معادلة الإيثار: بحثُ سبعة علماء عن أصل الطيبة

by Lee Alan Dugatkin, المجتبى الوائلي (Translator)

لطالما كان الإيثار لغزًا حيَّر العاملين في البيولوجيا التطورية على مدى عقود من الزمن، بل وكان تحديًا للإنتقاء الطبيعي ذاته عندما عمل على صياغته داروين كنظرية للمرّة الأولى. حيث يبدو الإيثار للوهلة الأولى نقيضًا لما يعنيه الجين الأناني، أو بمعنى آخر، مع أخذ حداثة مصطلح "الجين الأناني" بعين الإعتبار، لما تعنيه سباكةُ جملة "البقاء للأصلح"، فالأصلح والأكثر إهتمامًا بالذات، عادة هو المرشح لتمرير جيناته، أمّا المُضحي بالنفس، فمن الواضح أن مصيره الزوال، وبالتالي إختفاء مادته الوراثية من الوجود. إذًا لماذا بقي الإيثار موجودًا؟ ذلك الحافز الذي يقود فردًا للتضحية بحياته لأجل الآخرين، سواء كان بشريًا أم حيوانًا بجهاز عصبي بسيط كالنحل. لن يحاول "معادلة الإيثار" الإجابة على كل هذه التساؤلات فحسب، بل أنه سينقلها لك أيها القارئ من منظور أهم العلماء الذين عملوا عليها خلال أكثر من قرن ونصف من الزمن. كيف أثّرت آيديولوجياتهم وتجاربهم الحياتية على ما صاغوه من فرضيات. هنا ستمتزج المشاعر والإنحيازات البشرية مع صرامة المنهج العلمي، لتتمخض في النهاية عن قصّة هي في منتهى الجمال. قصة معادلة الإيثار ستكون من فصول أعمدتها علماء ذوي خلفيات فكرية وسياسية متباينة.

Genres: Nonfiction, Evolution, Science, History, Psychology

292 pages, Paperback

First published August 21, 2006

About the author

Born in 1962, Lee Alan Dugatkin is a professor and distinguished university scholar in the department of biology at the University of Louisville. His main area of research interest is the evolution of social behavior.

Reviews

[A · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is man altruistic or selfish? The anarchist thinks that all men are good, a clearly delusional belief. But it seems ludicrous to say that altruism cannot happen when one sees heroic warriors and laboring mothers. Is there is a solution to the problem of altruism?

Yes, and it is called Hamilton's Rule. An organism will sacrifice itself for others in proportion to its genetic relatedness to the other organism and that other organism's future ability to reproduce. This is why we find parents so "irrationally" loving of their children — it is not irrational at all. It is a way to help their genes reproduce in the next generation. Hamilton's Rule is also why child abuse is so much more prevalent for adopted children and stepchildren. They are not genetically related to their parents, and therefore their parents have less of an incentive to treat them well.

But Dugatkin does not take his theory to its ultimate implications, a sad commonality among most university academics. If parents help their children more than any other child (no matter how poor and suffering) and we morally allow that, what must we also allow? Think: what groups of people are we related to more closely, other than our children? Our genetic group, i.e. our ethny! Hamilton's Rule shows how it is adaptive to selectively help and favor your ethny over other ethnies. It explains why ethnic conflict cannot be stopped by any propaganda and why ethnic diversity correlates .75 with ethnic conflict internationally (Vanhanen).

If I am a professor, then it is highly likely that I am an atheist. It is highly likely that I believe in evolution, and therefore I should believe in Hamilton's Rule (how evolution works). Therefore, I should believe in the implications of Hamilton's Rule. I should help my children more than strangers' children. But I should also help my genetic group, my ethny, over all others! That does not mean I hurt other ethnies (just as I do not hurt other children), but I should certain favor them over all others. I can do just that if I am part of a "historically disadvantaged group". I can make clubs and celebrate my ethny all day long. But if I am European? Oh no! Watch out! Europeans are forced to be genetically maladaptive in the modern social environment. They cannot help their own and therefore, ceterus paribus, are destroying their own gene pool. This is the rational view to take. Newspeak such as "racism" should not prevent one from preserving one's genome, from being an adaptive biological being. Is wrongthought or genetic suicide worse?

(See Frank Salter's On Genetic Interests for a more comprehensive look at this concept)

[Paco Barreras · Rating 5 out of 5]

Refreshingly well explained, there is no evidence of altruism in nature.

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

Discusses the historical evolution of the scientific study of altruism, and the key scientists who analyzed it, focusing mainly on how arguments evolved over time.

[kirsten · Rating 2 out of 5]

it was ok. pretty much didn't learn anything more than the review - so i'd suggest just reading the review and not worrying about the whole book. oh and it has quite a few typographical errors and i just don't like books with those.

[Maggie · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a book about how scientists in the post-Darwinian world explain altruism or compassion, if you will. Costs, benefits, and kinship all play a part in this phenomenon. I am captivated by its omnipresence in the animal world. Don't let the word 'equation' scare you.

[Stephanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Don't read it if you don't like biology...or being bored occasionally.

[Reba · Rating 3 out of 5]

i reviewed this book here:
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/scie...

[Science For The People]

Featured on Skeptically Speaking show #202 on March 1, 2013, during an interview with author Lee Alan Dugatkin. http://skepticallyspeaking.ca/episode...