I can't speak for Dawkins, but this question isn't as tough as it seems.
The unit of evolution is not the individual, its the genes. An alcoholic
can pass on their genes quite well. My mother did. In fact, I've know
alcoholics who were (sadly) very successful at reproduction. The drug can
damage/destroy an individual all it wants, if the individual successfully
passes on its genes, the genes have accomplished their "goal".
>Why? It has to do
>with the tail being such a handicap that the male must be extremely fit
>in his other genes to compensate for the tail increasing his visibility
>to predators.
While I tend to agree with this theory, I'm not so sure it applies to the
case of the alcoholic. By making genes, not the individual, the unit of
evolution, we can answer these "damage to the individual" types of questions
by simply ignoring them.
> Even altruisum is
> performed because it brings more joy to be the giver than whatever is
given
> up.
This one I have to flatly disagree with. Altruisum includes acts such as
self-sacrifice for the good of the group. This is (was) really a tough nut
to crack. How do you explain the voluntary destruction of an individual in
terms of Evolution? It was cases like this that lead to the creation of
Group Theory of Evolution and answers like the one given above about "more
joy". A concept that has proven to be simpler and more fit is, again,
genes. By performing the altruistic act, the individual actually increases
the likelyhood of its genes reproducing! How? Through relatives. This
explains Mothers sacrificing themselves for their childern, for example.
This line of though is well worked out. A clear explaination of it, with
many examples, can be found it the book "The Moral Animal".
Thanks,
Dave Leeper
dleeper@sybase.com
"Semi-Witty Sig Line (SWSL)" - Dave Leeper
--------------
On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Janet Taylor wrote:
> proposes. BUT, Help me with this one, when he comes to behavior that can't
> be explained by the desire of genes or memes to replicate, he dismisses it
> as the "law" of irresistibility". Come on, isn't anyone uncomfortable
with
> such a gaping hole in his logic? Further, let's talk humans, how would
> Dawkins explain humans love of alcohol and drugs, to the point of
> loss/damage of life?
I don't recall the exact source at the moment but there is an
evolutionary explanation for such self-destructive behaviours.
I think the source may have been Desmond Morris.
Let's start with the peacock (bear with me). The peacock's tail by any
stretch of the imagination is an evolutionary handicap however there is a
_sexual_ selection for the male with the largest tail. Why? It has to do
with the tail being such a handicap that the male must be extremely fit
in his other genes to compensate for the tail increasing his visibility
to predators.
Such selection can work in human reproduction in which individuals who
demonstrate self-destructive traits in certain areas may appear to have
compensating strengths in order for them to survive and achieve success.
> My weak, cynical theory (I am truly open to new
> options other than this one) is that "living" creatures act on whatever
> they feel/believe will bring more "pleasure" and less "pain" to their
> existence, and that pleasure and pain can be different for each person
> (which explains why my mother likes cleaning so much!). Even altruisum is
> performed because it brings more joy to be the giver than whatever is
given
> up.
Pleasure and pain were more directly associated with survival when most
of human evolution took place.
Altruism is often a valid strategy in evolutionary terms and is not
necessarily selfless.
Duane Hewitt