Would we have evolved as a group species without altruism?

[liberal]

Okay, hi everyone. As you can tell by my user name, I am not going to hide my political and social affiliations. My purpose of signing up here is for serious discussion and possibly to gain and share some enlightenment. Not trying to convince anyone one way or the other but I think opening discussions here would give both of us the best opportunity to test our positions against our political and philosophical polar opposites.

If it makes you feel a little more comfortable, I am a former self proclaimed student of Objectivism so I am in no position to judge any of you harshly for following it, when I myself was once enamored of Miss Rand's philosophy so long ago.

That out of the way, let's just confirm if there is any doubt or debate that we are a group species?

Anyone think humans are not a social or group species?

Or would anyone first like to give their definition of a group species as opposed to a solitary species?

To start off, I would say what a group species DOESN't DO is compete over food or other resources but cooperates for the mutual attainment of those resources. Whereas, a solitary species would compete for resources with their own and other species.

[DavidOdden]

That out of the way, let's just confirm if there is any doubt or debate that we are a group species?

Anyone think humans are not a social or group species?

Here are some examples of "group species" -- bacteria, bees, ants, zebras, The Borg. So clearly, we are not a group species.

Or would anyone first like to give their definition of a group species as opposed to a solitary species?

No, it's very clear what a group species is.

To start off, I would say what a group species DOESN't DO is compete over food or other resources but cooperates for the mutual attainment of those resources. Whereas, a solitary species would compete for resources with their own and other species.

Actually, the concept of "competition" is meaningful only for humans. Group species do not actually cooperate -- that's an illusion, and a bit of anthropomorphizing by romanticists.

Now, I'd like to ask you to relate the questions more directly to Objectivism, since the subject matter of Objectivism is not bees.

[softwareNerd]

Before getting to the topic, let';s get some of the niceties out of the way...

Okay, hi everyone. ... ..

If it makes you feel a little more comfortable, I am a former self proclaimed student of Objectivism so I am in no position to judge any of you harshly for following it, when I myself was once enamored of Miss Rand's philosophy so long ago.

Hi! If it makes you feel better, I'm a former altruist, so I am in a position to judge your ideas. Still, I do understand the routes that make some people enamored by altruism. I also know many people who called themselves Objectivists, who thought that Objectivism meant a lone-wolf-eat-lone-wolf struggle for resources, who were taken aback by the vicious enmity between Galt, Frisco, Rearden and all the others in Gult's gulch , and who then turned (back) to altruism.

Anyhow, on the topic...

That out of the way, let's just confirm if there is any doubt or debate that we are a group species?

Anyone think humans are not a social or group species?

Or would anyone first like to give their definition of a group species as opposed to a solitary species?

To start off, I would say what a group species DOESN't DO is compete over food or other resources but cooperates for the mutual attainment of those resources. Whereas, a solitary species would compete for resources with their own and other species.

I've never thought of classifying species that way. Anyway, it is pretty undisputed that men are a tremendous benefit to one another. This is not just in the sphere of goods and wealth, but also in "spiritual" values. Edited May 22, 2010 by softwareNerd