Love the podcast/show, and I usually don't check beforehand who you have on but imagine my surprise when I saw a teacher I had for evolutionary psychology a year ago lol. Solid convo!
I leave tips because I was taught to do so. Otherwise, I would not. Speakers argument fell apart for me when he suggested rurals went to cities at start of industrial revolution because that's were the jobs were. As far as I understand it, there were many other reasons rural left the farms.
It seems to me that the description of the creation of welfare state only out of empaty is incomplete. A major reason for public welfare is the fear of revolution, to wit, to have elites' heads on pikes. Smart conservatives in Europe, mindful of what happened with the French Revolution and the speedy rise of Socialist movements saw welfare as a way to defuse social tensions. To ignore that aspect of welfare means to ignore the role of rationalism by forward looking elites in controlling the social environment.
genes that code for caring about offspring are adaptive, because offspring will carry those genes. A similar thing hold for people who are closely related, siblings or even first cousins (second cousins not so much). But models show that genes that help less related individuals are NOT adaptive and will not increase in frequency over time and so will NOT evolve.
William MacAskill makes a compelling case for effective altruism, as outlined on the Sam Harris podcast and his writings, but it strikes me as problematic to focus on "strangers" problems. The morality of helping those who need help the most makes sense, but sorting and ranking what problems need our resources and allocating them is really complex. I can save children with malaria nets, but does that mean the local homeless in my community have to get to the back of the line?
as someone who was homeless, even when I was living that way I would have rather you spent your money on malaria nets... we're talking about two very, very different levels of suffering. nobody likes to believe this but I can assure you many people choose to be homeless. nobody chooses to be born into a region where malaria is a constant concern.
What if caring for others leads to greater suffering as it drives some away from purpose and toward being sedentary. Is having one's needs provided for merely existing part of the "good life"? Are people coming to the rescue of those in need because those people need it or because they people doing the rescuing are searching for purpose and actually manifesting reliance? I'm just not convinced that society is moving in the right direction in this regard. Humanity isn't "getting better" because we care more, we can afford to "care more" because we are getting better.
But the surplus population of cities died over most of history. In medieval times urban areas experienced negative population growth and only maintained their populations by migration. I have not researched this for ancient cities but would expect it to be similar.
But why allow the poor to live in the first place? If you just killed them as we did before there wouldn't be a problem. The development of golden rule by Axial faiths will is better explained by cultural evolution. See the account in Turchin's Ultra Society, and Joe Henrich's books.
There seems to be a false dichotomy erected between altruism and evolutionary utilitarianism, as described above. Another way to frame things is to conclude that real evidence of altruism only exists in the context of the utilitarian benefits.....as, ultimately, they are words for the same thing.....in my humble opinion.
@@AlexADalton just off the top of my head.....contributing to a society that views the world as one big family is the most pragmatic solution to all of the problems of scale that the modern world presents.
@@AlexADalton yes....enlightened self-interest. What i was really reacting to though is the sense that altruism is somehow unmasked as utilitarian.....when, in fact, the utilitarian part proves the altruism.
@Smally Bigs .....because altruism is mistakenly understood as an irrational sacrifice of the self......a selfless act, somehow outside of the rules of 'nature. What I am saying is that the sacrifice of an altruistic act is not irrational or veiled....it is simply the best thing to do because it benefits the species. This explains the sense of euphoria experience when offering the most simple act of kindness.
![The Evolution of Culture with Joseph Henrich [S2 Ep.20]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KQDuJogaYGs/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Evolution of Culture with Joseph Henrich [S2 Ep.20]](/img/tr.png)
![Destroying Primeworld with Jesse Singal [S2 Ep.12]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZiYIbw4BCNM/mqdefault.jpg)
The discussion of unintended consequences in public policy is important. I love that that they touch on that.
Thank you. I hope you can have this guest back to explore other topics in evolutionary psychology.
Love the podcast/show, and I usually don't check beforehand who you have on but imagine my surprise when I saw a teacher I had for evolutionary psychology a year ago lol. Solid convo!
I leave tips because I was taught to do so. Otherwise, I would not.
Speakers argument fell apart for me when he suggested rurals went to cities at start of industrial revolution because that's were the jobs were. As far as I understand it, there were many other reasons rural left the farms.
It seems to me that the description of the creation of welfare state only out of empaty is incomplete. A major reason for public welfare is the fear of revolution, to wit, to have elites' heads on pikes. Smart conservatives in Europe, mindful of what happened with the French Revolution and the speedy rise of Socialist movements saw welfare as a way to defuse social tensions. To ignore that aspect of welfare means to ignore the role of rationalism by forward looking elites in controlling the social environment.
genes that code for caring about offspring are adaptive, because offspring will carry those genes. A similar thing hold for people who are closely related, siblings or even first cousins (second cousins not so much). But models show that genes that help less related individuals are NOT adaptive and will not increase in frequency over time and so will NOT evolve.
William MacAskill makes a compelling case for effective altruism, as outlined on the Sam Harris podcast and his writings, but it strikes me as problematic to focus on "strangers" problems. The morality of helping those who need help the most makes sense, but sorting and ranking what problems need our resources and allocating them is really complex. I can save children with malaria nets, but does that mean the local homeless in my community have to get to the back of the line?
as someone who was homeless, even when I was living that way I would have rather you spent your money on malaria nets... we're talking about two very, very different levels of suffering. nobody likes to believe this but I can assure you many people choose to be homeless. nobody chooses to be born into a region where malaria is a constant concern.
What if caring for others leads to greater suffering as it drives some away from purpose and toward being sedentary. Is having one's needs provided for merely existing part of the "good life"? Are people coming to the rescue of those in need because those people need it or because they people doing the rescuing are searching for purpose and actually manifesting reliance?
I'm just not convinced that society is moving in the right direction in this regard. Humanity isn't "getting better" because we care more, we can afford to "care more" because we are getting better.
Cultural evolution has a much better account of why we have altruism towards strangers.
But the surplus population of cities died over most of history. In medieval times urban areas experienced negative population growth and only maintained their populations by migration. I have not researched this for ancient cities but would expect it to be similar.
But why allow the poor to live in the first place? If you just killed them as we did before there wouldn't be a problem.
The development of golden rule by Axial faiths will is better explained by cultural evolution. See the account in Turchin's Ultra Society, and Joe Henrich's books.
I love Coleman but his guest is a snooze. The topic is interesting but the guest is just not succinct or engaging.
Thank u once again your Talk. It really Gave me new perspective on the topic 🙏🫶
There seems to be a false dichotomy erected between altruism and evolutionary utilitarianism, as described above. Another way to frame things is to conclude that real evidence of altruism only exists in the context of the utilitarian benefits.....as, ultimately, they are words for the same thing.....in my humble opinion.
So what is the utility of helping starving children on another continent?
@@AlexADalton just off the top of my head.....contributing to a society that views the world as one big family is the most pragmatic solution to all of the problems of scale that the modern world presents.
@@DejanOfRadic ah... So you mean there is utility for the group as a whole, not the individual in the short term.
@@AlexADalton yes....enlightened self-interest.
What i was really reacting to though is the sense that altruism is somehow unmasked as utilitarian.....when, in fact, the utilitarian part proves the altruism.
@Smally Bigs .....because altruism is mistakenly understood as an irrational sacrifice of the self......a selfless act, somehow outside of the rules of 'nature.
What I am saying is that the sacrifice of an altruistic act is not irrational or veiled....it is simply the best thing to do because it benefits the species. This explains the sense of euphoria experience when offering the most simple act of kindness.
Great convo.