Kin Altruism

Kin Altruism Note: This article is from the book Critique of Evolutionary Ethics: Richard Dawkins as a Model. It is self-evident from the perspective of the struggle for survival that natural selection is established to enhance one's own worthiness, so how can natural selection maintain altruistic qualities that cost the individual and increase the worthiness of others? "Evolutionists have been fascinated by altruistic behaviors, not only because they are important in nature, but also because they are difficult to interpret from a Darwinian point of view,"[2] and Darwin has acknowledged how difficult it is to explain altruism: it will surely come to mind that I have boundless confidence in the principle of natural selection when I do not admit that such amazing and very stable facts have now completely undermined the theory.[3] Robert Trivers and others have been strongly influenced by group selection, and since this period, research has turned to information, genetic selection, and the transformation of Darwinian logic into coded units that create life, tend to be selfish, not the units are the egoistic organism or its egoistic community, but the egoistic gene, the egoistic group "leaves no room for cooperative interactions, there is no room for altruism here, but the dominant phenomenon is the egocentric exploitation by each individual for any other. Another, and in certain (not rare) circumstances the gene ensures its survival by causing the organism to behave altruistically."[7] Biologists divide these conditions into two parts: The father sacrifices his time and effort and even himself for his children programmed by the genes to spread itself, if the father dies for his son who shares the genes in proportion unless the information is dead, and therefore the act in its origin selfish, and for the benefit of the information. Exchange: A beneficial relationship between non-relatives that we will talk about next. Relative altruism was initiated by William Hamilton, with two research articles in 1964, "considered to be some of the most important writings in the field of social ethnology".[8] According to Dawkins and most biologists, "Hamilton's theory constitutes the single most important theoretical revision of Darwin's theory of natural selection in this century."[9] How does it not attempt to explain one of the most difficult problems in Darwinism. How do we explain motherhood from a Darwinian perspective? How do we explain its warning cries? Beyond Hamilton's many equations, we will try to explain his theory of fitness in a nutshell.[10] Her idea is simple, imagining that one gene causes an individual to behave altruistically toward another, and the meaning of altruism as we have said: Take charge of yourself, such as time or effort. Provide a benefit to another individual. Hamilton's question was this: Under what conditions would a gene like this evolve and spread among all people? Hamilton argued that altruism could develop if self-imposed costs were compensated for by greater benefits than altruism, multiplied by the possibility that the recipient might be carrying that altruistic gene.[11] Thus, altruism would depend on the degree of affinity, and the greater the proportion of genes carried by the altruistic recipient. Your willingness to provide altruistic actions to him was greater, and since the genetic similarity between father and son and brother and brother and between the person and his cousin is greater, the probability of providing selective pressure to save these is greater, but the variation is of course proportional to the degree of genetic similarity, and the highest affinity is parenthood. Gene, born from one of these sex cells, and if you carry a copy of the gene Y shows a 50% chance that your father is also carrying the same gene, as you inherited half of your genes from him and the other half from your mother" In short: "The relatives of the individual form from the perspective of fitness includes fitness carriages, but they differ in value"[12], and value can be represented as Next [13]: Thus, parental care for their children is an altruism among relatives, and from a genetic point of view any adult should provide care and attention to his orphaned nephew just as if he were one of his own children because of kinship."[14] Dawkins, of course, does not see organisms as consciously calculating kinship, utility, and cost, but rather as survival machines "pre-programmed to behave as if they had performed a complex calculation."[15] A famous example of altruism that Darwin treated and was very interested in when he talked about the bees' instincts: Altruism in social animals, the individual selection that must work for the benefit of the individual is completely opposed to the work and sacrifice of the workers for the queen and her sisters and the cell, but treated by collective selection Dawkins says: The social insects' exploits are legendary, especially their amazing achievements in the level of cooperation and apparent altruism. As stores of food, which means by analogy with humans that these bees do not live as individuals, but rather their individuality is subjugated to the benefit of society's prosperity. The community of ants or bees or land achieves a kind of individuality at a higher level, where food is shared in a way that allows us to talk about a collective stomach, and information is shared with a lot of effectiveness thanks to the chemical signals and the famous dance performed by the bees, so that the group behaves as if they are a unit. It is born with our reproductive cells in the testis and ovaries.[17] The perception that working insects are closer to the brood than the queen herself goes back to Hamilton. Perhaps the reader is now asking how an animal can identify its relatives? "What are the simple practical rules that animals can follow, which under normal circumstances have an indirect effect that benefits their close relationships?"[18] Biologists answer in many ways, such as using the sense of smell as in some mammals or exposure to relatives in childhood as in primates[19], or through the cultural classification as in humans found in all languages and defined for kinship relations. In fact, there is empirical support for Hamilton's calculations. "Experimental studies have confirmed the importance of kinship as a predictive factor for helping behavior. One study has documented that the warning call of ground squirrels occurs when close relatives are most likely nearby, although it may be costly for the safety of the individual to attract the attention of predators."[20] Other studies have found that the amount of grief that individuals experience is directly related to the degree of genetic kinship.[21] First: The great explanatory power of kin selection does not imply the correctness of the gene-centered view.[23] This is reflected in various other readings, such as that the selection of kinship favoritism is a by-product of a gathering of individuals that had no adaptive value at all.[24] More important than the modern project of reviving group selection by David Wilson and the philosopher Eliot Super, they proposed in 1998 that "group selection is embedded in the basic theories that are supposedly alternative to group selection."[25] Collective and kin selection, and another argument in the idea of secondary outcomes, but it should be noted that collective selection and kin selection are genetically equivalent in the results, and the controversy in the treatment itself,[25] and that there is no relationship between the explanatory power of a theory and the interpretation of this theory, the interpretation may be correct and misinterpreted, and the theory of comprehensive fitness does not negate the influence of other factors such as social education and others.[26] The genetic influence can be read as a factor within many other factors and more central to our interpretation of such virtuous behaviors. Two: Some specialists in the behavior of social insects emphasize factors other than the idea of genetic convergence, for example, James Costa stressed in his book "The Other Insect Societies" that other factors affecting social activity in insects must be studied from a perspective beyond the selection of relatives, "and his book refers to a range of social arrangements, and suggests that there may be many evolutionary paths to social activity that Not all of them involve the selection of relatives."[27] He argues that the relationship of benefit and cost has been studied through genetic prism thanks to technological advances in the late 20th century that facilitated knowledge of genetic affinity, and this has been offset by the neglect of environmental factors – in a general sense – that are as important as genes, and this neglect in his view is due to the difficulty of assessing and analyzing environmental factors and the context surrounding the organism. Animal behavior specialist Elise Nowbhari, who has a nearly 30-year interest in saving the ant world, has called for more attention and research, not just genetic selection, as she believes that "altruistic behavior has not taken enough attention and study."[28] Third: If the gene-centric view and reading of kin selection is correct, then kin selection is not altruistic in the sense we generally use in our lives, at least in Arabic and English. How can it be considered an approach to explain true altruism in humans? An individual acts or is led genetically in favor of gene information and propagation. [1] Sober, E. and Wilson D.S., 1998, p. 19 [2] ibid. p. 18 [3] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Supreme Council of Culture, translated by Majdi Mahmoud Al-Miliji, p436. [4] The Selfish Gene, pp. 272. [5] Origin of Species, pp. 439. [6] The Selfish Gene, pp. 272. [7] Dawkins, R.2006, p.216 [8] The Selfish Gene, p. [9] David Bass Evolutionary Psychology, p.462. The term kin selection itself was not authorized by Hamilton, but was introduced into evolutionary language by Maynard Smith in 1964. [11] Ibid., p. 461. [12] Ibid., p. 459. [13] Ibid, p. 69. [14] The Selfish Gene, pp. 148. [15] Ibid, p. 151. [16] Ibid, p.276. [17] Ibid., p. 277. [18] Ibid., p. 155. [19] David Bass Evolutionary Psychology, p.472. [20] Ibid, pp. 510. [21] Ibid, p. 511. [22] Alonso, W. J. (1998). The role of kin selection theory on the explanation of biologicalaltruism: a critical review. Journal of Comparative Biology, 3, 1–14. [23] Sober, E. and Wilson D.S., 1998, p. 57 [24] Okasha, S., 2002, ‘Genetic Relatedness and the Evolution of Altruism’, Philosophy of Science, 69, 1: 138–149. [25] Marshall, J. A. R. 2011. “Group Selection and Kin Selection: Formally Equivalent Approaches.” Trends inEcology and Evolution 26 (7): 325–332. [26] Avital, E., & Jablonka, E. (2000), P.179 [27] Justice in the Animal World, p. [28] Laura Spinney, 2013, New Scientist, vol. 220, no. 2948, pp. 62–63 [29] Alonso, W. J. (1998). - Reza Zeidan. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2019-07-07 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/ethics/إيثار-الأقارب-kin-altruism