On Dec 25, 2007, at 0:28 , rob brown wrote: > In the case of the stinger, I was asking if you knew of any > morphological (not behavioral) feature of a non-eusocial animal > that kills the animal when used. The only ones I can think of are > part of the reproductive process ( i.e. male spider dies when it > mates, etc).
I don't have any very good additional examples. Salmons also reproduce first and then die. Humans are driven by behavioural, not by morphological drivers. That maybe makes them even a more extreme example. They even know that they may or will die but still they continue. One potentially interesting example is insects that taste bad. A young bird might eat (or harm) one of them but then learns its lesson and saves the rest. One insect in a way took the risk when it did not hide and saved many others. > the behavior I see 1000 times as powerful in humans is one of self > preservation. Eusocial animals only have a self preservation > instinct as far as it preserves the colony. Period. Saving the individual makes sense also in situations where the individual does not reproduce and is part of a colony. Saving the individual itself correlates with saving the colony. Self preservation is instinctive to humans and can be claimed to be stronger than its altruistic features, but also altruistic behaviour exists in many ways. We could also say that humans have the self preservation instinct just to preserve its "colony" (the individuals themselves will die anyway sooner or later while the "colony" continues to live). This line of discussion plays with the art of humanizing the natural phenomena. Not very good. It would be better to just say that certain features tend to maintain certain characteristics in the chain of events in nature. A mother defends her genes when defending her child. A worker bee defends her genes when defending her mother. For humans it doesn't make sense to the mother to die easily since human children need long time parental support, but taking risks may be worth it. > So what percentage of humans do you think voluntarily give their > lives for someone else that isn't direct offspring? 1 in 10 million? Humans are complex creatures and it is not easy to give absolute rules on their behaviour. I'll use the soldier example again. In many countries large part of the male population says they would be ready to fight for their country if need arises. I can't estimate what percentage of bees dies as a result of their suicidal attacks against mammals. To some extent they are playing a mutual destruction threat game (known to humans too) where the big threat they can present turns many mammals away without a fight (and without losses on the bee side). Even during the last century quite a number of humans has died in war like conflicts (defending the society as a whole) (maybe more than in individual level conflicts). > I know it's all touchy feely and warms the heart to think the best > of humans, but my observation of human behaviour aligns quite well > with what I would expect based on how they reproduce. Altruism > obviously exists....when there is a chance of reciprocation or > where convincing others that being altruistic has value in itself. > In a secret ballot situation, I'm just not seeing it. Yes, humans have even developed theories on how competition between individuals is for the best of the society as a whole. > Regardless, it just strikes me as an incredible, irresponsible cop- > out for voting reform advocates to suggest a method that expects > voters to just play nice. It is to me the equivalent of a > computer security professional suggesting that studies of > psychology show that people generally don't want to hack computers. Yes. Of course this should not stop people promoting better behaviour in their societies. In smaller circles like families behaviour is often based on trust that all members work for the benefit of all the members and will take also their viewpoint into account as needed. Having lots of trust among different players may also be a competitive advantage at national level. But of course there is no point in using voting methods that don't work (for the purpose and environment in question). Juho ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info