The Causes of Altruism

  Darwin had trouble explaining altruism. If evolution is only survival of the fittest, why is there any cooperation? Our cells would seem to compete ruthlessly down to one cells or just atoms if there was no cooperation. I think evolution needs a good way to explain love.

  Some say why believe in evolution, if we are just animals and an animal is uncaring, we would just not care about GMC God Mother and College. One of the main advantages could be because of realizing  the advantage of treating the world in a considerate way, like common sense.

  In the origin of life the problem was the life had a real time evolving to larger than the one cells. It took billions of years from the origin as believed to the Cambrian time of larger life. By measure of the computing time life took it must have been a real challenge to make the improvement to higher life, with a small fraction of time after then to now.

  The age before life like fishes was with altruism. If the bacteria in a pond or lake needed a solution to a problem, A sort of early internet! All they had to do was swap chromosomes, and to all go the advantage.  There was reduced competition and this would have increased cooperation.. This was not life competing with life rather life against nature. Life today lives just 5 miles from the shore... 99% of the fish and 3/4 of the people live there, they have since the dawn of the reruns of old AM/FM shows on the wave radio. The life wasn't mostly in competition since there was unlimited shore room. If there was room needed, the cells would have just radiated to the shore nearby, in a slow march of life around the shore for billions of years. Each day as wide as the ocean, as deep as the sea, the life was drained out. The ocean was a sort of life sponge (if the sponges were gone is the ocean any deeper?). No life lived then in the ocean much, like a wet marsh (from the Latin mare sea) and it wasn't bogged down since it was rebuilding up each day. "I've been looking for my dreams, a 100 times today.. I build them up, you knock them down, like they were made of clay.." so goes the old song (actually not billions of years old!).

  The land was also barren since primitive life lacking in advanced defenses like O shielding by the ozone couldn't yet live there due to UV rays. Thus the life was trapped in the narrow zone between land and the vast ocean.

  As time went on, the shore of life extended its reach, till finally all the shore was taken. Life was altruistic up to then because there was no competition and cooperation was better against the sea, a simple strategy of copying was the best by overpowering in numbers, like in creativity, the basic method that's been agreed by those who know for those without wisdom (yet at any rate ah youth!) is just like the celebration of good motifs, if no better, at least the boss won't fire you. This is still the power of life like amoebas in our age, they may not be vast in size, but they are numerous in computing. Even once the shore was closed, the competition would have taken much more time to build up more pressure since life then couldn't travel so far and so the pressure had to react around the shore and return to build up. Closing the shore wouldn't even much have accelerated evolution till later if the shore was thousands of miles around.

 Mind and matter were more unified since life at was at near radius where mass and energy balance, unlike life like us was. This balancing point of mass and energy is why relativity is so great and the waves and particles are balanced at that distance. Where the cosmos balances is why also at larger distance the division of mind and matter would be increased. In quantum physics each particle has a wave as Einstein helped us know, yet at our common room temperature and radius, there can be solids of flow seperate, not always the same.This is why I believe neurons or genes are more permanent, mind controls matter not vice versa so much since mind is more like relativity, and relativity has won well.  This was how the life had interchangeable software, there was as yet no specialization of the division of mind and body. The evolution of the division of mind and body wouldn't have been achieved by slower evolution by the bacteria, once the pressure increased, only then would higher speed evolution have evolved the more advanced systems. Often only more extreme events are the cause of genius.

 Actually the first land life, plants called stromatolites are found in the record of fossils to be Australian.
In the sense of science, this idea of the shore as utopia would predict the coast of a large island would have closed ahead of what would have been a continent and this might seem to say larger life might have started more on an island or a lake than a continent. The problem with this is about how the life would have colonized the island over the vast sea, actually the life of the shore with shallow seas of the continents might have a higher evolution here and so the fish might have evolved here. This might help us predict where the fish first evolved via the fossils if this about altruism is true.
 Altruism wasn't gone. The older life had abundance of resources, this is my simple definition of altruism, glorified sharing of an abundance of resources, and all the laws of people about this are an elaborate method of this (if also balance by competition). Shaw the author would say the great evil was always lack of money. A lot of us are in love with virtue, no doubt...

 Some now believe altruism is not because of gene selfishness, rather it merely increases the chances of survival by increasing the ability to win by competition. The Malthusian problems people seem to be having after they have murdered much of evolution seems to tell us that gene selfishness alone isn't of higher value in evolution. The increased competition for decreased resources caused by overcrowding in turn by overhunting of evolution may cause people such stress that gene selfishness as has been used against evolution isn't of as much value as altruism.

 So I agree that gene selfishness isn't the cause of altruism, rather it's caused by something more like common sense or efficiency. If you have a wonder herb and it's of worth for all your life, and you put it only on your hat, it would be common sense to spread the advantage around. So altruism would be a way of building up our life by efficiency.

 Altruism would be sharing of abundance, this predicts where there is lack of abundance, sharing would be reduced. If there is less to share, there would be reduced sharing. My father would sometimes say would say life is about survival of the fittest, yet who would go to their luxury villa and, relax without stress if possible. For who? When some conservatives claim we were attacked in 9/11 because of our being kind to the poor, blacks, or women, this seems like saying, there's a famine with people's treatment of evolution, and sharing is not of value since if there were a drought or other reduction caused by increased competition for reduced resources, the value of kindness is reduced and this seems so in a way since maintenance of self is necessary to help others. This is being true to the self. However justifications like this are like saying, there's no better way about debt than how people have been. Yet there was in evolution for millions of years. When some say, there's no better way, this often means there is, they just haven't looked far enough to find it, and there would be more wisdom in this. I think the reduction of the "debt famine" may come from the wisdom of reducing the overpopulation, as in evolution. If we don't, the conservatives could say, most people have treated evolution or the world unkindly so most have no legitimate right to all the luxuries and advantages of civilization. This claim can be justified because it would essentially be true, but it would be untrue if we reduced the overcrowding, since the unnatural competition would be reduced. I believe ff we do what's most natural and reduce the overcrowding peacefully, then this "natural" conclusion (a rock is natural too but it's not life) would be revised to what's "most natural", the higher level of civilization.

 A simple idea that altruism is sharing of abundance alone is not enough since abundance isn't a guarantee of value. The rich aren't guaranteed to be good because of wealth alone. There is the belief that heredity is stored environment, and a more recent idea based on other research that says the genes create the environment and a third idea is that it's not what is owned or realized but what we make of it. Other research finds that forgiveness can be synthesized on computer software using the math of evolution of behaviour devised by Von Neeman in the mid 1900's. At first the software has tit for tat, then it moderates to more advanced levels where if the other software makes an error, the competition forgives. Forgiveness seems to fit in with altruism as an abundance of resources as like benefit of the doubt, benefit being from the ancient word meaning good. Sort of like an operating expense of a business. "We have enough, and nobody's perfect, I understand."

If altruism is about abundance, it seems rather about the idea also of memory of surfeit, like charging the battery of business too. Business of any kind needs profit more than loss, of this I believe. And if genes create the environment, all would win always, and be absolute. Therefore I believe the older more established idea of heredity as stored environment to be truer.

Altruism would be about common sense and efficiency since though not perfect it would carry dreams of love from oasis to oasis in the desert. The idea of how the water and abundance would be used when the oasis is reached may be as important as the resources, since a resource is just a blob of energy without refinement! There is no doubt to a considerable level of worth, what we think of love will increase it most of the time somewhat more at any rate. Genes do create the environment, just not as much-as environment! One of the best ways to create a good environment would seem by sharing. History shows there have been bad people in the best of times, and good people in the worst of times. Life has to be for profit, but life has been made of energy.

Micheal Schermer the author says in the evolution of altruism, by way of selfishness, we were out to  convince others of what was essentially the lie that we weren't it it for our own good. The show had to seem to be completely so or we would lose, so with evolution of the good lie repeated so many times, it became true and love evolved. To me love seems like a defense by efficiency, to conserve resources from the inside. It isn't a lie there are good people, they are efficient to achieve more than if they are guilty. To say there's no altruism would be to say there was no surplus for millions of years, there was life 24/7 and rest with conscience of evolution. Actually I think of altruism and survival of the fittest like life and death, and it was a constant balance in our life in evolution.

 In the history of civilizations evidence shows that the abundance of resources correlates to 80 to 90% with what are taken as the value of that culture's ideas over other cultures. These 5 Foundations of History: Water travel, Moderate levels of Competition, Access to Salt, Good Weather, and so on seem to correlate well withl 5 other measures of greatness like Wars Won, Wealth, Culture, as I say here. I'm talking to a lady and I said, you know how comfortable you are tends to influence how good you do in some respects, and she said, I agree!
  This seems to fit altruism to shared energy or resources, they say, the Greeks were great, what was it about the Greeks? Was it inherent wisdom they had? It's the same Greeks today, with overcrowding reducing the level of their culture. Click here for my site about Evolution and Overcrowding.

  How to labor, and to love, this seems the measure of abundance, energy would give both, and a measure of how life is seems to be if we can defend and also be creative in ways that cause good. Even so to say like many may that those in say the 1600's were great, yet someone like "Einstein was bad" in our later times because of resources or the lack of resources of modern life seems like saying, some have luck and others don't and it doesn't matter why. But if Shakespeare was great because of living in times with reduced overcrowding caused by just the luck of the Black Plague at that time in history and Einstein was without this special advantage, then we would be more in control if we know about evolution and reduce the overcrowding based on evolution in order to return to the age when illness was almost absent in living evolution as research has seen. Einstein said the only way to make it to heaven is through suffering, better may be to live in a rich world where silence is more golden.
  Those who have hunted evolution may say like at first, there was no real change in the world by this, yet as I say on my site the collapse of the ancient world seems to have followed the increase of the overcrowding then, and the chance as I say on my site about this seems with a high degree of nonrandomness Click here. Evolution may not show much sign with just a few species going extinct, and while there have been large extinction events before, the evolution of life flows in to heal the wound, but only if it's not damaged too far.

People have 400 "bad genes" not found in evolution, and some say this has been caused by the dilution of the gene pool caused by overcrowding and more people living than before. It was found in early research also that Europeans have one bad gene caused perhaps by the black death of the 13 to 1700's. Other research shows that a mother's behaviour can change her genes and this is passed on from mother to child, and build up over generations, as well as that genetic damage caused by severe depression doesn't reverse. The gene damage itself caused by behaviour has been shown to be reversible by methylation ("methyl, the hypothetical radical of wood spirits, and it's combinations" no I know how by college!). I wonder if more research will find that the main cause of the 400 "bad genes" is because of people living in the dark ages for 40 generations. If the poverty was caused itself by overcrowding then, those people of those times would have been living both with poverty and overcrowding. One cause of the damage might be too much life and abundance in a simple measure, yet, strain like the dark ages may have caused more harm. The overcrowding hasn't been going on much longer than the 1000 year time of the dark ages and history is only 2/3 older without much overpopulation for much of this time.

 I believe that as has been said, adults are no wiser than children, just more cunning. People didn't save themselves from the dark ages by the wisdom of not murdering evolution, nor the cunning they lost by doing this (Carl Sagan says the fall of the ancient world was like a large scale brain reducing surgery of the mind of the ancient world) and thus we might still be living in shacks if the plague hadn't saved the world of the 1600's by luck. If we learn from this mistake, and here in our own day, people are neither wise to evolution  or living in a way their cunning can't outwit because as Von Newman proved, good and evil are more important in evolution than any mere wit, they may hope for luck to save us, but better by far I believe would be to learn from the mistake of the ancient world about good and evil in general, and reduce the overpopulation to restore good to it's real worth, the default setting of evolution for millions of years.

For my complete site about this see the link list upper left of page "Evolution and History."

Click Here  For How we May Reduce Population Density Without Reducing Birthrates using the science of the 2010's or more advanced technology and science like CRISPR.