A central tenet of modern behavioral ecology maintains that blood relationship plays a crucial role in comprehending the evolution of social conduct. This is especially so, concerning the personal cost in social behavior, such as altruism and cooperation. However, this was not always the case with early evolutionists, such as Darwin. It troubled Darwin that worker bees sacrificed themselves to protect their hives because altruism did not fit in with his 'survival of the fittest' scenario, especially as, in his view, increased reproduction is the currency of 'natural selection'. According to his theory there was no place for altruism, yet this selflessness among species persisted. This major flaw in his argument nearly sank his whole theory of 'natural selection' because ethical behavior among species had no place in his theory of evolution. Then Darwin put forward an explanation. He hypothesized that since sterile worker bees were helping their blood relatives, especially the queen, natural selection might favor altruism at the level of blood kin.
Just over a hundred years later, biologist William Hamilton endorsed Darwin's idea of natural eugenics, despite it having been largely discredited, as new evolutionary evidence came to light. The subject of altruism among species became of interest to the 'Humanities', in particular politics, philosophy and sociology. Hard science, which was much more comfortable studying impersonal atomic structures than it was researching altruism, which could be very personal, had no interest in concepts about 'good' and 'bad'.
Hamilton took a cold, hard economic approach to explain how natural selection could maximize fitness, while still allowing for the evolution of ethics and altruism. As a graduate at the London School of Economics, Hamilton applied his cost-benefit optimization analysis to Darwin's evolutionary altruism problem. This was a watershed moment for the evolutionary and behavioral sciences.
During 1968, an unsung genius, George Price, came across Hamilton's models on evolutionary kinship and altruism. After reading that such qualities as 'goodness' were no longer exempt from scientific analysis, Price became very depressed. Starting from scratch he studied Hamilton's mathematics and discovered that they were correct and, also, they could be taken further to study the evolution of 'spiteful behavior', as well as that of altruism. From Hamilton's models, Price developed a new concept based on covariance analysis. Using this methodology, Price discovered that when average relatedness within groups is less than the average genetic relatedness within the population, spiteful behavior can evolve.
Hamilton picked up on Price's ideas and in his 1970 paper 'Selfish and Spiteful Behavior in an Evolutionary Model' he considered as to whether harm inflicted upon an organism must inevitably be a by product of adaptations for survival. He asked, what of possible cases where an organism is deliberately harming others without apparent benefit to itself? Such spiteful behavior could be explained as the increase in the chance of an organism's genetic alleles being passed on to the next generations by harming those that are less closely related.
The most disturbing aspect central to Hamilton's selflessness/spite evolutionary model is the idea that we are merely machines, driven by our genes for our genetic survival. That it doesn't matter whether we are altruistic or spiteful, because the ends justifies the means. Such a sociopath approach to evolution flies in the face of the ancient Platonic Science for Ethical Ends and the qualities of: love, justice, beauty, unity, well being etc. However, despite, or because of, his mechanical eugenics for genetic survival, Hamilton became proclaimed as primary theoretical innovator in modern Darwinian biology. The many accolades showered on Hamilton for his work in evolutionary biology are not surprising because it follows a logical progression and outcome in a society obsessed by the fate of entropic extinction required by the dictates of the second law of thermodynamics. According to Hamilton it does not matter what we do in our lives, whether out of spite or out of selflessness. Its all the same to our genes, which are assumed to drive our evolution. However, this overall acceleration toward entropic extinction makes no practical sense as a life-science purpose.
However, not all scientists hold this cold, calculating view of society. In his 'The Biology of Belief' Biologist, Dr Bruce Lipton shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology; that instead DNA is controlled by signals from our environment, including the energetic messages emanating from our positive and negative thoughts. Dr. Lipton's profoundly hopeful synthesis of the latest and best research in cell biology and quantum physics shows major flaws in Hamilton's evolutionary model. According to Lipton, not only do the genes not drive evolution, the nucleus is no longer considered the brain of the cell. The membrane, which processes environmental information that is constantly and continuously reassembled by DNA, is the true brain of the cell. This is being hailed as a breakthrough, showing that our genes and bodies can be changed as we retrain our thinking.
In retrospect, it is clear to see that Hamilton's evolutionary model was based on a flawed understanding of, both DNA and evolution, which is driven by our environment, not our genes. Genetic scientists, since Crick and Watson, have assumed that only the 5% of coded DNA is of any use. Until recently, the remaining 95% has been considered 'Junk DNA'. However, recent, ground-breaking work by Russian biologist Piotr Garjajev and some Russian linguistic experts, concur with a recent theory that suggests the real function of DNA is to act as a 'parasitic inhibitor' and 'regulator' of life on planet Earth. Taking this concept much further, Garjajev posits that, so called junk DNA is actually a computer hologram, based on fractal algorithms that work with laser-type radiations. Simply put, DNA is an extraordinary generator of perceptions, an instrument of virtual reality. As Hamilton suggested, its function is to evolve but not in the competitive way he envisaged.
Garjajev and his research colleagues postulate that 'junk DNA' is in fact a sophisticated fractal-based language, similar to that of holographic images, based on principles of laser radiations of the genetic structures, and which operates together as a quasi-intelligent system. This quasi intelligent system acts as a kind of bio-computer capable of downloading universal evolutionary survival information, based on cooperation, not competition. This takes Hamilton's and Darwin's ideas concerning altruism to a whole new level, in which ethics is not just about protecting close blood kin for evolutionary survival. Ethics, in the sense of the evolutionary process, is about the health and continuance of life within the entire universe.
Chris Degenhardt
Science-Art artist/author 'Feminine Ethics in the New Measure of Humanity' 2008
EzineArticles expert author
Recipient of the 2009 Cockburn Award for upgrading Kantian aesthetics to Kantian ethics.
Po Box 129, Murwillumbah, NSW 2484, Australia
degsart1@bigpond.com
Just over a hundred years later, biologist William Hamilton endorsed Darwin's idea of natural eugenics, despite it having been largely discredited, as new evolutionary evidence came to light. The subject of altruism among species became of interest to the 'Humanities', in particular politics, philosophy and sociology. Hard science, which was much more comfortable studying impersonal atomic structures than it was researching altruism, which could be very personal, had no interest in concepts about 'good' and 'bad'.
Hamilton took a cold, hard economic approach to explain how natural selection could maximize fitness, while still allowing for the evolution of ethics and altruism. As a graduate at the London School of Economics, Hamilton applied his cost-benefit optimization analysis to Darwin's evolutionary altruism problem. This was a watershed moment for the evolutionary and behavioral sciences.
During 1968, an unsung genius, George Price, came across Hamilton's models on evolutionary kinship and altruism. After reading that such qualities as 'goodness' were no longer exempt from scientific analysis, Price became very depressed. Starting from scratch he studied Hamilton's mathematics and discovered that they were correct and, also, they could be taken further to study the evolution of 'spiteful behavior', as well as that of altruism. From Hamilton's models, Price developed a new concept based on covariance analysis. Using this methodology, Price discovered that when average relatedness within groups is less than the average genetic relatedness within the population, spiteful behavior can evolve.
Hamilton picked up on Price's ideas and in his 1970 paper 'Selfish and Spiteful Behavior in an Evolutionary Model' he considered as to whether harm inflicted upon an organism must inevitably be a by product of adaptations for survival. He asked, what of possible cases where an organism is deliberately harming others without apparent benefit to itself? Such spiteful behavior could be explained as the increase in the chance of an organism's genetic alleles being passed on to the next generations by harming those that are less closely related.
The most disturbing aspect central to Hamilton's selflessness/spite evolutionary model is the idea that we are merely machines, driven by our genes for our genetic survival. That it doesn't matter whether we are altruistic or spiteful, because the ends justifies the means. Such a sociopath approach to evolution flies in the face of the ancient Platonic Science for Ethical Ends and the qualities of: love, justice, beauty, unity, well being etc. However, despite, or because of, his mechanical eugenics for genetic survival, Hamilton became proclaimed as primary theoretical innovator in modern Darwinian biology. The many accolades showered on Hamilton for his work in evolutionary biology are not surprising because it follows a logical progression and outcome in a society obsessed by the fate of entropic extinction required by the dictates of the second law of thermodynamics. According to Hamilton it does not matter what we do in our lives, whether out of spite or out of selflessness. Its all the same to our genes, which are assumed to drive our evolution. However, this overall acceleration toward entropic extinction makes no practical sense as a life-science purpose.
However, not all scientists hold this cold, calculating view of society. In his 'The Biology of Belief' Biologist, Dr Bruce Lipton shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology; that instead DNA is controlled by signals from our environment, including the energetic messages emanating from our positive and negative thoughts. Dr. Lipton's profoundly hopeful synthesis of the latest and best research in cell biology and quantum physics shows major flaws in Hamilton's evolutionary model. According to Lipton, not only do the genes not drive evolution, the nucleus is no longer considered the brain of the cell. The membrane, which processes environmental information that is constantly and continuously reassembled by DNA, is the true brain of the cell. This is being hailed as a breakthrough, showing that our genes and bodies can be changed as we retrain our thinking.
In retrospect, it is clear to see that Hamilton's evolutionary model was based on a flawed understanding of, both DNA and evolution, which is driven by our environment, not our genes. Genetic scientists, since Crick and Watson, have assumed that only the 5% of coded DNA is of any use. Until recently, the remaining 95% has been considered 'Junk DNA'. However, recent, ground-breaking work by Russian biologist Piotr Garjajev and some Russian linguistic experts, concur with a recent theory that suggests the real function of DNA is to act as a 'parasitic inhibitor' and 'regulator' of life on planet Earth. Taking this concept much further, Garjajev posits that, so called junk DNA is actually a computer hologram, based on fractal algorithms that work with laser-type radiations. Simply put, DNA is an extraordinary generator of perceptions, an instrument of virtual reality. As Hamilton suggested, its function is to evolve but not in the competitive way he envisaged.
Garjajev and his research colleagues postulate that 'junk DNA' is in fact a sophisticated fractal-based language, similar to that of holographic images, based on principles of laser radiations of the genetic structures, and which operates together as a quasi-intelligent system. This quasi intelligent system acts as a kind of bio-computer capable of downloading universal evolutionary survival information, based on cooperation, not competition. This takes Hamilton's and Darwin's ideas concerning altruism to a whole new level, in which ethics is not just about protecting close blood kin for evolutionary survival. Ethics, in the sense of the evolutionary process, is about the health and continuance of life within the entire universe.
Chris Degenhardt
Science-Art artist/author 'Feminine Ethics in the New Measure of Humanity' 2008
EzineArticles expert author
Recipient of the 2009 Cockburn Award for upgrading Kantian aesthetics to Kantian ethics.
Po Box 129, Murwillumbah, NSW 2484, Australia
degsart1@bigpond.com