One can be aware and pursue one’s identity (ambition?) and yet exhibit altruistic behaviour. At different times, selfish motives and altruistic motives in one human being are not exclusive. Sometimes I act in my own interest and sometimes I don’t. To me the best argument for altruism is looking at examples in extremis – people are known to sacrifice their own lives for the benefit of others. The stuff of heroes. Perhaps altruism in ‘everyday life’ is a result of being able to ‘afford’ behaviour that doesn’t lead directly to one’s benefit. This is where I agree with JP, with the right environment, connectivity and unprecedented insight into other people’s minds, less ‘selfish motives’ may be possible. As for Orwell, I think his view of altruism was rather bleak.

A more fundamental problem is defnition of altruism, I think the disagreement between people/schools of thought starts right there, which makes it difficult to have a coherent debate. I have recently had several discussions about altruism, the most recent one this week at a bar in Tyrol. We agreed that finding one example of altruism would be sufficient to prove it exists. That’s a start.

Also, a few days ago I quoted what you said about altruims in your last post on the topic and sure enough a discussion in comments ensued…

http://mediainfluencer.co.uk/media_influencer/2006/08/quote_to_rememb_2.html

There is yet one incredibly important piece that the “iterated prisoner’s dillema” people are trying hard not to understand. It is the importance of intent — and the importance of one side first taking a risk in the spirit of forgiveness. The relevant human drama is the “cuckold and the whore” who appear often in Shakespeare. If the two parties in a relationship operate on mutual suspicion, it devolves quickly into a hellish balance that rips apart the world. When one partner says, “I will forgive and trust even though I KNOW it is not logical”, then the other can do so, and the chain moves forward. No couple can ever survive without this step, nor can a child be raised.

To attempt to measure the exact paramaters by which people leech/freeload/cheat and then build a science from it is retarded. Every person’s heart is different, and as soon as people understand the so-called deterministic rules, the deceitful heart will game THAT system. As long as you keep making scientific excuses to ignore the selfishniess and deceit in your OWN heart, and view them as a ways to manage the sloth/deceit/whatever in OTHERS hearts, we all fall down.

Like everything else, the concept of altruism is heavily context-dependent. The reason iteration is important in those Prisoner’s Dilemma studies is that it provides information about context. Similarly, groups of organisms have a DE FACTO context that is just not part of how a gene does what it does. I suspect that our inclinations toward altruism have a lot to do (inversely) with the extent to which we FILTER our context in the course of our being-in-the-world. However, it remains important to recognize that such filtering is necessary. I live on the edge of the San Francisco Tenderloin, and there is just no way I can react to everything I see there. I HAVE to be selective about what I do for others, particularly those “anonymous others.” Perhaps the way in which each of us sets a personal sense of values is related to the way in which we decide just how much of what we encounter gets caught by that filter.

once again – you can go back to classical economists on this one. Try Adam Smith and the always misquoted ‘invisible hand’. Look up his quote on why butchers and carpenters choose to supply meat and cut wood, and where they choose to do it.

The point is that behaviour that is driven by self-interest can appear to be altruistic. This is not to defend rabid free-marketeers – information needs to be as freely available as property rights and access to markets, but to point out that economists have a lot to say on ‘why we do what we do’, and many have already said much of the above.

Use the profit motive and price as signals to help allocate capital and suddenly we return to the ‘markets are conversations’ theme.

or go read Freakonomics, or Everlasting Light Bulbs, for slightly poppy, but insightful, examinations of human behaviour and environment.