This is News For Objectivists--"Microbes may encourage altruistic behavior
Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 2 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.
'
Second of all is that they misuse the term Altruism. Comte defined as “The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from autrui: "other people", derived from Latin alter: "other") was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others.”
Third the article assumes that humans are not rational animals.
“To show that this idea can have a prevailing effect on a population over time, the researchers designed simulations of interacting individuals, some with altruism-inducing microbes, and some without. Then using a prisoner's dilemma payoff scheme, the researchers investigated what happens to this population, its microbes, and its altruistic behavior over many generations.
The results showed that, as long as horizontal transmission (between individuals) of microbes is allowed, altruism-inducing microbes can take over the population, leading to microbe-induced altruism. This result occurs even when only a very small percentage of the population initially carries these altruism-inducing microbes. The simulations also revealed that the evolution of altruism is successful because the microbes have a chance to either meet genetically related microbes in the recipient or infect and transform some of the recipient's microbes into relatives.”
Living with other people is not altruism. Phony science with an agenda.
So this report immediately stirred my WTF neuron sparks. What's the benefit of this type of study or suggestion--what's the agenda? Why the interests in behavior modification by subversive (beneath consciousness) means?
In a little conspiracy imagining, I've seen lately a few papers and reports on developments and tests of synthetic microbes, one of which is able to successfully 'fool' natural cells. There's also been some recent releases of studies that have shown a correlation between autism and the microbial makeup of the gut, implying a causative relationship.
So WTF and what's the agenda?
The social scientist(?) ultimate wet dream.
If true, like Fluoride, the government will undoubtedly introduce it to water supplies so as to rob us of our initiative and individuality. We should all become nice docile altruists all equally poor, sharing and caring... Rot! A stagnant decaying world without advances.
Respectfully,
O.A.
That was a very memorable movie for me. I watched it after school one day until the 6pm newscast cut it off and the station never broadcast the ending! As a naive teen I kept thinking it would come on after the news, but it didn't. I watched for it but I didn't see the ending until perhaps 10 years later when Turner broadcast it on the "superstation".
I wonder if they include pheremones in this, as those are an identified group of substances which are known to affect perception on an individual level.
And since they're gaining access to scientific literature reporting on results of such a study, the question is, why.
Undoubtedly Harvard Med has a school of specialization and the AMA will be publishing guidelines.
Heartless conservatives can finally be saved.
Me dino is looking forward to this new search for a cure added to all the charitable donation requests that I receive in my mail.
I'll likely open the envelope, scan the printed plaintive plea, groan "Hell, I can't afford to help everybody" and toss it into my little trash can that I line with a cheap plastic bag that once carried groceries from a Walmart, a Publix or a Piggly Wiggly. .
Mind you, most of our inhabitant microbes are symbiotic with our own cells and help keep us alive. It's amazing that humans have not studied this phenomenon to the deepest level, along with quantum theory.
Of course watching the primaries, I think there is certainly evidence of groupthink on the part of many Trumpists which is every bit as dangerous as that evidenced by Progressives.
I don't worship AR, by the way. There were things that she didn't study, or knowledge not available to her many years ago.
Nor do I think Objectivism should be a cult.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Post some of your disagreements and lets see what responses and comments you garner. That's what the site's supposed to be about.
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..