Evolution And The Golden Rule

Why I Think It Was Always Be Good Most Often, The Golden Rule and Not "The Platinum"

Consider that in living evolution disease is almost absent. I would consider the golden rule to be an important sign of health because it's more economical in terms of overall power to stay out of trouble than cause it (when this option is available, and evolution would have remembered us, or we wouldn't be here). 5/6 of the time, the heart, the most active muscle, is spent resting, if all our time was spent in overactive living like war we would have used up all our power.

In the Great Courses Series this month (October 2007), volution of behaviour, it says a few strategies emerge in research, most of them simple. "One strategy is, no matter what your competitor does, dishonor it, Always Do Bad. Another simple strategy of this so called is to always cooperate, no matter what. This is Always Do Good no matter what. And Whatever the opponent's move is, return it, Good for Good bad for bad was another strategy that was tried. In 1980 a tournament was held among all the strategies in the Iterated (many move form) and, the winner was Good For Good and Bad for Bad, with a number of years of competitions."

If you consider this a bit more in depth, it seems improbable. If whatever the boss did we do the same, where would we be? If the boss tries to fire us it's a good idea to withold on firing the boss in retort, (if the boss splits the cash 50/50 you got from watching reruns of CMT, so be it the boss may say, if it's in unmarked cash, all the Visa I spend is!) The Theory of Evolution of Behaviour says the most important behaviour is about Hawks and Doves, Carnivours and Herbivours, Bad and Good. Consider a chess competition where I was always brought up on the motif of no Like for Like if the opposition had the advantage and was up in power. The reason is, with an advantage of power, if the side without the advantage just favored a piece for a piece, a move for a move, with all moves the same, eventually the side with advantage of more pieces or resources has more power to win with. This would be why Like for Like is not as much of worth in general as the Always Be Good. Most people aren't the boss just by usual ways of the world (in business like evolution, there were always more of the good Elfs than CEO's) so while the boss may like Like for Like, most people would achieve more with Always Do Good, while patiently defending without overedefence, being worthwhile employees (in whatever sense of the word).

I think the reason Like for Like seemed to win the bout was with all the motifs competing they were all an the same level, sort of like employees going to the dogs with no boss around. Like for Like seems to lack the idea that truth is higher than false, and this way of distinction has been the power of science, and science has won well. If it were Like For Like always, Good would be just as much of worth as bad, and the good of the Always Good motif would be unimportant, and all the religions of the world, the banks, and the charities would be of no valor. Where was this in the 1980 tournament? All the programs were given the same amount of power when they started. In life, this is rare. So I think, if all the programs were given unequal power at the start, the winners would be the Bad somewhat (because bosses are needed, we couldn't live without some pain and labor in life) and mostly Always Be Good in a larger amount, The good would win out more eventually, because life is more about the many employees than the one boss. If it were about the one and gravity mostly we would all just be imploded down to the one dot of heck and we are not. If it's about the many, this is what life is more about. All of our compounds of life and our breath are made in almost all respects of the many of the electrons and protons of thermodynamic stuff of our life.