Sunday, September 13, 2015

More on the Stupid Altruism Argument

Some generalized common sense.

One needs to also move on from abstract theory about putative "alleles for altruism" (which insofar as I know have not been discovered) and ask practical questions.

Joe votes for an anti-immigration political party. Jim votes for a pro-immigration political party. Jim and Joe are both native co-ethnics. In what way are 'alleles for altruism' being selected against?

Better yet and a bit more generalized: why is activism in favor of EGI necessarily altruistic?  Why is activism in favor of non-ethnics called "pathological altruism."

My point and this is important: talking about "altruism" can favor a EGI standpoint, since it seems defending EGI is more "selfish" and surrendering genetic interests to help the unrelated is altruism.

In today's Germany who is showing altruism - leftists who want more refugees or rightists who do not want them?

To put it simply: non-ethnics can free-ride on altruism as much, or more, than co-ethnics. Altruism in favor of free-riding non-ethnics imposes a double cost: counter-selection to all these majestic yet completely theoretical "alleles for altruism" AND the loss of genetic interests due to less representation of the entire genome. Altruism in favor of co-ethnics - in the context of ethnic competition (which is THE WHOLE POINT of Salter's work) - at most may impose a cost on these "alleles for altruism" may is adaptive for the entire genome.

One can argue that favoring non-ethnics is more of a "sacrificial altruism" than favoring co-ethnics in any case.

And why does support for genetic interests have to be conflated with "self-sacrificial altruism" in any case.  In the Joe/Jim example above, how is Joe "self-sacrificing?"

This is all missing the forest (genetic interests) for the trees (theoretical arguments about putative "alleles for altruism").