Think in terms of relations. "Kind_er_" implies a relationship, a comparison - "kinder than". Humans are kinder or more social than their immediate species ancestors. Humans are naturally kind_er_ than bourgeois ideologists would have it. Actual human nature is kind_er_ than dreamed of in bourgeois philosophy.
The context is the socialists' debate with social darwinist/bourgeois ideologists on human nature; and the relationship between humans and their pre-human , apelike ancestors.
So, the original humans were "kinder" or more cooperative with each other than their pre-human ancestors , and this bestowed an adaptive advantage relative to which ever species were competing with the humans for that particular ecological niche.
Secondly, humans are naturally more cooperative (kinder; a comparison) than bourgeois individualist/rugged individualist ideologists ( as Shane said, like Ayn Rand) would have it as their basis for justifying capitalist greed, a minority rich elite, individual responsibility for one's poverty and dog-eat-dog capitalist workplace, etc.
Greed is learned ,not inborn. So, we can get rid of greed without genetic engineering. Money getting is not an "instinct" ; pace Keynes.
On the comment on bacteria, the first lifeforms on earth ( which were more elementary than bacteria; I think 3 billion years ago) reproduced by cloning. A first mass extinction or evolution occurred when lifeforms reproducing by sexual union arose largely replacing the first forms ( I think a billion or so years ago). Notice sexual repro is "kinder" and more social than cloning (smile). But the kind_er_ is a statement of a relation , a comparison with the prior lifeforms - "kinder" than the prior lifeforms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction
Charles
Matthias Wasser Chris: Prosocial behavior is as old as bacteria. Prosocial behavior combined with a theory of mind is as old as... fish, maybe? I have no idea, but it would have to be way older than a mere hundred million. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:38 AM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> CB: This part - "we are evolving to become more compassionate and
> collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive." - Alan and Matthias
> correctly criticize as evidencing lack of understanding of evolution.
> The kindness is not "evolving" us now. We already have a natural
> tendency to kindness. We evolved kindness hundreds of thousands of
> years ago and it conferred fitness on us way back when. Kindness is
> human natural from long ago.
>
> This part - "his fellow social scientists are building the case that
> humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing,
> altruistic and compassionate traits." and the reference to vulnerable
> condition of the early humans being overcome by cooperation gets at a
> profound truth , countering social darwinist , bourgeois ideological
> myths about rugged individualism as human nature etc.
>
I'm not sure what it means to say that we have a "natural tendency to kindness." If it means that we have the ability to be kind, then we've always had evidence for that, which being that sometimes people are kind. If it's saying that kindness is natural and viciousness is not, well, that doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence, as evinced by the fact that sometimes people are vicious. Is it proposing a dichotomy between nature and nurture, like, nature is telling you to do one thing but nurture another? That model makes no logical sense.
With cognitive biases you can say that we have a tendency to go in one direction or because you can judge beliefs against external reality: the non-depressed tend to overstate their abilities, &c. What kind of baseline exists for behavior? Behavior can be compared to the evaluator's normative ideals, but what jerk says people are kinder than she'd like them to be?