Altruism
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2024
- Hank explains the evolutionary basis for altruistic behavior in animals, including vampire bats!
Like SciShow on Facebook: / scishow
Follow SciShow on Twitter: / scishow
References for this episode can be found in the Google document here: dft.ba/-2Wvz
Also, in a plant documentary there was a study showing that plants which came from the same mother plant share nutrients with one another to ensure both of their survival, while in pairs which were unrelated competition took place until one of the organisms perished. Fascinating stuff. Keep up the excellent work.
Enlightenment to all sentient beings.
If one gains pleasure from helping others through their altruistic deeds, is that truly altruism?
Much debate exists as to whether "true" altruism is possible. The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits."
it is immaterial whether pleasure is gained, only whether pleasure is the dominant motivating factor. It is a mistake to think that because altruism is pleasant that pleasure is the dominant motivating factor. Are you altruistic because it pleases you, or does it please you because you are altruistic? If altruism precedes any perceived reward, it lacks selfishness. But one will argue that one cannot do something without it pleasing them to do so. This is fallacy. People can die to themselves, and not for themselves but in spite of themselves. Christianity teaches such a doctrine; not merely to do the right thing, but to become the kind of person who does the right thing. To be so defined by altruism, that it is a manifestation of being, without thought of reward. As people, we do things for reasons. On the christian view, you do not.
I think the answer is yes. You can do the deed because it is good, and not necessary because it is pleasurable. The pleasure can accompany the deed, but what seems to matter is the REASON you did the action and your intentions. Just because you recieve pleasure from an action does not mean you were doing the deed BECAUSE it was pleasurable. Moreover, if a deed is done in part because you think it is the right thing to do or you care about another person's well being, and in part because you know that if you do it, then you will recieve pleasure from it, is it truly egoistic?
Maybe not. Because of empathy you feel sad when you see sadness, you feel happy when you see happiness. If we behave in a way that makes a sad person happy (be it through benevolence or altruism), it may just make us happy. In that sense, 'pure' altruism does not exist. Altruism in the sense that there is a more covert reward, without the expectation of any overt reciprocity does exist, however.
Maybe we're hard wired just to help ourselves first, then our kin second, then our neighbours and friends third, then anyone else last. This ensures that we remain as fit as possible, then our kin (e.g., Haldene, 1930s and Hamilton 1964) remain as fit as possible because of our gene sharing, our friends and neighbours stay as fit as possible (we may need their help one day), then the human race stays as fit as possible. It could be like a hierarchy. Just an idea I have.
Steven J That's actually nearly a perfect definition to describe being altruistic. Pleasure is merely an additional aspect of the overall act. But i'm not sure if you toss the word pleasure in there if it changes the entire word and definition or not. If so, I can't think of what the word would be if any.
I recall hearing about a study that indicated human brains have a region that, when stimulated, produces feelings of awe. Is this true? If so, I'd love to hear Hank's explanation of just what process is at work here, and how it relates to evolution.
Trying to study for a midterm in a week. Watch your video, makes my studying so much simpler. Thanks again!
I like the connection you made between our big brains and altruism. Thinking long-term about how you might benefit from helping a friend involves a lot of delayed gratification. ...something I'm not so great at in general, but something we humans are better at than other species. Thanks Hank!
"Somebody will come and vomit blood into your mouth"
is the real takeaway from this video.
Thank you so much for this video doing a 4000 word essay on if alturism exists and this is the best starting point ever with references to boot! love sci show thank you x
Hey Hank,
First time for Sci Show, loyal fan of Crash Course.
Great episode. I also saw a Yellowstone documentary wherein one elk who has been harmed is being chased down by a pack of wolves. When she is on a cliff with no way of escape another elk put itself between the wolves and the injured elk and scared them off.
That was quite interesting and could also be another sort of unstudied behavior since that definitely doesn't help survival odds and there is no real promise of a situation requiring reciprocity.
1:16 *its
Sorry, I had to.
at two times speed I did not catch that. good work fellow grammarnazi, grammar hitler would be proud...
+momomum Lmao you watched this video at 2x? Why??
candleinthewind time is always of the essence
momomum I tried watching at 2x it's just too funny, but true it would save time if I was more intelligent and could understand what he's saying that fast. lol
candleinthewind practice in the english language is all that is required
I'm a sophomore in high school, and for biology, I had to read "The Lives of A Cell" by Lewis Thomas. When writing my paper on it, I based it mainly on altruistic behavior (although, I will admit, I had no idea there was a name for it) and had come to realize that this only happens in social animals. I wondered why that is, but if you look at a bee, it is (basically) one organism in a whole group of identical organisms. I relate altruism to how a cell sacrifices itself for the main organism.
I had to read that twice to process it, but you explained it better than I ever could.
Just used this video for a power point I have to do. Thanks Hank!
One minor thing, more a matter of semantics, but you don't actually have to be able to 'see' the long term advantage of helping someone else move. Just in the big picture it turns out that is an advantage. It does not even have to be a direct benefit to be advantageous. If a society that helps each other overall improves survival, even if the individual act does not bring an advantage the overall effect would very positive.
So, it makes sense that people can take pleasure from helping each other; there ancestors survived with it so it probably is a helpful behavior that has evolved.
Why do people assume that you are really selfish? It sounds like evolving the feeling pleasure about helping other people, is because it is evolutionary beneficial. When i help someone i feel truly good, and don't expect and often don't get anything in return. And did this before i understood there might be long term advantages. I bet there are many truly Altruistic people who benefit from the behaviors they do without ever understanding, the "selfish" advantages it brings.
The "I hope you have friends good enough to vomit blood in your mouth when you need it." got my subscription !
I just love your videos :)
As a philosopher, I actually love this video. So Hank, how about the origin of lingual communication?
There are definitely many motives for altruism, this one only explains one point to it. There are ones such as helping yet not asking for anything in return, which also has its own smaller parts to it such as doing so out of choice and commitment to doing so (so even if you lost all emotions, because you made a habit and choice to have done it before it will pervade) and other is because you feel happy doing so, or both (where you do so out of choice but don't mind being happy as a side affect).
I disagree with the "favour for a favour" idea. I help people because I like helping people. I compliment complete strangers because I know how much a simple compliment can make someone's day. I get out of the way of people because I know how annoying it is to get stuck behind somebody slow. I helped my best friend move into his new house because it gave me quality time with him.
Of course you think you help guys because you are nice and you just like helping others. But why do you really act that way? Because evolution favors those who are "nice", and it sometimes saved their lifes. So you have "nice-genes" because that gene helped your ancestors survive and reproduce. We are animals, too.
james1098778910 i agree, but one thing that confuses me is that why some soldiers jump in front of a bullet to save his fellow soldier? there is no benefits for himself, and his genes won't pass down to the next generation
Mark Tayco While altruistic behaviour has a root in selfish gain, genes aren't that precise. They mostly just make us inclined to help others, especially people near us (which used to be mostly relatives of some sort in smaller tribes). So called true altruism, where we help others without assuming we'll get something back, like donations to ideal organizations or literally taking the bullet for another is not the direct cause of doing so being good for passing on genes, but rather a side effect of altruism, where altruism in general is darwinistically awesome (that's a term now).
Where was this in the fall of 2011 when I NEEDED it? Seriously it would have saved my college presentation on this exact topic.
This video was ahead of its time
I love scishow by Hank. I love that I'm able to watch such a natural and informative teacher for free because they are definitely not common in the public school system. # FACT
11 years later
I really like your videos, and I generally find myself just nodding along and listening because I'm a dumb person. But I actually know a little more about this topic than the others you post about. I wish you would have addressed siblicide and infanticide in relation to altruism. Not because they're cheery and happy topics, but because they take that equation you talked about and go 'WHHHAAAA???' Maybe a different episode? I'm know I'm super late to the party, but I just learned about you and your brother a several months ago. Maybe you two can team up on the siblicide episode.
genocide homicide suicide matricide siblicide infanticide they're all fun just shot a gun
This was a topic I thought about a lot while on a spiritual retreat. Basically this retreat was based on how being of service to others is the key to enlightenment, and that if you make it a point to anonymously do good deeds for others eveyday for 90 days, you will see significant, positive changes in your mental and spiritual fortitude.
I didn't know that this was even a science related topic, this was very enlightening!!
saying that everyone that ever does things for others always expects something in return implies that a human's default state is self-serving, which probably isn't true. the reason humans have thrived as much as they have in the first place is largely due to cooperation, love, and family.
the title of this video is rather misleading. true altruism is fascinating and scarcely discussed.
Altruism doesn't exist.
Robert Woods i’d like to know why you think that, i’m actually curious.
@@sabrina-xm8mz Getting a job, getting a spouse, having children, are any of these things done for selfless reasons?
@@robertwoods3462 aren’t there a lot of other things people do outside of these basic survival things that are truly altruistic- ex: helping a stranger out with a tire change or towing, knowing that you may not ever see that person again or benefit from him/her in any way.
Ppl who are not psychopaths do it not to be rewarded later.....
Thank you for sharing your scary knowledge of video games with us.
why wasn't the price equation mentioned? saw it on a program on discovery would've liked to hear it explain from you hank :)
They do expect something in return, but it's not a material reward.
For example, when I help a stranger, I don't even need them to thank me, I know they are at least a little grateful, and that makes me feel important. It's not a selfless act of kindness, I just do it because it feeds my ego.
But the feeding of the ego is the point. Mostly everyone gets a hit of dopamine off of getting a compliment on our deeds, whether they benefit us or others. I think the motivation is the point of it. That is the philosophical debate. Like, doing something that helps others... doing it because you would want that done for you, that's "selfless" because I don't expect a crowd of people to gather and praise me, that's stupid and totally unrealistic. I do it because I know it's right. I don't have many expectations about that, just that we should try to help each other when we can.
If I help a woman bag her groceries at the store, or I hear somebody filled with sorrow for putting me on hold at the insurance company and I say "Hey, I get it, take your time, I know your dealing with your company and a computer; It's okay, do what you need to. If I need to escalate to somebody else, I will and it has nothing to do with you and your performance, you're doing your job, thank you." It's not for me. I get nothing out of it. I just know that anxiety of having to struggle as a messenger while doing a job you are paid for.
Strange, I help a friend move or help him change the tires because of no particular reason. I do not think about what benefits it might bring to me to help. I help because of the sake of helping itself, without having any reasons...
There's always a reason. Maybe you get a reward from the appreciation your friend shows you?
Take in consideration our "social animal" category. Helping someone to ensure his/her company is, in fact,a benefit. So you could say is as much a social interaction as it is a need to maintain friendship.
Helping someone unknown in the street, on the other hand, may be a way to feel "part of the society", for example.
to the post above.
exchange every YOU with I. why so immature, thinking that something you think is right is also some general law, right, and valid for everybody and everything.
Grow up child.
i don't need your help. Go help yourself.
buzz off troll.
...it may work out, but that is an infinitely complex equation to tackle.
3. Maybe the ecosystem itself acts as an ant colony--gaia type theory, the earth as an organism.
4. It has been shown that kindness benefits the health of the giver as well as the receiver, so kindness does actually help survival. Actually kindness has even been shown to benefit the witness of it! Wins all around. I have heard of these studies, but never looked at them myself. I would love an episode on this.
in other words, It's ultimately better for humanity as a group if we all help each other even if it's not always better for the individual at that moment. It doesn't take evolution to tell us that.
Thank you! I'm also autistic, and I was beginning to think I was the only person who felt this way. Autism pride is about self-acceptance and self-confidence, not arrogance. It's people like you who restore my faith in humanity. :)
What 💀
@@martinsitepu7659 👀
Ayn Rand disliked this video
grantsdaman01 😂😂😂😂
grantsdaman01 Individuals are the foundation for UNITY. But if sacrifice is forced, it undermines the very structure of the collective and then the group crumbles. Why make the collective more important than the individual when that's what it is made of? You don't. Simply put. You don't. That's like building a foundation out of roof material. It just won't work no matter how hard you wanna force it! ;)
So did andrew ryan
So did I
Great video
That is a great explanation :)
Sure, my friends vomit blood in my mouth like, all the time.
You must have a lot of std's :p
Wow, you are so lucky!
I have never understood the big mystery about altruism. It makes perfect sense to be that way! You are improving the living environment around you, which you and your friends and relatives are part of. And to a lesser degree, you are feeling a positive sensation from having brought a positive impact into the world. That's it. That's the psychological driver. End of story! Except that there may be other reasons to be altruistic apart from that.
Some have mentioned that we are often programmed by our parents or the larger community to be altruistic. It is inculcated into us. We are also somewhat addicted to a "good vibe," and seek to expand the world's supply of joy. Thus you will see things like people helping other animal species, and soldiers saving the life of an enemy soldier (under certain circumstances, and maybe only to take him prisoner, but still saving his life.)
+Bart Stewart Yes! Why's it so hard to see that?
We evolved very complex psychology with concepts like 'love' and 'niceness' which make us feel good.
We do stuff that makes us feel good at a base emotional level and at an intellectual level. It makes us feel good to make others feel good.
I would only add that it is more than a "feeling good." It makes for a more functional world to live in! Who wants to live in a dog-eat-dog hellhole of every man for himself? Apart from Republicans, I mean.
No that's not accurate at all. But anyway there is a benefit to the individual in being altruistic, in that it can make for a better world to live in, rather than dog-eat-dog.
+Bart Stewart, humans are social creatures, but we also rely on positive and negative feedback.
If you became sick and I decide to hunt for both of us, you are more likely to do the same for me and thus by being nice to you, I have secured myself from a possibly catastrophic thing if I was to get hurt or sick in the future.
If I did not help you, it would have become known in the community and thus others would be less likely to help me in the future and thus I am more vulnerable.
If no one wanted to help anyone, there wouldn't be any point in being helpful because you wouldn't get it returned.
Cost vs Benefit
Of course, this is just a presumption, but it holds true from what I have observed and been taught about behavior.
Except you're saying that entirely out of self-speculation and armchair logical thinking. That's not remotely how science works, that's just a hypothesis- the goal is to actually find explanations and thorough objective descriptions of the behavior, regardless of what "makes sense."
i've been thinking about these things for a while, and i think in its own way, scishow has actually pegged altruism. not surprised necessarily, but impressed, yes.
Well put!
I think we do selfless things for selfish reasons
Some people crave recognition. Some people truly want to help others and make the world a .00001% better place, like Dulguun.
Scott K Well, as long as good shit is done, why question it? ^^
our motive to do good may sometimes be good. ex: when we give coins to homeless people, we do not expect anything in return. but its because evolution uses seemingly irrelavent mechanics to accomplish goals: we act genuinely good to others sometimes without expecting things in return with the unrealized benefit that there is a higher chance of them helping us back, the intense pleasure of sex is just to cause the sperm to fertilize the egg to make an offspring, we often seek ways to achieve the positive aspects of sex without the babies
That's deep man.
Right. Many people wouldn't do shit for anyone else if it doesn't benefit themselves. Many people believe in karma, or what goes around comes around.
Um, the reason why we help each other is because it's a nice thing to do, not because we hope they will help us in the future. For example, if you help a stranger out you do it out of kindness. Since you'll probably never see that person again you know that they can never help you in the future.
key word here: 'probably'. the probability of getting help in return just went above zero, which in all cases, is better then nothing. all our traits and behaviors that were passed down culminate to one thing: passing on your genes. whether you do it consciously or unconsciously, it improves your chances of reproducing. denying someone of "help" can also be helping them, it all depends on the scope of your sight.
Sure that might be the case for humans, but explain why the bee will sacrifice its own life for the hive.
Nicole Lee I assume you are referring to the method in which bees with stings attack an intruder. You seem to be under the preconception that the bees have a "choice" in the matter of whether they should defend their hive or not. You also seem to be under the impression that all bees die after stinging a hostile animal. Though it does occur, not all bees lose their stingers after attacking. Honey bees have evolved to live large numbers and in hives. In other words, they know no other way. Your question is akin to asking whether or not you should defend yourself if you were attacked by an assailant.
UltraSonic ***** exactly! i'd like to add: a human being can never do a single act on purpose that is 100% unselfish.
UltraSonic No, it's the example with the vampire bat...... If actions like that become commonplace enough it develops into something that is beneficial to the individual who is giving to those who are in a worse position than they are to where the favor will be returned later. This isn't always guaranteed but it's something that helps a species overall since more members of the species survive it's more likely that their genes get passed to the next generation which is a drive that almost competes with personal survival. Like it or not based off of everything that we know from an objective stance this stems from the selfishness in our genes and not the kindness in our hearts.....
Not our intention. :) I've thought about this subject for years & find it fascinating. I'm sure you do well in things that interest you. Thanks for observing our musings & meditations, & don't hold back from adding thoughts of your own.
2:15 Some people may give gifts expecting something back but what if you just freely give your money to someone they don't know and expect nothing in return. I guess it could be argued that they do it hoping someone would do the same for them when the chips are down or that you do it simply for the feeling you get of peace that comes with being kind or maybe even some afterlife reward that is greater than the sacrifice of the time, money, or whatever it was you gave.
0:55 I really like this thanks for sharing this info in your video, well done.
Who’s here in 2020 November 18 because you typed in “Altreum” and this popped up
Dawkins improved on this with the idea of the selfish gene.
So your behavior is determined by whether is helps your genes.
Without those genes actually caring about you as a person.
Of course genes spread through the success of species.
But different species helping each other can also help the spread of both genes.
Altruism is instinctive because DNA that tends to help others is more successful than those who don't.
Because organisms co-operate with a lot of other organisms.
Like our guts have tons of species of bacteria, so working with those helps us.
I'd say even parasites co-operate with a lot more species of lifeforms than the number they exploit.
thanks
Tonsils are actually part of the lymphatic system. They do perform a function, they just aren't necessary to live comfortably. They're kind of like a backup, like having 2 lungs and 2 kidneys even though we only need one of each. We've got other lymph nodes all over the place, so we can live without tonsils, but that doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. The other things you mentioned are useless though.
you're right! being cooperative is a very beneficial trait that suits the environment.
the "I scratch your back if you scratch my back" is conditional altruism... but how may we explain unconditional altruism in which someone helps only for God's sake?
the ones smart enough to be aware that these videos are basic just to spread low level information to inspire people to learn more, are the ones who know this and do not waste their time on these videos.(anything with the word "God" in it is horribly stupid and you should not waste mindpower thinking about a "god".)
It's explained by the species as a whole, and usually mostly close relatives, being more resilient for having members who are willing to just help people for the sake of it.
As a side note, if they were "doing it for God", they'd technically not be unconditionally altruistic, they just believe there is a conditional reward (eternal heaven, Valhalla, Nirvana, etc.) that requires them to have helped people for the sake of it.
ok, so you are saying unconditional love does not exist. I prefer to believe in pink unicorns rather than accepting what you are saying
this is why Science cant be reconcile with Biblical concern.
Maybe you just help your friend because you love them.
and what is love but a bunch of chemical farts in the brain
I would agree that "why?" is the most important question. Many scientists are not disappointed by the answers they discern, because they discern there is great order, beauty, and reliability in the universe. I personally find the grandeur of the universe unsettling, but I work at not letting that stop me from trying to work in harmony with it, because I think it's the right thing to do, the unselfish thing. Whether the word for that is "altriusm" or not, that's where I seem to be at.
Last episodes of Seinfeld are a good measure of Human Altruism...
Give me an example of a truly altruistic situation and you get a cookie.
+grant poston I don't like cookies but I'll post this comment anyway.
Does it matter? Why can't human beings just help each other out? Do humans HAVE to do something to each other?
I took off my hat in a train, and almost left it behind as I got off. Fortunately, the strangers that had been sitting across from me git my attention and handed my hat back. They were complete strangers in a foreign country on a large public transportation system, with no reason to let me know I dropped my hat other than empathizing with my potential loss.
It's not a grand example, but such small events happen frequently between strangers who have no reason to believe they'll see each other in the future for a return favor. Perhaps that idea subconsciously undergirds those decisions, but there's certainly no rational choice based on possible reciprocation.
You're thinking too small.
Nowadays we simply live in larger groups. I'd certainly want to live in a society where people would remind me not to leave my stuff behind, so why wouldn't I do the same? Get enough people who think so and there you go; social Darwinism at its best.
+HalcyonSerenade Even in that example you probably say thank you as exchange of the favor. The gratitude are the currency that humans use to retrieve something to the person who do you a favor. Search zogg from betelgeuse gratitude in youtube, his explanation is so cool.
Peter Kropotkin.
Mutual Aid As A Factor In Evolution.
Read it.
+Charx Seconded. This video immediately reminded me of Kropotkin.
If Stephen Hawkins was to stand and talk without the help of machine, I would have say that's Hawkins's son because you two looks alike. You are orally gifted man keep it up you helped me understand many things. Thank you.
lol u shud notice that there is a character limit for messages, and the way i spell my words is to squeeze in as many words as possible so i can send a larger message, i actually learned how to spell my words like that from ppl i met while using the internet, i dont usually spell like this with anything else
Every science video. All of them. Religion. I used to be pretty neutral about it, but I really honestly believe the world would be a better place without religion at this point. I think people who feel the way I do are the reason religion is dying.
I hope you guys like the chunk of the pie graph you have now. Soon 'Unaffiliated' will have most of it.
I have to disagree, and not just from the perspective of a religious person (though I'm sure my perspective has been colored by that, I'm trying to ignore it for the sake of debate), but from the perspective of a human being in general. And no, I'm not actually going to bring in data about how religion is good for humanity or whatever. My argument is more about why the world wouldn't be a better place without religion, than why it's specifically a better place because religion exists.
I just realized that sounds really self-conflicting, so let me clarify: I think that the world would be about the same in terms of goodness/badness if there were no religion. The reasoning behind this argument relates to how religion started in the first place.
Most religions are, arguably, among the pseudosciences, attempts to use non-scientific methods to explain why things are the way they are, whether certain things exist, and what things really do. The thing is that humans are naturally curious beings who dislike having information denied to them. We also have a strong tendency to grasp for straws or latch onto whatever makes us feel most secure or fits in best with our own initial understanding of the world. The combination of these factors means that even if we stopped religion from cropping up, other equally non-scientific things would crop up, because up until a few hundred years ago we were entirely lacking in what we needed to make the scientific process feasible, and that takes time to develop. Quite frankly, "we don't have any freaking clue how the universe got here or why fire is hot and we have no way to test what hypotheses we do have, but don't worry, there will be an answer after we invent a way to find one several generations after you die!" does not sit well with most people, especially people looking for solace in answers to questions like "what happens after we die?" or, quite relevantly to the first question and certainly relevant to the standards of the time period, "these living conditions suck and we don't see a point in living just to serve you, so why the hell should we dedicate our lives to a king and an upper class?". People like to have a confident authority figure tell them things so everything makes sense, and if they don't, they'll make up whatever sounds the most reasonable and man their guns in sticking to it. Whether that comes in the form of religion or something else is irrelevant.
The other thing that's prevalent to human nature is that we inherently search for meaning and continuity. We fear death, and it's only natural that one would provide themselves solace by saying something along the lines of "well, my spirit will live forever, so I don't have to worry about contemplating nonexistence." It's a bit of a cop-out, but without the other implications of religion, it wouldn't be inherently harmful to our development as an intellectual species.
Meaning is also relevant, as many people sans religion would be... A lot like me, but in a bad way. I've got a sort of "constantly positively channeled existential despair" thing going on, where I recognize that my life has no purpose and the lives of everyone else who has ever lived or ever will live are equally meaningless, so I just do whatever makes myself and others happy because hey, if there's no higher purpose to put yourself through negativity for, why not just make yourself and everybody else as happy as possible? There are multiple types of happiness, of course, and I and a whole lot of other people would be damn happy if I, for example, cured cancer... But there's no reason to get down in the dumps about not existing later, because hey, you won't exist to feel sad about it. However, most people generally don't take this view. I guess I am a sort of an altruist-variant hedonist, which I hear is considered a bad thing in most circles. A lot of peoples' primary motivator for doing good things, or really even doing productive things in general for that matter, is knowing that there's a purpose for doing it. If science is going to tell people that their lives are basically meaningless, people are inherently going to resist it and latch onto the nearest thing that gives them meaning.
Lastly, a lot of people are simply ruled by emotions and what "feels right" rather than real logic, and that's an evolutionary thing that can't just be educated out of our species. Even as religion slowly fades away and dies off, other forms of irrationality will be born within our species to fill the gap, because a lot of what science teaches is difficult or unsavory and for one reason or another, people won't look at it rationally, they'll look at it through whatever colored tint of lens makes the world make the most sense to them and their experience. (I'm kind of looping around to the first part of my argument here, aren't I? Hm.) People just aren't inherently designed to all want to pursue rationality, because there are "better" things for most people to do with their time.
Maybe they're right and I'm wrong. Maybe all this logical process and having my own beliefs is pointless, and I'd live a more satisfying life if I just converted to Christianity or dropped all my beliefs for atheism or whatever. I'd be willing to accept that if somebody put forward a good argument for their case, or even attempted to have a rational discussion about it. I mean, I recognize that I'm inherently no different from other people. I've tailored what I believe in to match my experiences and how the universe makes the most sense. It happens to be the case that my beliefs are more mutable than other people's, because part of my sensibilities necessitate being able to change my beliefs as good methods are used to prove things that I thought were true wrong. That adaptability isn't inherently superior, though, and maybe somebody else is right. My ability to make logical arguments in support of the scientific method does not remove the possibility of the existence of arguments that could prove that the scientific method is not good. I do think that my own personal beliefs follow a more rational process than other people's, which I can generally back up because there are objective criteria for rationality and logic.
The important thing, in my opinion, is that all ideas are treated with some respect, except of course for the ideas involving disrespecting other people's rights and ideas. (Wow, that's a weird sentence.) Because the same reason there's "faith" is the same reason the scientific process exists. You can get incredibly sure, you can test the crap out of everything and be almost certain you're right, but the fact of the matter is that you can never be 100% certain, both because new evidence can always show up, and also because we don't want to fall into the trap that older pseudosciences fell into where they were so sure of their correctness that they stopped considering new ideas. Regardless of what you believe in, you should always consider that, as wrong as you're sure whoever you're debating is/are, they used the information available to them to come to the best conclusion they could. That doesn't mean "don't try to prove them wrong," but it does mean that religion isn't something we should hope dies or, most importantly, that we should completely disregard even after considering all of the available evidence. Disregarding religion is like disregarding somebody picking up pieces of an abandoned scientific theory based on entirely new evidence that wasn't available before simply because the theory itself, sans that evidence, was disproven.
I'm religious. I frankly think all religions except mine are wrong, and that most religious thought is irrational. But being a logical and rational person, from my understanding of rationality and logic, literally requires that I keep my ears and mind open and that I respect other lines of thought even if I think they're wrong. Because I could always hear that argument that I haven't come across yet, and maybe that could sway me; or maybe that other person has understood something in a way I can't wrap my brain around, and the failure is in my thought process, not theirs.
So, to reiterate. I think religion has caused a lot of bad things, but I think that without religion, those same bad things would have just been caused by some other irrational thing popping up causing people to be prejudiced towards one another, because that's human nature. I also think that religion has its points that aren't inherently wrong, so axing it to try alternatives isn't an inherently perfect option, since human nature does not generally favor rational thought. I also know that my understanding of the universe is not and never will be perfect, so I'm glad for the existence of religion. It gives me, and hopefully a lot of other rational thinkers, a whole lot to, well, think about! And isn't thinking great? I think people should do more of that.
Yeah, well let me begin my response to this rather long (but thoughtful) reply by saying that when I posted that comment originally, I was tired of seeing religious comments on science videos. I love science and religion need not be discussed when people are just talking about science, just like science shouldn't constantly be brought up when people are trying to have a discussion about religion. It's simply a non-issue unless the object of the discussion was to make it one. That being said, I just wanted to make my feeling known as bluntly as possible.
First, it is a fact that unaffiliated rates are increasing throughout not only the US, but the world (some places not, but as a whole). Unaffiliated is not the same as atheist, doing away with religion is not doing away with faith. That is an equivocation fallacy. Instead, it means people are less likely to adhere to specific doctrine or dogma. I agree with you that irrationality is something that's unavoidable in human nature, but that is irrelevant to my overall point.
I want to discuss whether or the world would be a better place if there was no religion and everyone based their beliefs on rational thought. Defining religion, a particular system of faith and worship. Faith will be defined as strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Rational thought is a bit abstract, but I will define it as an arrival at belief using evidence and logical reasoning.
Starting out, we see the main difference with what we're discussing is evidence against no evidence. So I will start my position on this debate with what constitutes a reasonable belief. I will pull an excerpt of a famous debate (perhaps you've heard of it) between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty. In this debate, Sye provides us with his formal deductive categorical syllogism:
P1: It is reasonable to believe that which is true.
P2: It is true that God exists.
C: Therefore, It is reasonable to believe that God exists.
In the debate itself, Matt doesn't point out the issue with premise 1 (though he later released a review of his own debate that did just that), and that is that it is NOT necessarily reasonable to believe that which is true. Using an anecdotal example, before the time of Copernicus, it was not reasonable to believe that the Earth orbited the Sun. It was reasonable to believe that the Sun orbited the Earth. This is important to my point because reasonable belief doesn't depend on what is true, it depends on what evidence shows to be true.
To support my first point, I will put forward the rational argument of skepticism. If it is unreasonable to believe something, then you should not believe it. If you believe things that are unreasonable to believe, then you will believe contradictions and have no way to discern which contradictions should be eliminated. If you only believe that which is reasonable to believe, then you will run into no contradictions OR you know that something that you find to be a reasonable belief must be false.
This leads me to me second point. This ties well with your points about the scientific method being the best way to look at the universe. The scientific method is actually quite broad, being defined as a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. If my first point holds, then the scientific method is the only way to understand, with any level of certainty, the world around us.
Consider for a moment:
P1: All humans sense only things in the natural world.
P2: Supernatural things are not in the natural world.
C: Therefore, humans cannot sense things that are supernatural.
This is an AEE-2 categorical syllogism and is, therefore, valid as a deductive argument. That is to say, if P1 and P2 are correct, C MUST be correct. Following:
P1: All humans can only measure things in the natural world.
P2: Supernatural things are not in the natural world.
C: Therefore, humans cannot measure supernatural things.
P2 of my first argument shouldn't be argued against, but P1 might be. My second argument is to cover that base. That is, the argument can't be made that humans can sense supernatural things since that sense would not be capable of measurement. Since measurement is necessary to provide evidence, it is unreasonable to believe that P1 is false. I am confident that no one disagrees with my second argument (since it all but describes the definition of something that is supernatural).
My overall conclusion is that it is unreasonable to believe that anything supernatural exists. Following my first point, believing that which is unreasonable to believe leads to contradictions and provides a hindrance to our further understanding of that which is true. As long as logic is objective, this is true. Assuming that this problem is binary (belief in the supernatural or no belief in the supernatural), the superior choice is no belief. It may very well not be, but I choose to believe what is reasonable to believe until it has been shown not to be reasonable.
Oliver Vaught I'd like to preface this by saying that we appeared to be arguing on two subjects that are related but also significantly different. A large part of my position in my previous comment was hinging off of the fact that we were simply removing religion from the equation, and letting nature runs its course except in that religion would not come back into the picture. Your position was based on both the removal of religion *and* the sudden transformation of all humans into functionally logical beings. So we appeared to be discussing from two different premises. Nobody is at fault here, but there was a misunderstanding. Now that that's been clarified, I'll try to restate my position so that we're both talking about the same thing.
Also, since there was some confusing language there and I'm not sure if you're correcting me or clarifying yourself, the part of what you said that I disagreed with wasn't that unaffiliated rates weren't going up; I didn't dispute that. I was only trying to make a point that, in my opinion, axing religion from history would not, by itself, make the world a better place today.
With all that out of the way, I will now engage you in your argument, of which I do agree with many parts, but also have contentions with.
Right away, a bit of a fallacy alarm goes off in my brain when you list one of the requirements for something to be defined as a religion to be the lack of proof. This isn't inherently fallacious by itself, as we're still in the defining part of the process and that definition could work for other logical arguments, but it isn't compatible with the argument at hand, as when applied here, it immediately becomes invalid due to circular reasoning. The argument being postulated is that it is unreasonable to believe something without supportive evidence, while your definition requires that religion exist in the absence of evidence or proof. This argument is then self-fulfilling, as if one is able to present any kind of proof for their religious beliefs, their beliefs by definition stop being a religion. Though with better wording you could avoid hitting the fallacy so directly, the point is that using that definition for religion makes the argument useless.
Leaving that aside, however, to look at your argument itself, another issue quickly becomes apparent. Your logic is sound, but I find that your premises are faulty. However, the reason I say that is, annoyingly, quite complicated, and deals with a difference in stance on the definition of natural and supernatural things. Namely, I don't believe in the concept of supernaturality. It's not just a disbelief in the supernatural beings, but a literal disbelief in the viability of the concept.
I disagree with the notion that just because something is beyond our ability to understand it, it can no longer be qualified as natural. We don't know everything about the universe, or even our own planet and the numerous species living on it. If we take any single thing we don't know how to gather proof for, and call it "supernatural" based on the fact that it disagrees with current scientific understanding, we set a precedent to refer to everything we don't yet have the tools or understanding to measure as supernatural as well, which is nonsense; things don't become more or less a part of nature as a person figures out their existence.
In order to base an argument on the definition of something being supernatural, the idea that something can be supernatural needs to have a valid backing. Given that it doesn't, the only restatement of your argument that keeps the effective meaning is "humans can't measure things they don't know how to measure." Which smacks of self-fulfillment, but I'll let that slide to avoid bogging down the discussion.
This gets to the core of my partial disagreement with your "reasonable belief" statement. Note the emphasis on the word "partial"; I do agree with you in a lot of respects. In the end, my disagreement does slightly come down to pedantics. I believe it is perfectly reasonable to not believe a particular thing about the universe without qualifying evidence for or against it, but it's also unreasonable to discredit inferences regarding the things humans and our technology haven't advanced far enough to truly observe yet, and I do assert for the outlined reasons that you can reasonably believe such an inference as long as you adapt in response to new evidence and your current beliefs do not contradict current evidence or exceed what can reasonably be inferred. I do think many religions (though not all) exceed reasonable inference, but I also don't think I'm qualified to comment on whether something is entirely unreasonable, being spastic as I am, nor do I think I know everything well enough to close my ears to religious arguments. So there's that.
Anyway, there's my logic and reasonability and stuff, but hey, I'm a human, and a bit hedonistic at that, and I'd like to have a bit of a fun discussion, which really doesn't accomplish anything practical but is a silly sort of enjoyment to have.
I've always thought that a big issue on reconciling science with religion is that science doesn't usually deal with the kind of thing proving religion would cover. To explain what I mean, let's use an analogy, based on the Christian example, since that's the most well-known one. I think this example works pretty well for any monotheistic religion, though.
So imagine that humankind is a bunch of infants, not much more than a few months of age, except with the adage that they have a more decent than normal memory, and God as an adult. In effect, our inability to comprehend God could be seen as similar to an infant's inability to understand object permanence. A lot of Christian experiences seem to me like they'd be God playing peek-a-boo from the baby's perspective. Can't prove he was there due to both bad communication and a lack of evidence, there's no repeatable way to bring him there so you can gather data on his existence, when he's gone you can't really expect anyone to believe he was there in the first place or could still be there, and your tools/senses aren't advanced enough to perceive him when he's not there. ("Well I can't see him and my brain isn't developed enough for me to realize he just moved out of my field of view, and I don't have any type of sonar so I can't shake my toy and use the returning sound waves to provide evidence that he exists even to myself, so I can really only either assume the adult doesn't and never did exist and I hallucinated, or he has the ability to blink in and out of existence and he's freaking amazing.")
Doesn't mean I think Christianity is actually logical, but it certainly comes off that way from the perspective of the baby. That's also generally why I try never to assume I'm not the baby, thus leaving my mind open to different interpretations of logic.
Well, that's it for my silly illogical shoot-off. Oh, last thing; minor nitpick, but heliocentric models have actually existed for quite a while. I think it's at least 1500 years old, though of course the invention of a model will usually predate its wide acceptance. Still, not totally unreasonable, depending on the evidence involved in the making of the model. Fun facts, yay! Peace.
I know my entire logical approach was at a different angle than you were shooting for, I even acknowledged that, even sans religion, humans would continue to make up irrational explanations for things they didn't understand. Ultimately though, that's a topic that, without postcognition, we can't say a whole lot about, so I approached the other side. I believe that it's unreasonable to believe in anything supernatural and that believing things that are not reasonable to believe is a counterproductive method of reaching any sense of truth.
I was just clarifying my position toward the beginning of my post concerning unaffiliated rates. It wasn't meant to correct you, just to get a firm footing on where I'm actually coming from as opposed to a half-assed and disgruntled CZcams comment I made about a month ago. I find my mind being changed about things somewhat frequently, so I was solidifying my current stance on the subject.
Next, about my definitions, they are straight from the dictionary definition of the words. Ultimately, my definition of the term 'Faith' is what seems to be an issue here (and my inclusion of Faith as a necessary component of Religion). You caught on that this definition requires some belief without evidence and that I am defining what is reasonable to believe based on what I have evidence to believe. This is indeed a circular argument, but it's one that I've carefully constructed. Circular arguments are unavoidable when dealing with inductive reasoning and inductive reasoning is unavoidable when talking about evidence based thinking. Ultimately you must assume aspects of your senses are true to conclude what your senses tell you.
I constructed this argument in this way so that I can delve deeper, deductively, into what it means to believe something with no evidence and what that means for the belief in something that's supernatural, disproving that it's reasonable to believe in the supernatural and showing that it's unreasonable to believe in something that has no evidence.
To put this simpler, I constructed the argument to make it so that 'supernatural' is a stand in for 'no evidence' by deductive reasoning by defining it as something we can never sense, and thus never be something for which we have evidence. The problem with my premise being that we may very well be able to sense the supernatural. My second argument proves that we can't measure the supernatural, so we can't have evidence for it. Since we can't have evidence for it, it's unreasonable to believe it. Since I'm no longer using Religion or Faith in my logical assertion, I needn't adhere to my original premise and instead adhere to my definition of Supernatural that I just proved was unreasonable to believe. Supernatural is a more broad spectrum of religion, so my argument has done its job. I began with a circular argument, but changed the approach to fit my needs.
To put it formally, I need to prove Religion is unreasonable. [My past two arguments proving belief in the supernatural is unreasonable]
EAE-2 follows:
P1: It is unreasonable to believe in supernatural things.
P2: Religious beliefs are in supernatural things.
C: Therefore, it is unreasonable to believe religious beliefs.
I also never defined supernatural as ANYTHING beyond our understanding or senses, I specifically defined it as anything not in the natural world. I never said that humans CAN measure or sense EVERYTHING in the natural world, just that they cannot measure or sense things that are supernatural. That is an important distinction to be sure. I would certainly argue that, if there exists something in the natural world that can't be measured or sensed, then it is unreasonable to believe it exists.
As far as your final comment is concerned (and that interesting analogy to go along with it), it is my personal belief that it is unreasonable to believe inferences about our universe that we don't have the ability to measure yet. The beginning of the universe, as an example. The Big Bang has something to say about the universe at t>0, but nothing about it at t=0 or how t=0 even happened. The question of t=0 is, at best, described as being the result of God (using Christianity as an example). That's assuming we're talking about a relatively progressive Christian who believes in a 14 billion year old universe and all that good stuff. Even them, the line has to be drawn at t=0. We don't know anything about that time or how it came to be, why would it be reasonable to think we actually do with no evidence or logic to back that assertion up? Anecdotal experience is a logical fallacy before we even hear the story, and that belief will only slow down our ability to understand t=0 if we ever do get the technology or process figured out to study it. Even in its most liberal form, it holds us back. So shouldn't we only believe what's reasonable to believe?
As far as your analogy, I completely understand where you're coming from. I don't deny the non-zero probability that a God exists. If I were that infant, I wouldn't believe in the adult. It would be an unreasonable belief and continuously thinking about the existence of that adult distracts me from discovering more about my rattle or whatever else happens to be around me. I would acknowledge the possibility that the adult exists, but I would label it unreasonable and move on with life. Who knows, maybe while I'm using my renewed focus on my rattle, I will discover echolocation and actually be able to detect the adult and choose then to believe that s/he exists.
Oh, and I am aware that a heliocentric model had been around for a while before Copernicus (1,500 years is a bit over what I would have thought though), but just because something has been theorized doesn't make it reasonable to believe. That's a more subtle version of the whole 'just because it's true doesn't make it reasonable to believe', this is more like 'just because someone said it and it's true doesn't make it reasonable to believe'.
As a child I didn't know anything about murder, violence, cheating, stealing, abuse and segregation untill I was taught it in a church and heard about it through the bible.
At about 1:00 "Benefit [to the species] exceedes the cost [to individual]"
Isn't it a Vulcan saying "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (the idea recorded way back from Aristotel, acording to Internet)
All social animals are dependent on reputation.
We can derive another equation here which explains everything:
Reputation = reputation + (contribution) * (reputation of someone you are contributing to.)
Altruism is a way to build reputation. and it managed to get encoded into our genes so gets expressed all time even when useless.
Goosebumps are actually an interesting feature in human evolution. Its a vestigial response to fear or cold. Think of what cats look like when their scared or pissed (they get goosebumps too). It makes them look intimidating and it can capture more air for insulation purposes.
As for the tears, some scientists believe that its just the way we show distress in combat at close proximity to near by allies without letting your enemies know. Personally, I think that theory is too vague.
Nothing on George R. Price? I find his work with altruism insanely interesting, and only noticed two people mention him on the comments. The short form is, he did some work with the altruism equation, couldn't accept that there was no such thing as altruism without risk/benefit analysis, and then spent the rest of his life trying to disprove his work. Perhaps a follow-up video is in order?
(For those interested, Dark Matters did a segment on him; "Killed by Kindness", I believe?)
When I help a friend move, it's because I want them to know they are not only supported in achieving their independence; they also have a village member to reach out to that is aware of them living solo and they are not alone when they need support if and when it can be provided. Certain groups and races of people are self serving, and some understand the significance of community. Altruistic people, are mostly community based if they grew up in one. And not many have. Like you mentioned earlier, some people are just naturally and born that way. I mean yes, it is nice to know you have a support system when you need assistance. However, help out because you know it will help another person more than them owning favors. Like an actual "good Samaritan"
I'm not talking about domestication, necessarily. I'm talking about instances that you hear of where a pig will suckle puppies sometimes, or 2 different animals will start what we would classify as, for lack of a better word, a "friendship".
I am actually Åsatrù myself, and have a tendency towards my own version of Cosmic Ice Theory. I would like to see the future research on the HiggsBoson theories though.
He's talking about the evolutionary explanation for altruism, and its benefits. Nothing more, nothing less. And he did a pretty good job of it too, considering it's a 3:29 minute video.
There is a book that does explain in great detail about people doing things for the return of a favor. It's called "Give and Take" by Adam Grant. In the book it breaks people down into 3 groups: givers, matchers, takers. Givers give for the greater good, matchers are people who see an eye for an eye philosophy, and takers take for their own selfish reason. Most people are matchers, but the people in the comments who are saying they do it just to be nice are probably the givers of the group.
Commenting a year later lol
Not sure which comment led me to say, I was speaking generaly, I kind of lost track with been quite busy. But see if this might help.---I'm talking about each person spreading their own human genes/traits and each and every animal spreading its own genes of its own traits, so that its genes/traits can survive and not its competitor of its own kind which is in competition to it.
Could you do a video about hydraulic systems that cover all three classes of levers.
In light of this, how would you describe sociopathy (psychopathy?) in humans? Is it an evolutionary deficiency? I would like to see a video on this, unless you've already done one and I haven't seen it yet.
THIS. THIS IS IT. THIS IS EVERYTHING.
Don't know if this has been done, but a video of zero point energy and vacuum generated particles. I've been trying to learn about vacuum polarization too so that would be nice to incorporate if possible...
u took the words right out of my keyboard dude lmao
This was pretty nice.
My mom walked in on that last part and was deeply concerned about what friends he was talking about.
The very definition of a sacrifice is: to give up something of value (like your time) for something having greater value or a more pressing claim (a person who needs to move). The definition shows the determining factor is, not your own need for feeling useful, but the need of someone else. If you feel a measure of satisfaction for helping someone (and not everyone does) this would not make it self-serving. Whichever scientists Hank followed here have misrepresented benevolent behavior.
Part II: Altruism and emotion are pretty clearly defined and supported with observable evidence. For example, look at the range of primary emotions for a cockroach versus a dog (social animal). Social animals develop these emotions and altruism as they are needed for cooperative survival. While scientists agree the universe has order, but within this order is extreme randomness, and paradoxical complexity like how the universe might be a 1D curve with the illusion of 3D & matter's instability.
I like to believe that I've made Altruism my life policy, in that I give of myself, my time, and my possessions, not hoping for a reward or even gratitude, but for that lovely feeling of knowing you've done a good thing.
The argument presented in this video overlooks the fact that many people act unselfishly, such as by helping their friends move, because they actually love and care about those people. They choose to help whether or not they benefit. As far as theories go, scientists are right now prepared to overturn some major theories they've believed in for decades, if new evidence points that way...Speaking of evidence, some scientists wonder at the orderliness, functionality, and beauty in the universe.
Good point, makes me think of how artists like to share their art with others. All the more so, could not the artist of the universe want to share these good things?
wow.. this is so enlightening
"equations are nice and comforting if you're a scientist." I like it.
Hank, you disappoint me! How can it be that you have not read Kropotkin???
"Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution", published 1902
That is one theory circulating around. Raises a question for me: how did humans "invent" emotions so as to further their genes? In other words, the capacity to love - where did that come from? When did the first demonstration of love occur and how?
No matter what you do you will get a reward in someway. The human body has a reward system hardwired into it which makes us feel good when we do things we consider right, difficult etc.
1:00 It is an inequality since it has a greater than sign. It will be more appropriate to call it a relation.
Thanks for promoting the topic. 2 quick comments about the comments!
1 - People often make the false assumption that our purpose in life is to survive and procreate. This is a mistake in logic. Look up the "is ought problem". It is not our job to survive, this urge is simply a by product of our evolution. Evolution does not have "intent". So the guy who selflessly eliminates himself from the gene pool is not an idiot. He has not "failed to do his job".
2 - on the point of whether altruism really comes from self interest. One good argument is that we evaluate our decisions based on our "unease". If taking a path creates more "unease" then we are unlikely to take it. So once we realise the importance of compassion, we act out of compassion because it's uncomfortable to ignore it. In otherwords, it can be argued back to self interest.
I can't understand why so many people don't realise that helping each other out is the same thing as helping yourself out. And then when I tell them that I am an egoist (doesn't mean I don't help people) they start looking at me as if they dont think about themselves at all. Seriously?
A HUGE part in cooperation that uplifted humans is the sharing of ideas, skills, and knowledge. Social animals like wolves are also growing in tact. Social insects, Social mammals, Social fish. These will be the next species to experience eventual intellect, nature has been so clear about this.
You really shouldn't underestimate the extent of emotionalism. While most people usually recognize how basic emotions like fear and anger can interfere with reason, especially the more complex emotions still cloud their minds. Once you start noticing it you can see it literally everywhere, in almost every person you encounter. One example of this is how the same argument laid out in good rhetorics appears much more reasonble than if it came in the language of a 10-year old.
I do not feel that when I am moved to help someone that I am doing it so that I gain something, but merely helping because I am moved to help by compassion and to help the person not suffer, Been looked at favorable by society because of my act of compassion or bravery does not attract me at all, However I can see how it would be a benefit, either by been recognized, a cash reward, feel good or the hope I would be saved, the cash reward would in fact would make me feel bad and not good.
I think what is being explained here is 'reciprocal altruism' - however in 'The Selfish Gene', Dawkins said we can be fully altruistic, sacrificing a copy of the gene for the good of other copies.
We are created in his image.. He is the image of love.. Love is the glue that holds everything together..
Should make a video follow up for this, involving 'game theory'.
When you create something, it is a part of you. If you spend your time and energy creating a chair, you and your self-governance was a necessary condition to the existence of that chair. If you give that chair to someone else, and they like that chair, you created their happiness in that moment, and own it in a small way. The same applies for why we have children; we are a necessary condition for their entire existence, and making them happy makes us happy. I of course wouldn't call children property in the same sense I call umbrellas or cell-phones property, but I think something is to be said about the link between what makes property and why we value certain other things.
0:23 already learned and laughed my azz off.
Your English is excellent, I wish I could speak another language fluently. I love your analogy between the two things: 1) humans and animals have markedly different levels of emotional capacity and 2) computers of the past and today's supercomputers, have very different levels of computing capacity. You mention that computers were built by someone. Isn't it reasonable then, that humans with their complex emotional system, were also built? Wouldn't it advance science to know who that builder is?
I heard "Why would a vampire...?" and that's really enough reason to watch this channel.
Darwin never used the phrase "Survival of the Fittest". That was coined years later in description of his work on natural selection. Minor thing.The two are synonymous nowadays but I figured I'd mention
but how exactly would you know of the specific persons position at any given time if they also need public resources to try and better the individual(s) they are trying to help?
1. Lots of genes are just what we're left with after eons of evolution. It is possible that on a really basic level, we do nice things because it feels good, and it feels good because that part of us does not distinguish details like species.
2. We do tend to do nice things for species that are closer to us genetically. We are more likely to help mammals than insects or salamanders. So B x R may well be >C, even for other species. If we could measure all the relatedness and benefits...