>No need, then, for special mechanisms to explain generosity. An open
>hand to the stranger makes evolutionary as well as moral sense.
>Except, of course, that those two senses are probably, biologically
>speaking, the same thing. But that would be the subject of a
>different article.
Is there some reason to assume that, if humans have evolved to trust each other and co-operate, that such evolution would need to be biological? It seems to me that evolving these traits socially would and does allow humans to adapt to changing conditions in a more timely way.
Humans are neither innately selfish nor innately co-operative. But have the capacity to be either, as might best befit the material circumstances they face. And we adapt to most such circumstances socially, not biologically. By evolving appropriate cultures.
Yet the tone of this story was that the research was testing for biological adaption to co-operate. Which struck me as a bizarre idea. And how would research correct for cultural biases anyhow? Pretty much any humans one might use as test subjects come from a human culture which has shaped their attitudes to co-operation and sharing.
Is there any reason why I should not declare any such research utterly stupid and the researchers who dreamt it up a bunch total and complete idiots?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell tas