TommyP asks: How does Hamilton's Rule (Br - C > 0) of altruism relate to human society? I've heard it said that for me to give my life for a brother, it should actually require 2 brothers (or 8 cousins). What's different about humans that allows us to cheat and give our own life for a single, unrelated life?
I believe the rule you are referring too is stated as such: A Hamilton should never battle a Burr when life is on the line. But I have no idea what that equation you stated has to do with it. As far as cheating, it is unlikely that either of the contestants cheated. But they certanly were selfish. Pfft, getting shot at just for the sake of 'honor.' What a waste, as you mentioned if it had been for two of his brothers, or 8 cousins, or even 4 nephews, then it may have been justified. The rules are slightly more difficult when it comes to women folk, because as Grumpy pointed out in Snow White, they have "wiles, wicked wiles." As a result it typically only takes one mother, or one sister to set the whole thing in motion. As far as unrelated lifes, this typically requires money. See, humans are the only animals that use money, and for enough of it you can get most anyone to do most anything. But back to the brother cousin thing, yes, it is not very worth while to go for a 1:1 exchange.
There is quite a bit of theory behind this, and it is typically called Kin Selection. William Donald Hamilton studied this phenomenon before contracting malaria in Africa while trying to link AIDS to oral polio vaccines, and subsequently dying. Well, that is all for this time, hope you have a large family, just to make it worth while if you ever need to expire for the greater good.
11 comments:
It still leaves me wondering if the perspective of the actor makes any difference. I mean, wouldn't that equation come out even for actor and beneficiary?
Say the value for life (C) and death (B) are equivalent, set at 1.00. So, Br - C > 0 would look like (1.00)r - (1.00) > 0.
I'm not really a whiz at math, but (1.00)((2)(.5)) - (1.00) = 0. In order to get it to be > 0, the actor's level has to be lower than the beneficiary. This just means that there needs to be a modifier on "C", such that it accounts for the mental/social condition of the actor: "o".
This new variable easily handles concepts like depression, optimism, social acceptance or encouragement of self-sacrifice, etc, allowing a simple lowering of the value of an actor's life.
Based on this new equation, depressed people don't only think their lives are worth less, they actually are. Of course, so are optimists. The only people who really win in this situation are the cold, hard, realists.
Such is life - get used to it.
Hamilton's Rule is actually a very subtle conspiracy conceived by some very brilliant evolutionary biologists to give them an advantage over their less enlightened kin in hypothetical fantasy survival scenarios. The true power of Br - C > 0 does not come out until you move beyond cousins into grandmothers. We will see that there are two hidden purposes to Hamilton's Rule: 1. the survival of the clever, and 2. cookies.
Imagine some horrific situation (e.g., velociraptor attack) in which you must choose between saving your cousin (with whom, by Mendel's laws, you share 1/8 of your genes) and your grandmother (with whom you share 1/4 of your genes). Now, it is obvious that you should save your grandmother, unless there are >2 cousins, in which case you would opt for the cousins instead. But since there is only 1 grandmother and 1 cousin, most people will happily sacrifice his or her life to save grandma and leave the cousin to die.
However, the enlightened biologist will expect and observe that this cousin is also quite busy trying to save grandma (whom he is equally related to) at YOUR expense. Because the cousin understands Mendelian genetics but not game theory, he will naively rescue grandma from the velociraptors for you. You should retreat to a safe location and look to your own survial. Thus, his sacrifice saves both grandma (who makes wonderful cookies) and you (who will be able spread your own super-clever genes in the future).
If you had sacrificed yourself, then everyone would have died because your bungling cousin gotten in your way at a crucial moment. If grandma had sacrificed herself, no one could have enjoyed her cookies at Christmas, and everyone would blame you because you should have prevented the whole mess.
Several flaws in your argument tommyp.
First, as we learned from "It's a Wonderful Life" life and death are not equal; life is in fact at least $10,000 better, as the movie teaches; corrected for inflation, one must conclude that life is pretty good.
Second, what is all this blather about actors. With the writers guild on strike the actors are worthless. Which does simplify the math, and it is always better to lose the actor, with the exception of lawyers, who's modifier in your revised equation would be less than zero.
nickg, you provide an excellent example. Perhaps you should be a guest writer sometime (assuming you are not on strike). I would like to use your example to further illustrate the complexities involved with females. If in your example the cousin had been female, you would be obliged to save her, and not grandma, for two reasons.
First, said cousin knows grandmas cookie recipe, and was most likely taught by the master her self.
Second, grandma has lived a good, rich life. Although her passing will be sad, the previously mentioned cousin will bring cookies to the funeral, as they were grandmas favorite. You are then able to enjoy the cookies both at the funeral, and the holidays.
If she was a hot cousin, and you live in the Appalachians, she could also be marriage material. Since she would share 1/2 the genes of potential offspring, you have to sacrifice grandma for all the potential progeny.
Grandma would likely approve, if she was also the product of such a relationship. In that case, you might share lots more than 1/4 of your genes with her anyways, which might complicate matters further.
You'd likely be just as related to your cousin though, maintaining the relatedness all the way around...
I am pretty sure Hamilton's law does not apply to humans in the Appalachian's. For all we know grandma could be the hot cousin. Then where would we be?
Excellent points both of you. TommyP raises an excellent point, but fails to explore its implications. Consider this:
If your family is Appalachian, your grandmother and entire family are inbred, your cousin is hot and you want to marry her, and the velociraptors are attacking, then you need not do anything. Thanks to the recent writer's strike, there are only two possible outcomes, and your actions in either case mean nothing.
The most likely scenario is one where your entire family is rescued in the nick of time by the Fox network and given your own reality show. With the strike on, the network will be looking for anything to put on the air and promote endlessly during football games, and "Hillbillies vs. Dinosaurs!!!" would be at least as good as "American Idol." Even if the writer's strike were not crippling Hollywood, the chances are certain that at least some of your kin would be rescued by the special forces of the Maury Povich show.
In the event that you are not rescued, this is all a moot question. Inbred country hillbillies do not become clever evolutionary biologists, and you would know nothing better than to be loading your musket to shoot them "big lizards" that were eating your entire family when one of them disembowels you with its toenail. Come to think of it, the human race is much better off this way than in the alternative outcome (above), even if it involves your splattery death.
The moral of the story, if science can have a moral, is that cloning and releasing ridiculous numbers of velociraptors can only be good for humanity. Here's why:
1. Shows such as "American Idol" and, ironically, "Are You Smarter Than a 5th-Grader?" would be replaced with semi-scripted reality competitions between inbred yokels and actors in dinosaur suits.
2. If not, then at least some of the inbred fightin' 'n' shootin' hillbillies that keep dreck like "American Idol" and "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" on the air and supplied with contestants would be devoured by velociraptors. Again, humanity wins.
I must now ponder the effects of velociraptors on Nascar.
I mean, would the dinosaurs eat the target audience, and end the sport, or increase the appeal for the TV audience by eating the live spectators.
Or, can they be taught to drive...
But we are getting away from the fundamentals here, which is math. In this case very tricky math. For example, say you have a "half" sister where her mom is your mom's sister. She would then be your 3/4 sister. You would then be obliged to try to save her, as long as there was at least 3/4 of her left.
Indeed, math is the issue. But one digression into the Nascar issue: rather than putting velociraptors in the stands, wouldn't it be more sporting to put them on the track, and replace the cars with bicycles?
I hadn't considered the idea of partial cousins and siblings. Perhaps a coefficient, L, should be appended to the fitness benefit B in the original equation to discount the benefit to your relation by the amount of their body which has moved up the food chain.
Sorry for the confusion, I was not suggesting the raptors be placed anywhere, merely wondering what would be the natural outcome as they integrate into society. I imagine it would be much like that new show Cavemen. Except with no cavemen, no script, no lame attempts at situational comedy, and lots of blood.
nickg, your proposed addition to the formula has mind boggling implications. For example, if we use the letter a, instead of L, and write the equation backwards we get: 0<-Co+bar (including tommyp's suggested "o" modifier). So, It appears that Cotbar leads to zero. I must find this Cotbar.
The clever mathematician would rely on the commutative property of multiplication and rearrange the equation to:
0 < co + bra
When you add "co" to "bra," as any person familiar with English phonetics knows, you get the word "cobra."
This is truly unsettling. Perhaps we should release cobras instead of velociraptors. However, pay close attention to the operator in our new equation. Which way is the alligator eating? Cobra. Since 0 means nothing, we have learned that no alligator can eat Cobra. If that's what the math is telling us, then we should just take cover and wait for G.I. Joe to save us.
Hmmm...
I can't believe I fell for it. This is obviously just clever viral marketing for the new G.I. Joe movie (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/preview/1808512049)
Or perhaps it is a clever way of finding new recruits. The pay can't be any worse than I get now.
Post a Comment