Why survival of the nicest really does make sense
With regard to Jonathan Goodman’s article on how “survival of the nicest” makes no sense when seen in evolutionary terms, one can see the frustration in those who try to seek explanations in terms only of an individual’s genes and consequent behaviour (15 November, p 19).
For most of human history we have lived in small clans or tribes. Within a tribe, close bonding of all the members and a high level of mutual trust has been necessary for the tribe to survive, and this has selected genes for the required behaviours. The real pressure to select for “altruism” has come from competition between tribes. If two similar-sized tribes came to be competing for land, prey or other resources, the tribe that worked most cooperatively would be more effective, and therefore likely to prosper.
Put simply, I don’t have to survive and breed to pass on the selfish genes for altruism. It is enough if my siblings or cousins, or even more distant relatives, carrying mostly these same genes, thrive in my place.
We don't need no education, but we do need jobs
I agree with Annalee Newitz that we live in a great era, when quality education of the highest level can be accessed without physically attending an institution. However, people need jobs, as no other model of earning one’s own means is really available for most of us. This implies that to be truly valuable, these courses must be recognised by employers. Without this, they may not stand the test of time (15 November, p 20).
Are we just a bunch of arrogant apes? (1)
Elle Hunt gives a positive review of Christine Webb’s book The Arrogant Ape, which aims to demolish the myth of human exceptionalism. Yet it is the case, for example, that while we hold people morally accountable for their actions, we don’t do this with other animals. This suggests that human exceptionalism may not be quite the arrogant myth it is claimed to be (15 November, p 25).
Humans are indeed evolved animals and share the needs, emotions, appetites and instincts of other creatures. Morality, however, isn’t an instinct. It is a way of understanding the nature of actions, by which we judge our instincts and whether we should follow them. Yes, humans are animals; problems arise only when we add the fatal words “nothing but”.
Are we just a bunch of arrogant apes? (2)
Christine Webb offers a much-needed challenge to the “God made man in his image” view and its consequences. The myth persists in various forms despite humans continuing the wrecking of the planet and the extinction of its creatures. The Homo sapiens name is richly ironic for what might more accurately be described as the human pest.
Are we just a bunch of arrogant apes? (3)
If I’m not mistaken, we are the fastest, strongest, smartest, most innovative, curious, talented species on the planet. With our incredible minds, we have made supersonic jets and Mars rovers, and harnessed the power of the atom. Meanwhile, chimps are still slinging poop at each other. Show us some respect. Admiration. Awe.
How to know when it's the right time to give up
We can learn much about when to give up from the natural world. When a bee is collecting pollen, there is an optimal time to give up expending increasing amounts of energy, and deliver the pollen to the hive (15 November, p 28).
Charnov’s marginal value theorem states that if there are diminishing returns on effort (which there usually are) then maximising long-term rewards is achieved by quitting when the initially high instantaneous reward rate falls to a point where it equals the long-term reward rate.
The lesson for us is that we should quit struggling with an increasingly unrewarding project when the long-term reward starts to flat-line. This might seem obvious, but what is obvious is not always true, so it is good to have such intuitions confirmed by such a beautiful theorem.
Guerilla approaches to saving the planet
There have been a number of articles about geoengineering as a means of averting catastrophic climate change. It isn’t so much a scientific problem but a political one. All solutions require global cooperation 鈥� something that remains elusive. However, guerrilla approaches can work! For example, we know shrinking icecaps mean less radiation is reflected back. If every roof in the world were painted white, we would go a long way to compensating for the icecap loss. While we wouldn’t get 100 per cent compliance, it is the sort of campaign that could capture the imagination (25 October, p 6).
Observing reality at the quantum scale
Robin Asby misunderstands the essential difference between quantum and classical. In a quantum equivalent of his observation that his cat is sleeping in one of a number of possible places when he gets home, the quantum “cat” is in none of the locations until he observes it (or all of them, depending on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you choose) and the actual location is chosen randomly at the point of measurement (Letters, 11 November).
Swap the cat for an electron and this kind of experimental result, true randomness at the point of measurement, is readily observed. At the quantum scale, reality is just different. There really is a divide between “the world of the very small” and “our everyday world”.
A simple solution to consciousness
With regard to our inability to analyse consciousness, may I offer the following G枚delian observation? If our minds were simple enough to understand, we would be too simple to understand them.
For the record
The answer to the second part of BrainTwister #97 is 67