Darwinian Archaeology / Cultural Evolution

[Piggy]

I don't think it's necessary to say that all altrusitic acts that are common have evolutionary explanations. And if that's what Geoff is saying, then I don't disagree.

That's not what he's saying. This is what he's saying:

It is this anomalous behaviour for which a purely Darwinian explanation is the most difficult and most controversial of all – like the willingness of humans to sacrifice their own lives in defence of a moral conviction or an ideology, or the power and persistence of religious belief. Transmitted cultural information is necessary for the existence of these things, but any Darwinian explanations demand the omnipresence of personal gain as the originating causal factor of all behaviour. Many critics would reject this as ‘biological determinism” and claim that humans are capable of genuine altruism. Humans have both the capacity for reason, and to choose to act morally, based on that reason, even in the total absence of any personal gain whatsoever. Humans therefore have at least the potential for free will. In other words, even if it were metaphysically possible for animals to have free will they would not be able to exploit it because doing so requires the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong (morally) and then take the "right" action even if it conflicts with personal self-interest and therefore evolutionary "fitness". I do not believe there is a valid evolutionary explanation for this.

He is saying that the existence of non-reciprocal, non-kin-based altruism (i.e. "genuine altruism") in humans cannot be explained by Darwinian theory.

Furthermore, he claims that this is so because (a) the existence of ideological or moral ideals requires cultural transmission -- one can only assume that he views cultural transmission as inherently non-Darwinian -- and (b) Darwinian theory necessarily posits "personal gain as the originating causal factor" of selected behavior.

He implies that the existence and exercise of "free will" in humans separates us from other animals by allowing us to act in ways that run counter to evolutionary pressures, which must conform to "evolutionary 'fitness'" as he defines it.

So this is not a case of claiming the obvious -- that evolutionary theory is not applicable as a causal explanation of individual acts.

The claim here is that the existence of non-reciprocal, non-kin-based altruism in humans cannot be accounted for by Darwinian theory because "it conflicts with personal self-interest and therefore evolutionary 'fitness'." Which is, of course, nonsense because it misunderstands the most fundamental mechanisms of Darwinian theory.

What it boils down to is the same old rehashed wrong-headedness about evolutionary theory: Human beings can -- and do -- choose to act against their own self-interest and in ways that jeopardize their potential to reproduce, without any inkling of potential payback or benefit to their direct kin; therefore, human beings have "transcended" evolution and are now acting, in significant ways, independently of it, and this behavior is not explicable in terms of Darwinian theory.

If the conclusion is true, however, it certainly is not demonstrated by the premises, which are riddled with error.