In this chapter Dawkins explains an experiment preformed by a mathematician. He set up a program where different plays would play a game of Prisoners challenge. Several people were invited to enter in players to see which, at the end of 100 rounds, would have the most points. Though several complex players were submitted one that was most successful was Tit for Tat which would COMPLY on the first round then copy the opponent. In fact, "Nice" players (ones that cooperated on the first round) were universally the most successful.
After this game the mathematician preformed another round. He warned the programmers that the most successful ones had been nice. He got many more submissions, 88 of them. Many programmers made nice ones because they had preformed the best in the first round, many made mean ones preparing to take advantage of the all the nice ones they were expecting to be submitted. The winner was Tit for Tat.
Then the mathematician changed up the rules. Instead of being awarded points the players were awarded offspring and they played for 100 generations. At first the mean ones nearly drove the nice ones to extinction, taking advantage of them. However once the means were in large numbers they ended up screwing themselves over, so to speak, and were pushed back by the nice. At the end the player with the most offspring was Tit for Tat. This is because even though the nice players can be hurt in numbers they will form a small bastion where they are able to be nice to each other and then able to spread back out and conquer the mean who are destroying themselves from within.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Chapter 11 Memes: The New Genes
I'll ignore this chapter since it doesn't fit in with the rest of the book. Essentially Dawkins claims memes replicate in minds as genes replicate in bodies.
Chapter 10 You Scratch My Back I'll Ride Yours
In this chapter Dawkins explains that in any case of individuals working together they must gain more then they put in. In herding all creatures are trying to minimize their zone of danger by flocking with other animals so that their companions are closer to areas where predators could be lurking then they are. Birds give warning calls, which seems to be altruistic, but its actually to increase their likely hood of survival. They want to run for cover but if they run by themselves they will easily be picked out and eaten. They must run for cover but assure that everyone else runs to so that they can be lost in the crowd.
Social insects are much more intensely organized and altruistic but that is because they have one reproducer that they're all protecting. Each individual worker is sterile and therefore uninterested in their own survival, only the good of the collective.
Survival machines do not group for the good of the group, but for the good of themselves. Even members of different species will cooperate if they have more to gain from the grouping then they give.
Social insects are much more intensely organized and altruistic but that is because they have one reproducer that they're all protecting. Each individual worker is sterile and therefore uninterested in their own survival, only the good of the collective.
Survival machines do not group for the good of the group, but for the good of themselves. Even members of different species will cooperate if they have more to gain from the grouping then they give.
Chapter 9 Battle of the Sexes
Richard Dawkins theorizes that species originally differentiated into sexes when one group began to develop larger sex cells because the larger endowment of resources would be beneficial to the development off the offspring. This was ripe for the exploitation. Another group was able to develop smaller sex cells. This would benefit them because they could create more because they were smaller. This caused the large sex cells to get larger because they were getting less help from the other sex cells, eventually becoming the egg. The smaller sex cells evolved to become smaller and more mobile to reach the egg, becoming the sperm.
However this is not the only conflict of interests between sex. Neither party would hang around and invest resources in the child if they could get away with leaving the other partner to do it. Dawkins claims the male is more likely to do this because they began with a smaller investment. This is clearly true as we can tell by the number of single mothers in our society. The female could leave the male with the child but the danger of him abandoning it would be too great because it would be easier for him to impregnate another woman then to raise the child by himself. This would be detrimental to the woman because of the amount of resources already poured into the child.
So how does the woman get the man to hang around and raise the child? One strategy is to court the male for a long time before allowing him to mate in order to ensure that he's committed. They may also make him invest a certain amount of resources before being allowed to mate, therefor it would beneficial for him to raise the child then go and search for another mate because he knows he would be forced to invest again. An example of this is making the male build a nest (or buy dinner.)
Another strategy is to give up hope of the male helping to raise the child and simply picking out a male who will give the child beneficial genes. This will quickly become women simply picking out men who are attractive because they will then have children who are also attractive and therefore likely to have children of their own.
However this is not the only conflict of interests between sex. Neither party would hang around and invest resources in the child if they could get away with leaving the other partner to do it. Dawkins claims the male is more likely to do this because they began with a smaller investment. This is clearly true as we can tell by the number of single mothers in our society. The female could leave the male with the child but the danger of him abandoning it would be too great because it would be easier for him to impregnate another woman then to raise the child by himself. This would be detrimental to the woman because of the amount of resources already poured into the child.
So how does the woman get the man to hang around and raise the child? One strategy is to court the male for a long time before allowing him to mate in order to ensure that he's committed. They may also make him invest a certain amount of resources before being allowed to mate, therefor it would beneficial for him to raise the child then go and search for another mate because he knows he would be forced to invest again. An example of this is making the male build a nest (or buy dinner.)
Another strategy is to give up hope of the male helping to raise the child and simply picking out a male who will give the child beneficial genes. This will quickly become women simply picking out men who are attractive because they will then have children who are also attractive and therefore likely to have children of their own.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Chapter 8 Battle of the Generations
There is an inherent conflict between the generations of parent and child. The mother is interested in having the optimum number of off spring and the children are interested in receiving a majority of the resources so long as its not at to much of a detriment to their siblings. While a cuckoo will throw all other eggs out of the nest upon hatching the swallow will only throw off a couple. The swallow is related to eggs discarded so it would be damaging to its genes to throw them all out. Instead it only tosses a couple. This will help keep resources concentrated on itself and still have siblings to carry on genetic material.
Because of this conflict children will evolve to better at exploiting their parents. We definitely see this in human society. Many children are experts at manipulating their parents. Older siblings often try and divert resources from siblings to themselves.
Because of this conflict children will evolve to better at exploiting their parents. We definitely see this in human society. Many children are experts at manipulating their parents. Older siblings often try and divert resources from siblings to themselves.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Chapter 7 Family Planning
In which Dawkins trashes population control for the good of the group
This chapter is devoted to debunking the idea that animals regulate the size of their families for the good of the species and to prevent over population. He says instead that animals regulate the size of the children born in order to maximize the number of children successfully reared. If the mother spreads her resources too thin amongst her children then less may survive then if she'd had less children.
He claim there is simply no need for group population control because there is no welfare state in nature (I knew he'd talk about welfare states.) If the mother has to many children it won't hurt the species by leading to over population, they'll simply starve to death. A mother will have less children if she knows the population has large numbers not for the good of the group but because she realizes she and her children will be competing for fewer resources so she "optimizes" her litter amount.
He argues the reason why humanity suffers from such extreme over population is because we have departed from nature's model. If a woman has too many children the state will feed and care for the children instead of allowing them to starve as they would in nature. Of course, over population will eventually lead to the trimming down of the species through starvation, we're simply delaying the process.
This chapter is devoted to debunking the idea that animals regulate the size of their families for the good of the species and to prevent over population. He says instead that animals regulate the size of the children born in order to maximize the number of children successfully reared. If the mother spreads her resources too thin amongst her children then less may survive then if she'd had less children.
He claim there is simply no need for group population control because there is no welfare state in nature (I knew he'd talk about welfare states.) If the mother has to many children it won't hurt the species by leading to over population, they'll simply starve to death. A mother will have less children if she knows the population has large numbers not for the good of the group but because she realizes she and her children will be competing for fewer resources so she "optimizes" her litter amount.
He argues the reason why humanity suffers from such extreme over population is because we have departed from nature's model. If a woman has too many children the state will feed and care for the children instead of allowing them to starve as they would in nature. Of course, over population will eventually lead to the trimming down of the species through starvation, we're simply delaying the process.
Chapter 6 Genesmanship
In which Dawkins explains (away) altruism
So, the only way an altruistic gene could become frequent enough in the gene pool to exist in a large number in the species is if the sacrifice it made in the individual was able to save enough replicas of itself in other individuals. This would be best accomplished by being altruistic towards children and direct siblings as they share 50% of the survival machines genetic material. However, children are even better (for the mother at least) because you can be sure the children are genetically related to you while a sibling may simply be deceiving you. The reason why children don't usually altruistically sacrifice themselves for parents is because they're usually in a less capable position to do so and the Parents have already fulfilled there reproductive function and are nearing the end of the end of their live making them less valuable.
So Dawkins theory is that our genes make us behave in a way as if we calculate the worth of helping a sibling. This takes into account how much the action would harm us and whether its worth the help done towards other copies of the same genes. Killing yourself would easily be worth saving 5 brothers or children because 5 x 50% is 250% and you only contain 100% of your own genes, therefor the sacrifice is clearly beneficial. However taking a slight risk to yourself to help out one brother or child is okay as long as it isn't very detrimental to your survival.
In species where communities are normally close kin or someone in a position to reciprocate the favor the genes aren't as specific as "Help any family member" because its very difficult to distinguish family from non family without records, so the genes say something more like "Help any member of the same species."
This was the case with humans. We evolved living in very small, tight knit communities so any gene for same species altruism would have quickly spread throughout the gene pool because the gene would save more replicas of itself then it would sacrifice, and so humans behave altruistically towards other humans. This ends up misfiring in today's society where we are no longer restricted to small, tightly knit communities. Charity towards a stranger, a homeless man, charity organizations, Dawkins would say, are all misfiring of genes meant to help only relatives or those in a position to reciprocate the charity.
This may seem needlessly similar to many people (especially religious people) but it actually makes perfect sense and their bias is preventing them from seeing it. They wouldn't deny this explanation for another behavior that makes a better example. Why do humans have sex while using contraception? It doesn't make any sense evolutionary. Sex is a waste of resources (energy, nutrients, time) if it does not lead to reproduction. However are genes aren't "intelligent" enough to tell us not to have sex if it doesn't lead to reproduction, they simply tell us to have sex. Sex with contraception for recreation is a misfiring of the gene that helps us reproduce. We still continue the behavior even without the benefits. There are few that would say we shouldn't bother with sex anymore.
Charity towards someone who's not genetically related to the charitable is similar to sex with contraception. Satisfying to our urges and yet without any of the genetic benefit. A simple misfiring.
So, the only way an altruistic gene could become frequent enough in the gene pool to exist in a large number in the species is if the sacrifice it made in the individual was able to save enough replicas of itself in other individuals. This would be best accomplished by being altruistic towards children and direct siblings as they share 50% of the survival machines genetic material. However, children are even better (for the mother at least) because you can be sure the children are genetically related to you while a sibling may simply be deceiving you. The reason why children don't usually altruistically sacrifice themselves for parents is because they're usually in a less capable position to do so and the Parents have already fulfilled there reproductive function and are nearing the end of the end of their live making them less valuable.
So Dawkins theory is that our genes make us behave in a way as if we calculate the worth of helping a sibling. This takes into account how much the action would harm us and whether its worth the help done towards other copies of the same genes. Killing yourself would easily be worth saving 5 brothers or children because 5 x 50% is 250% and you only contain 100% of your own genes, therefor the sacrifice is clearly beneficial. However taking a slight risk to yourself to help out one brother or child is okay as long as it isn't very detrimental to your survival.
In species where communities are normally close kin or someone in a position to reciprocate the favor the genes aren't as specific as "Help any family member" because its very difficult to distinguish family from non family without records, so the genes say something more like "Help any member of the same species."
This was the case with humans. We evolved living in very small, tight knit communities so any gene for same species altruism would have quickly spread throughout the gene pool because the gene would save more replicas of itself then it would sacrifice, and so humans behave altruistically towards other humans. This ends up misfiring in today's society where we are no longer restricted to small, tightly knit communities. Charity towards a stranger, a homeless man, charity organizations, Dawkins would say, are all misfiring of genes meant to help only relatives or those in a position to reciprocate the charity.
This may seem needlessly similar to many people (especially religious people) but it actually makes perfect sense and their bias is preventing them from seeing it. They wouldn't deny this explanation for another behavior that makes a better example. Why do humans have sex while using contraception? It doesn't make any sense evolutionary. Sex is a waste of resources (energy, nutrients, time) if it does not lead to reproduction. However are genes aren't "intelligent" enough to tell us not to have sex if it doesn't lead to reproduction, they simply tell us to have sex. Sex with contraception for recreation is a misfiring of the gene that helps us reproduce. We still continue the behavior even without the benefits. There are few that would say we shouldn't bother with sex anymore.
Charity towards someone who's not genetically related to the charitable is similar to sex with contraception. Satisfying to our urges and yet without any of the genetic benefit. A simple misfiring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
