I think you also have to take into account pack survival, that animals that work in groups, such as humans, wolves and ants are more likely to pass on genes if they cooperate.
+FrozenEternity I actually seen a movie based of that, can't remember what it's called, but the climber that fell is a beast. He fell off the mountain, crashed through the thin ice and his rope got caught. His leg was shattered and pulled himself out of that big ass ditch with nothing but a pickax and hands, dragged himself miles to the camp and was almost left behind because he could barely speak.
Quote from Bernie Sanders: Bernie Sanders on instinct: Allow me to address the anxieties underlying your concerns, rather than try to answer every possible question you might have left unvoiced. First, let us consider the fact that for the first time ever, as a species, immortality is in our reach. This simple fact has far-reaching implications. It requires radical rethinking and revision of our genetic imperatives. It also requires planning and forethought that run in direct opposition to our neural pre-sets. I find it helpful at times like these to remind myself that our true enemy is Instinct. Instinct was our mother when we were an infant species. Instinct coddled us and kept us safe in those hardscrabble years when we hardened our sticks and cooked our first meals above a meager fire and started at the shadows that leapt upon the cavern's walls. But inseparable from Instinct is its dark twin, Superstition. Instinct is inextricably bound to unreasoning impulses, and today we clearly see its true nature. Instinct has just become aware of its irrelevance, and like a cornered beast, it will not go down without a bloody fight. Instinct would inflict a fatal injury on our species. Instinct creates its own oppressors, and bids us rise up against them. Instinct tells us that the unknown is a threat, rather than an opportunity. Instinct slyly and covertly compels us away from change and progress. Instinct, therefore, must be expunged. It must be fought tooth and nail, beginning with the basest of human urges: The urge to reproduce. We should thank our socialists for giving us respite from this overpowering force. They have thrown a switch and exorcised our demons in a single stroke. They have given us the strength we never could have summoned to overcome this compulsion. They have given us purpose. They have turned our eyes toward the stars. Let me assure you that the the day that we have mastered ourselves...the day we can prove we no longer need it, will be nice. And that day of transformation, I have it on good authority, is close at hand. #BernieSanders2016
+DarkB1ueKnight I come from a similar perspective as Sanders he so let me clarify what is meant here. Instincts are not inherently bad, and certain drives are still relevant in keeping us alive, such as the drive to seek food a drink or create social bonds, and also remain productive. Sneezing prevents disease, these are all things which are fine and do not cause problems, simply means for us to keep living. Instinct is problematic when it stagnates us and causes overall problems. For example, we are tribalistic creatures, and create social bonds through either pre-existing familiarity or through mutual interests. People without known shared interests are threats to us and we treat them with distrust. Likewise, in most animals changes in circumstance or location are stressful as it is unexpected or unfamiliar, and this translates into changes in our social systems and conventions, even if the change will make a positive difference, such as gun regulation or universal healthcare. Some may also argue that sexual drive, particularly among teenagers, diverts their attention from things which they can learn to help and develop people, to short-term and ultimately worthless acts which in today's world serves little purpose save for instant gratification. Not against sex but for many teens it is largely their main goal and an overemphasis on sex prevents growth of the person as well as society, not to mention the jealousy and anger born form it. This aspect is more controversial I recognise, however. To summarise: Instinct has kept us alive, but it causes us to fear change, to depersonalise and demonise those not in our social groups, and to divert our attentions away from more important things which enable growth of individual and society, and causes conflict. That is what is meant when people say instinct is an enemy of modern society.
***** knew that may be the case that someone would contest that. Every other modern country in the world has gun regulation. Its not taking your guns away it is making them harder to get by having background checks, such has criminal and mental health records. And yes, I am a statist since I believe a public sector is good to have to some degree. Whats your point? A strong public sector has proven to be safer and more efficient worldwide. Deal with it.
***** Haha love your black/white mentality man. You are an exact example of the tribalist mentality I spoke about. Even with the largest amount of evidence in the world you are not swayed by reason, and any ideology that isn't your own must been an extreme form that is inherently destructive to your way of living. Have fun in your one-dimensional tomb.
It's not selfish to refuse to put your own life in danger to try and save someone. Especially if your pretty sure you'll die in the attempt. There is line between selfishness and stupidity.
+Bret .Maverick Actually even when you risk your life for someone, it is manly because of selfishness... You have a desire to help other people, you help people to fulfil your desire, not exactly for the other person...
Survival is not a conversation that can be standardized into how people ought to be and behave in circumstances. Intelligence says to read the situation first. Trying to help someone out of a single family house fire is WAY different than being by any one of those building coming down in NYC on 9/11/01.
People always forget the third-option; fight, flight, and FREEZE. It is where in danger the individual does nothing and goes into immediate shock (Ex: Deer in headlights, soldiers freeze on battlefield and fail to react to dangers, etc.)
I wouldn't say that was selfish, it's more so thinking of the possible outcome from each situation. You can either give a 10% chance to have both survive, or an 90% chance for one, and a 1% chance for the other. It's not selfishness as much as it is logical thinking, followed by smart decision making. Some scenarios might give more probability of survival by being not selfish, while some might be the opposite. All in all I think it's more so based on intelligent decision, that May or may not be selfish given the specific circumstances.
Fight, Flight, or Freeze. When faced in a situation that you don’t know how to handle your body prepares to fight or to run. But sometimes the body and the brain decide to freeze or hide.
I remember seeing a documentary about those climbers. Yeah the one dude totally broke his leg. The reason they stayed friends, or one of the reasons, is because, had the situation been reversed, the injured guy would have done the same thing. Full out said that.I don't think its selfish to ensure your own survival by your own sweat blood and tears, what I think would be selfish, is if you purposely disabled your competition or sabotaged their survival for your own (unless they are trying to kill you of course). However I think what makes us human, is that we have the ability to die trying to save some one we love. and what I mean by this, is that people can go against their instincts if motivated enough. If they love some one else more then themselves, they will sacrifice themselves to save some one else. And that to me is the most selfless and human thing some one could do.
Great series! I'm loving the videos. The maternal instinct for survival is seldom selfish in that the well-being of that baby becomes more important than that of the mother. Now, obviously that can be attributed to maintaining the species. Does that mean non-mothers and makes must be selfish? I don't think so. Our focus seems to be more often than not on the future and what future people will suffer, so by saving yourself and ensuring your genes fortify the future you're ensuring the betterment of the species over another person. I see it more as a moral dilemma than a question of selfishness.
You do what you can. That is what separates us. You don't need to do a lot. But you go as far as you can to protect others. It is a great power to be able to handle to crises correctly. And with great power, comes great responsibility.
I think survival is inherently selfish. But, social pressures and forethought create a sense of heroism in people. If everyone was out for only themselves, we couldn't survive as a species.
well because human evolution was guided by both competition and cooperation (which is why the ratio of handedness isnt exactly 50-50) egalitarianism might go agaist survival in the context of competition but in the context of cooperation it is a good thing.
Kolin Martz you missed my point.. I will try to make more clear to you, Rome evolved as much as they did not by cooperation but by imposing their rules on everyone else... Reading your first message, clearly I misinterpreted your real message and I sorry for that
Selfish is not a permanent solution as survival technique. Humanity and sharing the needs equally to their own and other living species. Nature gives balanced needs for decades.
It is interesting, from a philosophical perspective. Selfishness is not inherently bad, as some would think. It is a fact - something that everybody must handle on their own in concordance with their consciousness of their own moral beliefs. That requires knowledge about ones instincts and learned responses. I would also go as far as saying that those who claim NOT being selfish, going around picking others for being selfish, usually are more selfish than those they criticize. They are projecting their own traits on others to perceive themselves as "better" than those others - that is psychology.
Great channel! Y'all make what is essentially a giant dump of information really entertaining and easy to follow every time. I don't know if you do topic suggestions, and I know that this channel is relatively new; but could you perhaps do some discussions on stuff like formation of culture... or warfare? Just some personal interests of mine that seem like big topics. Keep it up! :)
I think there is a difference between surviving and thriving. The best example was how Homo Sapiens out competed Homo Neanderthalis. They were better than us in almost every respect, being bigger, stronger and had bigger brains than our ancestors. However it was our ancestors who worked together in larger communities until we forced them out of the territory occupied by them. So being selfish is good for being in a crisis, but that isn't the majority of the time otherwise it wouldn't be a crisis. Being selfless however would then mean that a community survives which the community itself is stronger than any individual.
My adrenaline runs very high I should probably ask my doctor about it but I'm sure it's because I have gone through so much trauma that I enter survival mode fairly easily.
Yates' had to take a gamble... Guarantee both their deaths or take a chance on his friend surviving until he could get the help to save him. Let's be honest... If he honestly meant to or thought he left his friend behind to die, he'd probably have taken a little longer to get the rescue team back...
You are asking if survival is selfish, this is like asking if chickens are eggs. What I mean is, selfishness is a personality fault, a definition that arises from high level thought. Survival is much lower level, you cannot call it selfish. One life is worthless, and totally not the point, which is why we even developed the idea of 'selfish', but one man sacrificing his friend to save mankind, is anything but selfish. Actually, the selfish act is killing yourself to attempt to save your friend which will most likely be in vein. Now there is no one left to continue the human race.
If for every 5 lives saved someone dies then the communities survival is better but not assisting others leads to less danger to yourself but you are less likely to be helped and may be punished this is where laws come in.
Running into a burning building to save someone is altruism. Altruism helps allow species survival. Many social species have altruistic tendencies: Dolphins attacking sharks, ants defending colony, and that a**hole bee that stung me yesterday...
Actually no, every action of us is selfish at some point... Even you entering in a building on fire is selfish, you don't do it for the person, you do to fulfil your desire... And what you said about altruism... altruistic people tend to die, while selfish run survive and procreate...
Human survival is selfish. Survival in itself is selfish. If Darwin's survival of the fittest is to be defined, it is competition. You can clearly see that in your day to day life. You must compete to fit in to society and to be accepted, or you get kicked in the dirt and you die. It's the hard truth.
I wonder if there are any possible scenarios in which "survival of the fittest" would not be the driving force behind life forms on other possible planets. If survival of the fittest is truly a universal aspect of the development of all possible life, does this mean that selfishness will also be a fundamental aspect of life throughout the universe?
If you look at survival this way. A fireman gets trapped with a injured person in a building, The only way to survive is to save ONE of them; What does the fireman do? Option 1: He saves the injured person (because its his job) and sacrifices him self. Option 2: He saves him self but in doing so he can continue doing his work and maybe save hundreds more later on. What would you do?
WinterCraft just saying. Imagine is thers a natual distaster. Every available fireman is needed and saving one person might just not be worth it. (in the long run)
The Stalker no one can. In society we have dedicated police, firemen, emergency so it doesn't help when not many people have good survival skill to help a fellow man or women, due to underskilled in a natural deserter more people will die.
Should have mentioned how altruism evolved because genetic fitness doesn't just apply to individuals, but families and societies as well. Altruistic groups that help each other before themselves do better on the whole than groups where each one tries to be selfish. Even if an individual dies through self-sacrifice, they can still be genetically successful if their actions protected their family/species, especially children. Remember that ultimately, the true test of success in evolutionary terms is reproduction, not survival. All living things die, after all. More attention should be given to the communal aspects of survival rather than just show how it affects individuals.
survival is not just selfish it is also part of the group. because we survived for much of the evolutionary role as a society. you do what you have to survive the healthiest and strongest group together, and they either become what is left or the dominant group. survival is also a numbers game in the greater sense. you being human, animal, or disease may get me but my blood relations however distant may survive. their was a math genius who used probability, and behavior to show the there is no true altruistic behavior it is all just a number game. by the way he went mad trying to disprove his own work. to this day it has not been dis-proven to my knowledge. it was on the show Dark Maters on Discovery Science.
This is an interesting video for me because I always liked apocalypse scenarios (esp. zombies) but my fear is that everyone would turn into war-mongering dickheads that would use bullets, thievery, and selfishness to solve all of their problems AND then go on by trying to justify it as "survival".
You are putting this up very black and white. It's true survival can be selfish, but survival is also a situational thing. Humans are pack animals, we have been since the start pretty much. We did this to survive against predators that were faster and stronger than us. You want modern examples, well a couple extreme ones would be war stories or stories from besieged cities who talked about how they would help each other from day to day.
What are the "tracks" ? Did he make them up or is he referencing something? Survival is the ability to stay alive (not get killed until you get old) and for a species to survive they need to reproduce. I don't this this statement is accurate "members with design flaws appear weak and undesirable and others will not reproduce with them". There are many examples of species members reproducing with other weak and undesirable members. For example: blob fish and angler fish, preying mantis, HUMANS, most spiders, dogs, the list goes on.... Unless you include intelligence as a desirable trait.
Pretty easy to make a case that military service is chosen based on essential survival motives, just like anything else we do. But that's another episode. heh
Evolution is not just about the survival of the infividual. Let's take the man rushing in to help people instead of securing his own safety as an example. Does risking his life go against the survival of the fittest? Not necessarily, if he manage to save people then he has helped securing the survival of the species. And survival is not just about being strong and fast, it is also about gettibg help from others.
The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also had an element of luck at their disposal as well. For example, no matter how selfish, those directly by the blast were incinerated - likely before they even realized what was going on.
selfishness is not a survival instinct, because survival can not be just one individual...without other gene to mix with, there is no road a head, a very dead end.
It's kinda sad to see that humanity is taking steps back in survival. Our whole purpose as a species was to survive, and look at us, we created supermarkets where there's literally rolling chairs for disabled people who eat the damn store. I can't wait until some type of global catastrophe, and see everyone use their kitchen forks as weapons. Too bad I'll probably be dead by then. Damn I wish heaven was real so I can look down and watch the world like reality tv.
+Aloha Snackbar The worst part of it is that the people who have bad genes and who are undesirable are protected by those who have good and desirable genes. The unfit in the world are able to reproduce with those who are genetically more adequate. The massively greedy, un-empathetic, stupid, etc. people are likely to have children- and whether through adoption or procreation, environmentally or genetically, will produce terrible quality offspring.
Ironically, the same instinct to eat plenty of sugary and fatty foods whenever they're available, which helped our ancestors to survive famines and cold winters, is now killing us. It's not that survival is going backwards, it's just that it's not keeping up with modern lifestyles.
Jordan Warner lol i never even thought of that but that's so true. Technology is moving too fast, by the time I'm fucking dead, earth will be some giant ball of Jello or some shit.
You all are stupid in so many levels... we are still animals who fucking said we are better? that is the problem, because we have intelligence you all think we are superior to other animals, this is stupid in plenty of levels... Another thing, actually poor people are more likely to have more kids than the rich... so in a few centuries we will experience a des-evolution, simply because the smarter people and the more fittest are not the one´s having more kids, our artificial environment is making the stupid´s and the weak´s having more kids...
Watch "Naked and Afraid XL" on The Discovery Ch. to see what modern day survival is like...well, sort of like real. One thing I realized is that modern day humans a lot bigger today than 100,000 yrs. ago or so. I'm sure they would take a lot less calories to survive then opposed to today. You won't see the life or death struggle on the program but you do see some of the mental processes that go on.
9 лет назад
It all depends. Are there a sufficient number of other people who is not in danger? Then yes, saving those who are in danger is courageous. But, if you may be the only one (in the immediate area) who can survive, then it would be foolish to try to save others. This I think would be considered the "Vulcan" approach to things off course! From a human perspective, I think many would still attempt to save the others, even if they chances were slim to none.
trace i watch a video from "its okey to be smart" channel and he says its not " the fittest" but its "the fit enough" so what our bodies really doing behind scenes is it fittest or just fit enough?
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins illustrates this dilemma best. Why are we selfless at all in the first place? What reason do we have to help others. Apparently there is a coefficient of relatedness that comes into play that plays as a large factor in determining if an animal will be more likely to perform varying degrees of self sacrificing acts. We are more likely to die saving our sons/daughters than our cousins because we share 50℅ of our DNA with them and only 25℅ with the latter. We even can extend this to people who look more and less like us which fools the brain into thinking we are more related...relatively. What I wonder is if ideologies play a role too. Maybe political factions and religions can supersede some of these in the same way because genes are no longer the only way we continue living on in the next generation but also through ideas since we have these larger brains to pass them on with.
I tell my wife that I would not blame her if in a choice of either our son or me, that in a fire or whatever critical situation, that she would choose to save our son other than me, if it had to be one or the other....
Maybe, just maybe, the encouragement and appreciation we have for heroism is one way to push the 'Brave' population into deadly scenarios to thin out such genes... While the cowards, who hang back, are allowed to reproduce. Survival before valor.
humans the only species on this planet that knowingly weakens itself by dragging the weak (aka stupid) along inteligence has become our most important tool of survival and advance as a species
When he said survival of the fittest by Darwin. Darwin Award- "They recognize individuals who have supposedly contributed to human evolution by selecting themselves out of the gene pool via death or sterilization by their own actions." They being who ever gives out the award to the people who died during their stupid acts xD
Survival is not about selfish-ness, is about logic. That's why we consider human beings the most intelligent species on Earth: we are highly logic. We have survived for hundreds of thousands of years, even before we were Homo sapiens, by joining groups and dividing tasks between each member. When shit hits the fan, we've learned that the most logic reaction is to choose between fighting against the source of danger and helping each other (if we have the possibility to do so) or running away to keep ourselves alive.
Junior You're wrong, it is logical. Just think for a second about all the energy a couple of parents has to invest when the woman gets pregnant. On top of that, you have to add the fact that, in the wild, delivering a baby is really tough and both the mother and the child could die in the process due to complications. Also, child death rate would be awfully high without modern medicine. We care so much about our offspring because parents who invest a lot of resources to ensure their children's well-being are more likely to spread their genes through their lineage. I don't even answer to the second part of your comment because it really makes no sense.
TheXCross You did not understood me, today is totally illogical.. We today will lost a lot more resources if we die, then letting the child die... In the jungle I can get it. but today is illogical, damm man, today we are giving free abortions... "And if you could sacrifice yourself for saving 50 children in some place of the world, would you do? highly unlikely, and even if you say yes... ISIS is still problem, you wth some weapons could kill what? 10? You would probably save a lot of lives more important then yours... This is logic..." Yep that is logic, why don't you go fight a war and maybe die but save a lot of people ? you are being selfish by just doing that, you would sacrifice one life and save dozens...
Junior Saving someone that's not part of your "group" is illogical. "Why should I risk my life to save someone I don't even know? What do I get out of that?". The risk is a lot higher than any possible rewards, if there are. This is also the reason why people tend to be distrustful towards people they don't recognize as part of their own community, thus racism and xenophobia are born.
TheXCross That depends of your line of thinking... You did not answered my other point but I will continue debating this one... It is logical you give more importance to your "group" then to other people? *1* If it is, congratulations, you are a racist and or selfish,if it were americans(or whatever) getting killed, you probably would take some action. *2* and if you think every life is important, then you are an hypocrite, because you are not there fighting, why you are an hypocrite? see reason 1... so now do you see?
Junior I'm not talking about morals, I'm talking about survival logic, that has been selected by evolution. You're failing to understand the main point of this scientific topic.
you need to research richard dawkins' book the selfish gene, it explains how selfless behaviors are self-serving to the genes, although not to the individuals
I don't like the way you use the word 'Plan' when referring to the theory of evolution. Evolution is a moment by moment consequence of many factors which results in an observable change in genotype and phenotype. A plan requires forethought and evolution requires no such thing to succeed, and also to fail!
Yep its crazy I was saying this thatz why I forgave my enemies. And I forgave people in general. People are just trying to survive. An when they lash out and when they do hurtful things that they way of survival. Don't fear but try to understand the person 💯
are humnas naturally getting prettier abd bigger sex organs(butts boobs penises) over time? think about it. the reasons peacocks have such huge feathers is because the ones with bigger feathers were the ones who got to reproduce and the smaller feathered ones eventually died out. will humans gain more desired sexual traits since the one with the more desired sexual traits are the one reproducing?
That's not the point testtube. It becomes to much, that's the point. The same as with influence and power, it goes crazy. Look at a chinese emperor or an egyptian king what they spend on their private afterlife. Perverted power. The same goes for selfishness. In the Ms Estonia ship disaster, people stole lifejackets from other people instead of looking for one themselves.
Being brave is something that was once necessary to save woman and children when populations were much smaller. One man could impregnante 30 woman by himself and repopulate. Today letting woman and children go first is simply out of manners and kindness and you have absolutely no obligation to save them. Their completely disposable and are no more valuable than you. With that being said you should at least try to save children.
lets be real majority of people are selfish and want a lot of self gain and I don't have too much against that lets say you're given 1000euros and you were given 2 options give half of it to you're best friend or keep it all to you're self I am pretty sure almost everyone would keep all of it for themselves I know this doesn't do much with topic of survival but what I mean with this is that people just want to succeed or gain whatever they want to succeed or gain in
