoretically shown that microbes could influence their hosts to act altruistically. And this influence could be surprisingly effective, with simulations showing that microbes may promote the evolution of altruistic behavior in a population to an even greater extent than genetic factors do.
"I believe the most important aspect of the work is that it changes the way we think about altruism from centering on the animals (or humans) performing the altruistic acts to their microbes," Hadany told Phys.org.
This places an entirely new perspective on the idea of a physical Gulch or just avoiding those that don't get Ayn Rand.
I always knew that the "Others"" weren't well.
'
I might post some things, but I've tried it before (about 2 years ago) and all I got was: "But Rand said..." when I wanted to know what YOU think, not what Rand said.
You seem to think for yourself, though. If there is one "doctrine" Rand put forth, that I heartily agree with, it is that men use consciousness to make choices; that choice uses reason and rationality (though justifiably, and in the end, based on one's "emotional" values. As she said at the end of Anthem (and I'm paraphrasing here) "It is my eyes that give beauty to the world." Meaning there is no such thing as a collective heart or collective feelings..
Post some of your disagreements and lets see what responses and comments you garner. That's what the site's supposed to be about.
And he never got blown away by rainbows, either.
You said sex hormones, but they are governed by the presence or absence of the code. Are you a biologist of some sort?
There's also more range of variance among males than among females, but there are variances in all humans. Every human is composed of those differences and variances. Each is unique and each is an individual.
There are probably hundreds more. Hail the differences. Hail the Individual.
This topic needs to have and move to a Post of it's own.
In the forward to one of her novels, Peikoff reported she said, about that philosophy: "Because they are wrong." One woman, and a Russian, stood up to them. I agree, she understood human nature better than any at that time.
Her ability to write enabled her philosophy to be transmitted to millions. Her interest in film making
was also a plus. I read her novels, and some of her philosophical writings, at the age of 15.
Yet there are things I disagree with. Not many, but some.
I can't think of another except Huxley and Orwell during the 20th Century, that could comprehend and predict so accurately, the process and ultimate results of the changes in human actions she observed in life and the progressions that were being implemented and planned, and then describe it so well.
I don't pretend to argue the biologically inherited differences in the male and female of the species and the demonstrated strengths of each in their own realms, though I can think of many exceptions to the generalities within each sex that I've dealt with throughout life. Many of those exceptions were joys to my life and remembrances and would certainly take up chapters in any attempt to prepare a biography.
I sympathize in having to contend with labels such as genius and polymath, though for myself it was Renaissance Man, while working to define and interest oneself in life rather than trying to live up or down to others' expectations. But I've always loved good challenges.
I did mistake you; I took you to mean that women have the same ability as men to think abstractly. It is the rare woman that can do that. I have been called a mathematical genius and polymath; but I have always felt that the ability to abstract from the concrete is a masculine quality, probably because It has been more necessary in masculine forms of endeavor. Women have needed to provide care in the family unit; men must provide stability.
I doubt that you are less influenced by worship of anybody or anything than myself. That assumption is completely unwarranted. But I'm glad to hear you are aware of some of Rand's shortcomings, few as they are.
And since they're gaining access to scientific literature reporting on results of such a study, the question is, why.
I thoroughly agree with you concerning 'worship and cults'. In matter of fact, I suspect that I'm less influenced by 'worship' of anybody or anything than you are, and since Objectivism is all about logically reasoned facts applied rationally to existence, I would think it's the furthest thing from a cult I can imagine. That's certainly not to say that there do not exist certain humans calling themselves Objectivists that think and act as if they're a cult, just as there are many conservatives that think of themselves as Objectivist and even original thinkers. Sad.
Load more comments...