Hacker News Reader

Comment by hairofadog | Hacker News Reader

I was frustrated by an episode of RadioLab recently in which a marine biologist explained why an example of humpback whales saving a seal from orcas wasn’t empathy or altruism but was just an evolutionary urge to save an animal in distress because there was a chance it might be a young member of their own species.

It felt like a textbook example of not being able to see the forest for the trees; he was so focused on showing that the whale’s behavior was determined by biology (and therefore was not an example of altruism) that he forgot all behavior in all animals, including humans, is determined by biology.

View on HN

Who do you think is more successful/ safer: the humpback whale that let’s its kin die, or the one where they stick together against predators?

To generalize, draw on your “experience” (movies, thought experiments) from crime, business, sports, society etc.

‘Altruism’ only appears so on the individual’s level but there’s zero surprise this is an evolutionary advantageous trait from a species perspective, so, frankly, I never understood why we make it out to be that mystery.

I don't think there's any argument that we, along with animals, are genetically programmed to be altruistic towards our kin.

In humans, that genetic programming manifests via feelings of love that make us act accordingly.

Why would it be different for animals?

Altruism is an evolved trait, so. Would you rather save your brother or a stranger? Why do you think is that?

I’m not totally clear on the point you’re making, sorry! But to answer your question, of course I’m partial to my family and people close to me, and I think the reason is that like all other living things I’m programmed to strive for the survival of my own DNA and tribe. That doesn’t mean I don’t think feelings aren’t important or valid—quite the contrary. It just means I don’t think humans are unique in that regard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com