<p>Yes you can apply natural selection to things like culture, economics and language… the beautiful thing about selection is that it can be quite rapid. Creolisation can happen in a matter of years – every time it occurs, you reenact ancient evolutionary events. But evolution isn’t about the past. It is about the future. Systems can respond to change in a matter of several generations.</p>
<p>You however, appear to be quite ignorant in this regard. I don’t think /you/ actually understand what evolution is.</p>
<p>are you really this stupid? tell me you aren’t this stupid, please. I’m talking about the roots of human motivation. That isn’t going to change in generations, nevermind years. and lol @ your username… “multicultural.” Hilarious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I only use what I’ve read to help explain my own experiences.</p>
<p>study some neuroscience and biochemistry then talk to me about the roots of motivation for any species. </p>
<p>oh yeah, I bet you don’t even know basic molecular biology or how to analyse human haplotype frequencies. you know, like REAL evolutionary biology, not your evolutionary psych hogwash.</p>
<p>Just look at the silver fox experiment. (And we aren’t that different from silver foxes). Dramatic divergences in behaviour within a species can be observed under strong selective pressure in a matter of yes, several generations. </p>
<p>The issue generally is that the environment doesn’t usually have such a strong concerted selection as say, experimenters specifically selecting for a trait like friendliness or hostility (which caused all sorts of other traits to emerge as a byproduct). </p>
<p>I don’t know anything about that experiment. I don’t even know if it’s from a respected journal. The study could be useless for all I know.</p>
<p>Either way, humans are basically the same as we were 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, probably a lot longer. The reason that people feel a sense of altruism hasn’t changed so bringing up this garbage that you have is stupid.</p>
<p>With a name like multicultural I can see why you’d be in denial that people don’t genuinely like each other.</p>
<p>The Silver Fox experiment is a classic experiment known to all evolutionary biologists. It’s like saying, “I don’t know anything about Darwin … or his Galapagos finches”.</p>
<p>get an education </p>
<p>this only improves you don’t know ANYTHING about evolution. you’re just a crackpot. pretending to know something.</p>
<p>I’m not an evolutionary biologist. I’m an engineer. I’ve only read up on evolutionary psychology is my spare time and that experiment doesn’t prove that any (naturally selected or evolved) species would ever be altruistic for any reason other than personal gain. You don’t even need an education to know that. You just need a brain.</p>
<p>justify your statement. the burden on evidence is on you. do you argue this because you think think the evolutionary process for the mind is slow and unobservable? because that is not a legitimate argument. </p>
<p>(which btw is also known by any respected evolutionary biologist – it’s also published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in case you want to doubt a state university. </p>
<p>Pretty dramatic: a defining hallmark of E. coli identification is its inability to grow on citrate minimal growth medium. Within 20 years an adaptation to use citrate was observed, which is kind of amazing because it spontaneously evolved the ability to bring polar citrate (a bulky double anion) across the cell membrane, i.e. it must have evolved a vesicle system or adapted a transport channel in that time. A human equivalent would be like evolving a new kind of dopamine or serotonin reception system, which <em>gasp</em> would probably dramatically affect human interactions. Or a neuronal growth factor which BECAUSE of selective pressures to the changing world outside, internally structures the human brain a little differently. </p>
<p>a lot of **** can happen in 3 generations. you’re just too blind to see it; already existing variance can mask a lot of new features, which selection helps make more conspicuous.</p>
<p>Oddly enough I actually did research on e. coli mutation a few summers ago. But you’re changing the topic here. It doesn’t matter how fast a species could evolve (nevermind that e. coli is stupidly simple compared to animals). It only matters that no species would ever naturally evolve to be altruistic for no reason. That has been my argument since the beginning.</p>
<p>you have utterly the wrong approach to science. you are clearly incapable of continuing any sort of science conversation without your crackpottery butting in.</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>firstly the fact is that altruism is observed. why does it happen? how to explain it? So, we have these theories and models for why altruism occurs. What is self-interest is a matter of semantics. Certainly it is beneficial for other individuals if one individual is altruistic (repeat for each individual), so you have some group selection, but that is only after some complicated mathematical analysis and no one ever thinks of the mathematical impact when they say, volunteer for an outreach group. So whatev. I’ll admit my selfish altruism and volunteerism benefits me, my species and society and apparently you think this should cause me to think twice about my volunteerism. </p>
<p>So what if my selfishness causes me to spend half of my 20s in deserts and low-income housing blocks? I like the serotonin and beta-endorphin rushes of helping people.</p>
<p>honestly I don’t even care to argue this anymore. this is boring.</p>
<p>…
[quote]
So what if my selfishness causes me to spend half of my 20s in deserts and low-income housing blocks? I like the serotonin and beta-endorphin rushes of helping people.</p>
<p>Tried changing the goalposts on me eh? Thought I wouldn’t see? Never mind, I’m forgiving. Let’s just agree you were wrong on the rate of human evolution. </p>
<p>Don’t doubt the complexity of prokaryotes. Did you know, prokaryotes exhibit social behaviour? Oh look, horizontal gene transfer. Why the heck would they evolve that, if they are in it for themselves? Oh maybe they are. </p>
<p>In a society, what self-interest is can be remarkably complex – you have to start accounting for the fitness functions of so many other organisms. You can try to be smart, you can try to be reductionist and be the cynic and argue, “the root of human motivation is selfishness”, or “life is a bunch of self-serving chemical interactions”. It’s OK. You just won’t understand anything.</p>
<p>In real life I’m not bizarre as I’ve made myself seem in this thread. The topic just got out of control. I do actually have friends and I don’t analyze everything scientifically. I recognize the selfishness of our behavior but i’ll still help people. But i’d never go to africa to volunteer for a bunch of people. that’s …stupid.</p>
<p>i grew up lower class as i already stated in this thread (i’ve paid for my own haircuts, clothes, even school since I was in junior high). currently i’m lower middle class.</p>
<p>how do you justify helping people as stupid? That’s What I can’t understand about you,
usually selfish people say stuff like volunteering isn’t for them, or they’ll leave it up to the bleeding hearts, but I’ve never heard someone call it stupid.</p>
<p>Have you considered a gap year program or some other form of abroad study? I know my school is big on junior year abroad. I’m currently looking at programs that integrate cultural immersion with a practical career internship. Medical internship are some of the easiest to find (certainly more than in my major) Given college tuition these days, it might even be cheaper then then staying put and they give you credit (though both of these things depend on what school you go to now)</p>