Squirrels, Altruism, and Sir Karl Popper

Hey all! Sorry for not writing again for so long... I'm quite questionable when it comes to consistency it seems. Last quarter was academic madness for me since I attempted four classes of all upper divs... I did well in the end, but it didn't leave much time for leisurely goodness, such as writing and what not haha.
Oh yes, I must give credit where credit is due. The last post about Big Brother and the use of stimuli was thought out with my friends Christine and Nitya. We all had a good talk and they helped further ideas/inspiration to write on that, so yes, thank you to them!
Anyways, before I start really discussing for this post, we have to flash back to Fall Quarter... I was enrolled in Life Sciences (LS) 15, which is essentially LS for those that aren't hard-core sciencey yet need to take a science of some sort. My professor was Jay Phelan, and he's quite a smart guy. He studied at UCLA, Harvard, and Yale for Bio I believe, so he totally knew his stuff. Anyways, one of the things that was most intriguing to me at the time was his discussion of altruism.
Altruism is somewhat like the opposite of selfishness. It's hard to pin an exact definition down, but essentially it's doing something completely for another, with no real selfish intentions in mind. Thus, an altruistic action has no intrinsic selfishness/motivation, but is purely for another/something else.
One of the most common examples is Belding's Ground Squirrels. Essentially, if I remember my LS 15 somewhat correctly, these squirrels live out in the prairies and have to keep an eye out for aerial predators such as hawks. What happens is that there is a chance that one of the squirrels will give out a distinct call to let the other squirrels know that a predator is coming. Yet, as a result, 50% of the time the squirrel that called out is the one that gets attacked by the predator. Thus, this act is coined altruistic because one squirrel gives their own life (most of the time) in order to save the other squirrels present.
Well, that would be one way to look at it, but not the commonly accepted way... Professor Phelan presented to us the "selfish gene" approach. For those not familiar with biology, the "selfish gene" approach is essentially that animals are subject to survival of the fittest, which is a measure of reproductive success, and not living itself. Thus, even if one may die, yet its genes are passed down, it is still in the contest. To over simplify, the whole idea is to get as many of your genes passed down as you can, whether it be through having sex with as many mates as possible or by ensuring a healthy life for future offspring... Thus, the squirrel is able to further the chances of its offspring living a healthy life, leading to more babies in the future, by sacrificing itself and giving in to the survival of the fittest.
As first, I was quite hesitant to accept the viewpoint of this second view. What evidence was there really to show that the squirrels just wanted to pass on their own genes and not actually commit an act of altruism? (Ok, that sounds funny in hindsight, since a squirrel may not seem the best indicator of altruism, but it was a naturally occurring thought!) Well, there's a little bit more to when the squirrels will call or not. The thing is, only females that have some form of kin are the ones that will call out. To boil down lots of bio and not really do it justice, lots of animals that are males don't care so much about losing offspring since they have the ability to reproduce continually, whereas females are limited by gestation periods and what not, thus making individual offspring quite valuable. (I highly suggest for us Valley Kids to take some form of bio while in college, since we never got too great of a view in high school haha). And the thing is, the females won't call in every situation. In one experiment, females with some form of kin were transported into a new habitat and assimilated with other Belding's Ground Squirrels. When an aerial predator attacked this group, though, the female would not call. Thus, it seems as if the only times females will call is when they have some form of kin/genetic relationship with the squirrels present. Thus, it seems like this quite a bit more in support for the "selfish gene" theory rather than the existence of altruism...
As the course continued, Professor Phelan elaborated that genes are not only selfish in squirrels, but in all forms of animals. Any act that may appear altruistic on the surface usually has some ulterior, intrinsic motive, whether it be for one's personal gain or for one's offspring, thus contributing further to reproductive success somehow. In fact, when he mentioned all animals, he included humans. Any act humans commit, whether for prestige or personal gain, may appear altruistic yet has some form of ulterior motive.
Honest to goodness, I was curious to hear more since I liked to think that altruism does exist. Thus, I visited his office hours one day, just to try and figure out more to this thing called "altruism." As I asked him to elaborate on all acts being selfish, we proceeded to look at things such as giving to charity, or helping out a friend. From his viewpoint, he saw charity as a possibility for simply title gain. Imagine that you are with a group of people, and then you decide to donate $20. People at this point will think you are kind and generous, and thus more likely to have positive actions in the future, such as may when you need something from them. Or, let's imagine you have a sick friend that you help for the night. After helping them, you now have a favor to hold over their head. Since you helped them, and gave up something relatively small, you should now be able to ask them a favor since you gave them a favor. Thus, things such as charity or helping others can be trickled down to selfish intent.
Ok, writing things this way may portray the wrong idea, so let me just clarify: I really liked, and still like, Professor Phelan. He's a really smart and nice guy who was eager to talk to me about ideas like this. I'm afraid that presenting only this stuff about him may make him seem like some crazy egoist, but that's not really true haha. So yes, he's a good guy and a good teacher. Don't get me wrong!
So in conclusion, I remember asking, "So you don't really believe there's any such thing like altruism that exists?" He replied to the degree of, "No, I don't think so. I mean, you don't see anyone taking a homeless person off the street and giving him food and shelter. It just seems to me that it doesn't exist... Yet, here I am, talking to you, when I'm going to have no further interaction, and thus it wouldn't make sense really either, now would it.." Frankly speaking, what Professor Phelan said does seem to hold some merit. I mean, on initial thought, if someone was truly altruistic, why don't they just give everything away? They could give their house, their money, their possessions, and just everything to someone else. That would be a sign of altruism, yes? Yet, I don't think anyone really does that... Any time an "altruism" act is committed it seems to have some form of net-gain for the actor. Thus, it seems that "altruistic" acts only happen for personal gain and thus aren't truly "altruistic."
It's easy to see why this viewpoint holds so much merit... It just seems to fit so well, and it's quite easy to see from animals that this seems to be the way things truly are. Yet, I don't think life is quite that simple (Kingdom Hearts reference anyone? hahah). First things first, let's look back at the total charity example Professor Phelan mentioned. If someone really did give everything the had away, would that still really be considered "altruistic" by his definition? It would just be so easy to say that he's doing it for prestige, or he's doing it to make a name for himself and thus be remembered in history, thus making the person still be selfish.
It's at this point that one raises the question if there is truly any act that would be considered altruistic. Or, in other words, is there any way that we can prove that humans are not totally selfish? Even with a large number of thought experiments/hypothetical scenarios, it seems like there can always be some point that can be linked back to the person, thus making altruism purely possible to exist, and thus making this "selfish gene" theory impossible to disprove...
At this point, I think it's time again to say hello to our old friend Sir Karl Popper. For those of you that may remember, I talked about Popper and why he favored deduction over induction... Well, anyways, one of Popper's biggest interests was the clarification of what is true science and what is pseudo-science, or what is labelled the Demarcation Problem. Science is something objective and testable, whereas pseudo-science is something that looks like science, yet is not truly science because it is not objectively falsifiable. As for an example, Popper points out Dr. Adler's theory of Selfishness (Well, who would have guessed, eh?). Essentially, Dr. Adler believed that everyone was truly selfish and did things only for themselves (again, this should sound familiar!) Imagine someone is drowning in the river. You have two choices: Jump in and save them, or just pass on. Well, if you jump in, Dr. Adler would say that you're being selfish because you gain prestige and also have the chance for reward. Yet, if you pass them by, you're being selfish because you're just letting them drown. So, no matter what happens, you're selfish and thus all humans have this form of selfishness complex (Again, I bet there's a lot more to it than this, but this is just a general understanding...).
You see, it seems kinda weird to have a science where you can't really disprove anything but can only find examples to further it. In fact, Freud's theories about dreams and sexual behavior also function this way, basically speaking. Part of science is through testing and disproving, for the function of science is to disprove and not prove (this has to do with induction being fallible and deduction not; crazy to think and oversimplified, I know, but it's the basic idea). Thus, when you have a theory that is not able to be disproved, Popper believed that that was not actual science. Thus, any theories that cannot be disproved are considered pseudo-science, for they seem to hold some merit, yet are not truly testable in the same means that actual science is.
Thus, this theory of the "selfish gene" seems to have been presented before and pushed down. The thing is, even if it's not true science, there still may be some merit to the theory since it seems to fit society so well. Even if it's not totally true, or falsifiable and thus probably not the best way to really think, it does appear that selfishness is so true in today's society. I mean, favors are usually talked about ways of getting help later rather than being done just to purely help the person out. Again, I may be looking at this through a universal selfishness complex, but part of it does stand out...
The thing is, as Joey and Dave mentioned, life does not seem to be governed by extremes as simple as this... Let's take two different scenarios; in scenario a, a person mugs and kills a random stranger. In scenario b, a person donates $20 to a local charity. Granted, both of these acts could be linked to selfish ties, yet something would seem horribly strange to give these acts equal weight... I mean, is mugging someone as selfish as donating? I guess one could argue that both are just forms of selfishness, yet I still don't think that would make them equal. If someone argued that all selfish acts are equal, then I think I would be stuck there. Yet, if that is the case, again, I think it would be best to refer back to Popper and classify a theory so extreme as simply pseudo-science. But, in an attempt to give some merit, I would say yes, much of the world is selfish. It's so easy to classify the world that way since so many acts are committed with something in return. Yet, maybe I'm just naive, but I like to think that some acts are committed without an expectation of something in return. The problem with this idea is that you have to measure intentions, which of course is not something measurable... And, even if you could somehow find out someone's intentions, people could argue that the motivations are not only conscious but also subconscious, thus making it possible that everyone is still victim of a universal selfishness complex.
But, if we adapt the first view that not all selfish acts are equal in weight, it seems that acts could be classified on a gradient of selfishness, with one pole representing altruism and the other pole representing selfishness. All acts would fall on this gradient, but depending on where they fall would represent if one act would be more selfish/more altruistic as compared to another. Thus, this view would seem more accurate, since it seems more plausible that if all acts are selfish, how selfish they are and how altruistic they are may vary. It seems like this may be a more accurate way to represent the world, but the question of whether or not an act can be truly altruistic or truly selfish, where the influence of the other is not present, can actually exist. I don't know if it's whether or not I have a pessimistic viewpoint, but it seems much easier to link something as being purely selfish over something being purely altruistic... All in all, though, this may just simply be a problem of viewpoint, whether or not it is actually the case. Of course, I think the view of universal selfishness may be more universal (hence the prominence of the "selfish gene" theory) over the idea of altruism possibly existing... Again, it may just be the way society's current viewpoint is, but nonetheless it is interesting to note...
Hmm... If I had to just sum up everything, I guess it would be important to note that some theories that permeate today are forms of pseudo-science. These theories may seem to fit the world well, but it's questionable as to how far they should be taken since they can't truly be disproved and thus their measure as science should be questioned. Nevertheless, it seems fitting to say that a great deal of the world is selfish, yet to say all selfish acts would be questionable... It may seem more fitting to say that acts may fall on a universal scale, where acts have a certain degree of altruism and a certain degree of selfishness. Yet, if any acts can be fully selfish or fully altruistic is something questionable, and may not even be able to be fully known... So yeah, some food for thought, at the very least, and thank you for reading!