An Odd Thought Concerning Evolution.

[Black_Bird]

I, for the most part, agree with the theories of evolution. Despite this, I had an interesting thought today of which creationist haven't thought.

If the theory of Evolution is true, then why are we, as a species, inclined to charity? This isn't merely a social more, as it is a common aspect of almost all societies. Giving a helping hand to those who are less capable of surviving, weakens the gene pool as a result. If we were inclined only to strengthen our gene pool, why would we be also inclined to help other's back into it?

Just a though.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Compassion isn't a sign of weakness.

Do you really want the alternative? Other animal species eat their weak.

 

[seXieleXie]

If the theory of Evolution is true, then why are we, as a species, inclined to charity? This isn't merely a social more, as it is a common aspect of almost all societies. Giving a helping hand to those who are less capable of surviving, weakens the gene pool as a result. If we were inclined only to strengthen our gene pool, why would we be also inclined to help other's back into it?

Just a though.

there has been a lot of work about this in the last 15 years or so. the most popular theory, and in my opinion the best, is explained in richard dawkins' book the selfish gene. even though dawkins is a well known evolutionary biologist he wrote his book in such a way that a layperson could easily understand it. BB, if you're really interested in one possible answer to you question you should check this book out.

 

[phrodeau]

It's all for the sake of greater numbers. Tribes whose members display compassion tend to grow larger than tribes whose members don't. Larger tribes take over the resources of smaller tribes.

Racism is a natural tendency as well. Individuals favor their own tribal members over those in other tribes, to expand their own genetic line and suppress the alien's.

An individual's charity and compassion are generally limited to those who aren't alien.

 

[Guest]

 

[deliciously_naughty]

I think that charity is well documented in the animal kingdom as well. Many primate species (among which humans number) take care of the older members of the tribe and the weak. I'm a historian, not a biologist/zoologist/whatever so I can't really expound on this very well, other than so say I remember other animals who take care of their old and disabled. I've seen it on the discovery channel and I recall reading it, but not the deets.

 

[MunchinMark]

We, like many mammals are social animals. We care for those who are less able than we are. In return we have extra eyes to spot danger, extra hands to do work, such as colecting or preparing food, we have the knowledge that other members of our society have collected, especially the eldest. We also have a store of potentially useful genes. These aren't always the useful ones right now but they mght be in different environments, or sometimes they cause only the occaisional disease (Sickle cell anaemia is caused by having two copies of a gene that gives anyone with 1 copy a resistance to malaria).

So we look after other people because it does serve our own interests in evolutionary terms.

 

[SINthysist]

Then theory accepted true applied to social structures would argue for less charity with smaller groups evolving to womb-to-the-tomb socialism...

 

[SINthysist]

Provided we don't nuke ourselves first and turn the whole thing over to those damn bloody apes...

 

[horny_giraffe]

Provided we don't nuke ourselves first and turn the whole thing over to those damn bloody apes...

haha. They won't put me a cage, those damm dirty apes!