David Barash asks if we should be teaching evolutionary psychology.

Answer: yes, but carefully:

What to do? One possibility — unacceptable, I would hope, to most educators — would be to refrain altogether from teaching such dangerous truths. Teacher, leave them kids alone! Preferable, I submit, is to structure the teaching of sociobiology along the lines of sex education: Teach what we know, but do so in age-appropriate stages. Just as we would not bombard kindergartners with the details of condom use, we probably ought not instruct preteens in the finer points of sociobiology, especially since many of those are hidden even to those expected to do the teaching. For one thing, a deeper grasp of the evolutionary biology of altruism reveals that even though selfishness may well underlie much of our behavior, it is often achieved, paradoxically, via acts of altruism, as when individuals behave in a manner that enhances the ultimate success of genetic relatives. Here, selfishness at the level of genes produces altruism at the level of bodies.

...Beyond the question of what our genes may be up to and the extent to which we are independent of them, those expected to ponder the biology of their own "natural" inclinations ought also to be warned (more than once) about the "naturalistic fallacy," the presumption that things natural are, ipso facto, good. I'd even suggest pushing this further, and that the real test of our humanity might be whether we are willing, at least on occasion, to say no to our "natural" inclinations, thereby refusing go along with our selfish genes. To my knowledge, no other animal species is capable of doing that. More than any other living things, we are characterized by an almost unlimited repertoire; human beings are of the wilderness, with beasts inside, but much of the beastliness involves gene-based altruism no less than selfishness.

Barash needs to dig deeper into the emergence of ethics from competitive origins:

Scientifically, such "detection" works. Ethically, however, it stinks: If the fundamental nature of living things — human beings included — is to joust endlessly with each other, each seeking to get ahead, then we're all mired in selfishness — a dark vision indeed.

If we play "Prisoner's Dilemma" thousands or millions of times (as happens with "selfish gene" competition) strategies that combine cooperation with competition handily defeat the competition only strategies.

Just as nature is said to abhor a vacuum, it abhors true altruism. Society, on the other hand, adores it.

"Altruism" -- Yawn. He then proceeds with a shallow reading of Freud and Nietzche. Altruism has received far more sophisticated treatments than this. Hvaing concern for my fellow man, acting (on appropriate occasions) "as if" I am altruistic is in my selfish interests.

Yup, film at 11.

What the study of evolution teaches is the need to mix cooperation and competition. The cells in our bodies "cooperate" to a breathtaking extent if we allow ourselves to truly take a "selfish gene" perspective. The members of a Navy SEAL team cooperate to a very great extent subordinating the individual fighter to the good of the team thereby allowing the team to compete with lethal efficiency against less cohesive militias and the like.

Cancer is the sign that some of our own tissues rebel against us seeking to replicate for their own benefit. But the "joke" is in the tumor since killing the organism also kills the cancer.

= = =

To call this a paradox demonstrates the author not fully grasp how selfish genes work:

Recall the paradox that genetic selfishness is often promoted via altruism toward other individuals insofar as these recipients are likely to carry identical copies of the genes in question.

You know, I've been reading too much discussion about "amoral familism" to think that describing the result as "altruism" is too much wishful thinking.

For another looming hazard, just imagine what would happen if the entire population were actually taught 1) economics and 2) statistics. I think economic collapse would be the most likely outcome.

For another looming hazard, just imagine what would happen if the entire population were actually taught 1) economics and 2) statistics. I think economic collapse would be the most likely outcome.

Care to elaborate on that?

I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the consequences of nullifying every economic decision that's based on the assumption that "most people will do something different from me" could be interesting, to say the least.

Jay: I realize you have already said that you were talking "tongue in cheek," but I'm still puzzled. Aren't most economic decisions we make completely without regard to what other people are doing? I don't make my spending decisions on that basis--in fact, I assume that usually there's going to be lots of people doing the same (and, in fact, that's part of the reason it's cheap enough to do it).

Maybe if everyone learned economics, fewer people would think price controls and centralized government planning were great ideas.

On the other hand, maybe everyone would just be 'dismal.'

Free Will

"I'd even suggest pushing this further, and that the real test of our humanity might be whether we are willing, at least on occasion, to say no to our "natural" inclinations, thereby refusing go along with our selfish genes."

and why would we be 'willing' to say 'no?' Isn't that just a natural outcome of our genes and all the natural laws acting as they normally do?

Do we have free will? Or is everything the inevitable result of everything that came before?

I think we do indeed have free will, and that our free will is an "uncaused cause," and that we are not merely observers watching things unfold. If you don't think so, well, obviously I only think that because it's inevitable--and so is it the case that you think different.

Determinism, Compatibilism, and Incompatibilism, oh my!

And where shall we have lunch? It was decided before the dawn of time! Or at least at the big bang.