What do you think?
Rate this book
賲毓丕丿賱丞 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇: 亘丨孬購 爻亘毓丞 毓賱賲丕亍 毓賳 兀氐賱 丕賱胤賷亘丞
賱胤丕賱賲丕 賰丕賳 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇 賱睾夭賸丕 丨賷賻賾乇 丕賱毓丕賲賱賷賳 賮賷 丕賱亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱鬲胤賵乇賷丞 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 毓賯賵丿 賲賳 丕賱夭賲賳貙 亘賱 賵賰丕賳 鬲丨丿賷賸丕 賱賱廿賳鬲賯丕亍 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 匕丕鬲賴 毓賳丿賲丕 毓賲賱 毓賱賶 氐賷丕睾鬲賴 丿丕乇賵賷賳 賰賳馗乇賷丞 賱賱賲乇賾丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶. 丨賷孬 賷亘丿賵 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇 賱賱賵賴賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賳賯賷囟賸丕 賱賲丕 賷毓賳賷賴 丕賱噩賷賳 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷貙 兀賵 亘賲毓賳賶 丌禺乇貙 賲毓 兀禺匕 丨丿丕孬丞 賲氐胤賱丨 "丕賱噩賷賳 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷" 亘毓賷賳 丕賱廿毓鬲亘丕乇貙 賱賲丕 鬲毓賳賷賴 爻亘丕賰丞購 噩賲賱丞 "丕賱亘賯丕亍 賱賱兀氐賱丨"貙 賮丕賱兀氐賱丨 賵丕賱兀賰孬乇 廿賴鬲賲丕賲賸丕 亘丕賱匕丕鬲貙 毓丕丿丞 賴賵 丕賱賲乇卮丨 賱鬲賲乇賷乇 噩賷賳丕鬲賴貙 兀賲賾丕 丕賱賲購囟丨賷 亘丕賱賳賮爻貙 賮賲賳 丕賱賵丕囟丨 兀賳 賲氐賷乇賴 丕賱夭賵丕賱貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 廿禺鬲賮丕亍 賲丕丿鬲賴 丕賱賵乇丕孬賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿. 廿匕賸丕 賱賲丕匕丕 亘賯賷 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇 賲賵噩賵丿賸丕責 匕賱賰 丕賱丨丕賮夭 丕賱匕賷 賷賯賵丿 賮乇丿賸丕 賱賱鬲囟丨賷丞 亘丨賷丕鬲賴 賱兀噩賱 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳貙 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳 亘卮乇賷賸丕 兀賲 丨賷賵丕賳賸丕 亘噩賴丕夭 毓氐亘賷 亘爻賷胤 賰丕賱賳丨賱. 賱賳 賷丨丕賵賱 "賲毓丕丿賱丞 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇" 丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 毓賱賶 賰賱 賴匕賴 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 賮丨爻亘貙 亘賱 兀賳賴 爻賷賳賯賱賴丕 賱賰 兀賷賴丕 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇 兀賴賲 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱匕賷賳 毓賲賱賵丕 毓賱賷賴丕 禺賱丕賱 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賯乇賳 賵賳氐賮 賲賳 丕賱夭賲賳. 賰賷賮 兀孬賾乇鬲 丌賷丿賷賵賱賵噩賷丕鬲賴賲 賵鬲噩丕乇亘賴賲 丕賱丨賷丕鬲賷丞 毓賱賶 賲丕 氐丕睾賵賴 賲賳 賮乇囟賷丕鬲. 賴賳丕 爻鬲賲鬲夭噩 丕賱賲卮丕毓乇 賵丕賱廿賳丨賷丕夭丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賲毓 氐乇丕賲丞 丕賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱毓賱賲賷貙 賱鬲鬲賲禺囟 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 毓賳 賯氐賾丞 賴賷 賮賷 賲賳鬲賴賶 丕賱噩賲丕賱. 賯氐丞 賲毓丕丿賱丞 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇 爻鬲賰賵賳 賲賳 賮氐賵賱 兀毓賲丿鬲賴丕 毓賱賲丕亍 匕賵賷 禺賱賮賷丕鬲 賮賰乇賷丞 賵爻賷丕爻賷丞 賲鬲亘丕賷賳丞.
292 pages, Paperback
First published August 21, 2006
11 people are currently reading
202 people want to read
About the author
Lee Alan Dugatkin
19听books30听followersBorn in 1962, Lee Alan Dugatkin is a professor and distinguished university scholar in the department of biology at the University of Louisville. His main area of research interest is the evolution of social behavior.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 11, 2022
Is man altruistic or selfish? The anarchist thinks that all men are good, a clearly delusional belief. But it seems ludicrous to say that altruism cannot happen when one sees heroic warriors and laboring mothers. Is there is a solution to the problem of altruism?
Yes, and it is called Hamilton's Rule. An organism will sacrifice itself for others in proportion to its genetic relatedness to the other organism and that other organism's future ability to reproduce. This is why we find parents so "irrationally" loving of their children 鈥� it is not irrational at all. It is a way to help their genes reproduce in the next generation. Hamilton's Rule is also why child abuse is so much more prevalent for adopted children and stepchildren. They are not genetically related to their parents, and therefore their parents have less of an incentive to treat them well.
But Dugatkin does not take his theory to its ultimate implications, a sad commonality among most university academics. If parents help their children more than any other child (no matter how poor and suffering) and we morally allow that, what must we also allow? Think: what groups of people are we related to more closely, other than our children? Our genetic group, i.e. our ethny! Hamilton's Rule shows how it is adaptive to selectively help and favor your ethny over other ethnies. It explains why ethnic conflict cannot be stopped by any propaganda and why ethnic diversity correlates .75 with ethnic conflict internationally (Vanhanen).
If I am a professor, then it is highly likely that I am an atheist. It is highly likely that I believe in evolution, and therefore I should believe in Hamilton's Rule (how evolution works). Therefore, I should believe in the implications of Hamilton's Rule. I should help my children more than strangers' children. But I should also help my genetic group, my ethny, over all others! That does not mean I hurt other ethnies (just as I do not hurt other children), but I should certain favor them over all others. I can do just that if I am part of a "historically disadvantaged group". I can make clubs and celebrate my ethny all day long. But if I am European? Oh no! Watch out! Europeans are forced to be genetically maladaptive in the modern social environment. They cannot help their own and therefore, ceterus paribus, are destroying their own gene pool. This is the rational view to take. Newspeak such as "racism" should not prevent one from preserving one's genome, from being an adaptive biological being. Is wrongthought or genetic suicide worse?
(See Frank Salter's On Genetic Interests for a more comprehensive look at this concept)
Yes, and it is called Hamilton's Rule. An organism will sacrifice itself for others in proportion to its genetic relatedness to the other organism and that other organism's future ability to reproduce. This is why we find parents so "irrationally" loving of their children 鈥� it is not irrational at all. It is a way to help their genes reproduce in the next generation. Hamilton's Rule is also why child abuse is so much more prevalent for adopted children and stepchildren. They are not genetically related to their parents, and therefore their parents have less of an incentive to treat them well.
But Dugatkin does not take his theory to its ultimate implications, a sad commonality among most university academics. If parents help their children more than any other child (no matter how poor and suffering) and we morally allow that, what must we also allow? Think: what groups of people are we related to more closely, other than our children? Our genetic group, i.e. our ethny! Hamilton's Rule shows how it is adaptive to selectively help and favor your ethny over other ethnies. It explains why ethnic conflict cannot be stopped by any propaganda and why ethnic diversity correlates .75 with ethnic conflict internationally (Vanhanen).
If I am a professor, then it is highly likely that I am an atheist. It is highly likely that I believe in evolution, and therefore I should believe in Hamilton's Rule (how evolution works). Therefore, I should believe in the implications of Hamilton's Rule. I should help my children more than strangers' children. But I should also help my genetic group, my ethny, over all others! That does not mean I hurt other ethnies (just as I do not hurt other children), but I should certain favor them over all others. I can do just that if I am part of a "historically disadvantaged group". I can make clubs and celebrate my ethny all day long. But if I am European? Oh no! Watch out! Europeans are forced to be genetically maladaptive in the modern social environment. They cannot help their own and therefore, ceterus paribus, are destroying their own gene pool. This is the rational view to take. Newspeak such as "racism" should not prevent one from preserving one's genome, from being an adaptive biological being. Is wrongthought or genetic suicide worse?
(See Frank Salter's On Genetic Interests for a more comprehensive look at this concept)
June 1, 2022
Refreshingly well explained, there is no evidence of altruism in nature.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 2, 2023
Discusses the historical evolution of the scientific study of altruism, and the key scientists who analyzed it, focusing mainly on how arguments evolved over time.
March 12, 2008
it was ok. pretty much didn't learn anything more than the review - so i'd suggest just reading the review and not worrying about the whole book. oh and it has quite a few typographical errors and i just don't like books with those.
January 8, 2008
It is a book about how scientists in the post-Darwinian world explain altruism or compassion, if you will. Costs, benefits, and kinship all play a part in this phenomenon. I am captivated by its omnipresence in the animal world. Don't let the word 'equation' scare you.
July 26, 2007
Don't read it if you don't like biology...or being bored occasionally.
March 1, 2008
i reviewed this book here:
Read
March 8, 2013Featured on Skeptically Speaking show #202 on March 1, 2013, during an interview with author Lee Alan Dugatkin.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.