Guns, Guns Guns

Probably going to go off on at least one tangent below, to attempt to condense nine hours of lectures on the evolution of co-operation into one post, so you have been warned.


Yes morality is a distinction between right and wrong, but i believe the problem is not in the defining of morality, but the definitions of right and wrong.

Interestingly enough, co-operation is not just required to form at the animal stage, but was required for the evolution from unicellular to multicellular life, so we have evidence of it in the fact that we are actually here at all. There has been research done into the evolution of co-operation, and the evolution of multi cellularity that actually looks at cheating affecting the system as well. to illustrate using the research example that is used as a case study in biological evolution (cant remember names at moment, so generalising bacteria instead of actual species.:

Consider a sterile beaker, filled with pure nutrient broth, and a species of bacteria. this original bacteria free floats in the broth (so called floater), and requires sunlight to digest its food. It tends to live as a true individual. Over time, a new subspecies forms, which is covered in fuzz, and produces a gluish substance ( called fuzzies), which due to the fuzz and the glue making it less dense, resides at the surface. the glue and fuzz cause these fuzzies to stick together, and form a raft, preventing a large portion of light from reaching into the water. eventually, this advantage causes the fuzzies to be pretty much the only bacteria left. Now, sometimes, a new form occurs, which has a wrinkly skin which allows it to increase nutrient intake, and allow the glue and fuzz of other bacteria to stick to it. these were called cheaters. now, these would quickly reproduce as reduced energy expenditure plus increased energy intake allowed faster breeding. eventually, the raft either rips, dropping the cheaters and surroundings to the bottom, or the whole raft would sink. Once sunk, the bacteria would die, leaving any surviving floaters to start the cycle over again.

Now, the scientists found that in the samples shaken to prevent the fluzzy colonies and cheaters from forming, the population density and diversity remained low, compared to the fuzzies and cheaters. the mats that only ripped as opposed to sinking fully had even higher diversity and density to the population.

So, the altruistic behaviour was found to be useful at the individual cell level, and that while it didnt allow for cheaters, individualitic systems also fared very poorly. the altruistic systems had the co-operators performing individually worse than cheaters, but better than the floaters, and the sinking of the mats ensures that a high level of cheaters cant occur in a population, forcing co-operation to be further selected for.

As evolution is now pressing towards maintaining the mat, something interesting happens. slowly, evoulutionary pressusre becomes less on the individual to do well, due to the consequences to the system, so evolution begins to act on the system as a whole, singular individual. essentially, this mat is now a very basic multicellular being.

This scenario is considered one of the likely causes of multicellularity arising, and progressing.

Now, while the conflict between cheaters and altruistic beings doesnt really disappear, the sacrifice made in being altruistic in altruistic societies is more than offset by the advantages of belonging in an altruistic population, regardless of the presence of any cheaters or not. So the genes for altruism are promoted more than the genes for selfishness, and altruism wins out in populations that continue to survive.

Continue this pattern of evolution favouring altruism through increasing levels of individual and societal complexity, and eventually you reach the ideas of morals, as the expressed ideas of altruism versus cheating the system.

So say thanks to altruism and sacrifice for allowing multicellullarity to exist.


Ps. sorry for the wall of text. you think that was bad, that was just the summary of the first weeks lectures. the second week covered co-operation and the evolution of sex, and the third week was co-operation and the evolution of culture and language.

PeterZ wrote:All this is to say, that biology does not select for moral behaviors as we understand such behaviors. Compulsion is hardly a moral trait. Biology would select against traits leading to altruism and sacrifice.

Further responses as time permits.

Spacekiwi wrote:Probably going to go off on at least one tangent below, to attempt to condense nine hours of lectures on the evolution of co-operation into one post, so you have been warned.


snip

Now, while the conflict between cheaters and altruistic beings doesnt really disappear, the sacrifice made in being altruistic in altruistic societies is more than offset by the advantages of belonging in an altruistic population, regardless of the presence of any cheaters or not. So the genes for altruism are promoted more than the genes for selfishness, and altruism wins out in populations that continue to survive.

Continue this pattern of evolution favouring altruism through increasing levels of individual and societal complexity, and eventually you reach the ideas of morals, as the expressed ideas of altruism versus cheating the system.

So say thanks to altruism and sacrifice for allowing multicellullarity to exist.
snip

Excellent example of primitive cooperation. Not really altruism, though. The stickies created conditions that are more advantageous to procreation. Cooperative yes, but hardly altruistic. The cheaters take advantage of the conditions the stickies fostered. Shaking the container reduces the efficacy of the stickies raft and therefore reduced the survival benefit of their adaptation. You assume that the lack of diversity in the bacteria population is determined by the lack of cheaters. I submit that the new environmental conditions (shaking) have reduced the efficacy of the stickies adaptation. Reduced it enough that the advantage of the adaptation is no longer great enough to support cheaters.

No self sacrifice is involved. Furthermore, cheaters are shown to degrade the benefits of cooperation and they require a big enough advantage to exist before they can benefit as free riders.

I would reword this to suggest that with a sufficient surplus of resources their is very little risk to survival in supporting free riders. Absent that surplus free riders are a true risk to survival and cannot be tolerated. True altruism enters the discussion at this point. When survival is truly at risk, does an individual forego resources for another's benefit?

That's the basis of morality. When the moral act risks one's survival, does the individual still perform that act? Yes, the definitions may vary, but that choice doesn't. Whatever we are discussing, we certainly aren't discussing morality if the prime objective of an act is survival.

Because this is so, I doubt that biology/evolution can lead to altruism. The only way genes can communicate between generations is for those genes to procreate. Adaptations that risk survival more often lead to fewer chances to procreate and fewer genes in the following generations. That is the definition of an evolutionary dead end.

Yeah, the shaking was changing the efficacy of the stickies, but it was the scientists who found an overall lack of diversity in the bacteria still extant in the solution. It wasnt just the lack of the cheaters and stickies, but also less diversity with the remaining bacteria. and from what i was told of the experiment, the sahking was apparently short bursts once or twice a day to break any forming mats, so it shouldnt have had too much of an effect on anything but mat formation.


Unfortunately, I will have to go dig back through my notes and stuf to find out the next step in the process regarding multi cellular organisms, which may take until after christmas sorry. I have work and preparing for christmas that has to come first. So i will try and answer the rest of your post when i can, but until then, merry christmas.

PeterZ wrote:Excellent example of primitive cooperation. Not really altruism, though. The stickies created conditions that are more advantageous to procreation. Cooperative yes, but hardly altruistic. The cheaters take advantage of the conditions the stickies fostered. Shaking the container reduces the efficacy of the stickies raft and therefore reduced the survival benefit of their adaptation. You assume that the lack of diversity in the bacteria population is determined by the lack of cheaters. I submit that the new environmental conditions (shaking) have reduced the efficacy of the stickies adaptation. Reduced it enough that the advantage of the adaptation is no longer great enough to support cheaters.

No self sacrifice is involved. Furthermore, cheaters are shown to degrade the benefits of cooperation and they require a big enough advantage to exist before they can benefit as free riders.

I would reword this to suggest that with a sufficient surplus of resources their is very little risk to survival in supporting free riders. Absent that surplus free riders are a true risk to survival and cannot be tolerated. True altruism enters the discussion at this point. When survival is truly at risk, does an individual forego resources for another's benefit?

That's the basis of morality. When the moral act risks one's survival, does the individual still perform that act? Yes, the definitions may vary, but that choice doesn't. Whatever we are discussing, we certainly aren't discussing morality if the prime objective of an act is survival.

Because this is so, I doubt that biology/evolution can lead to altruism. The only way genes can communicate between generations is for those genes to procreate. Adaptations that risk survival more often lead to fewer chances to procreate and fewer genes in the following generations. That is the definition of an evolutionary dead end.

Merry Christmas to you as well, Spacekiwi. I hope you and your family much joy in the new year.

Spacekiwi wrote:Yeah, the shaking was changing the efficacy of the stickies, but it was the scientists who found an overall lack of diversity in the bacteria still extant in the solution. It wasnt just the lack of the cheaters and stickies, but also less diversity with the remaining bacteria. and from what i was told of the experiment, the sahking was apparently short bursts once or twice a day to break any forming mats, so it shouldnt have had too much of an effect on anything but mat formation.


Unfortunately, I will have to go dig back through my notes and stuf to find out the next step in the process regarding multi cellular organisms, which may take until after christmas sorry. I have work and preparing for christmas that has to come first. So i will try and answer the rest of your post when i can, but until then, merry christmas.

PeterZ wrote:Excellent example of primitive cooperation. Not really altruism, though. The stickies created conditions that are more advantageous to procreation. Cooperative yes, but hardly altruistic. The cheaters take advantage of the conditions the stickies fostered. Shaking the container reduces the efficacy of the stickies raft and therefore reduced the survival benefit of their adaptation. You assume that the lack of diversity in the bacteria population is determined by the lack of cheaters. I submit that the new environmental conditions (shaking) have reduced the efficacy of the stickies adaptation. Reduced it enough that the advantage of the adaptation is no longer great enough to support cheaters.

No self sacrifice is involved. Furthermore, cheaters are shown to degrade the benefits of cooperation and they require a big enough advantage to exist before they can benefit as free riders.

I would reword this to suggest that with a sufficient surplus of resources their is very little risk to survival in supporting free riders. Absent that surplus free riders are a true risk to survival and cannot be tolerated. True altruism enters the discussion at this point. When survival is truly at risk, does an individual forego resources for another's benefit?

That's the basis of morality. When the moral act risks one's survival, does the individual still perform that act? Yes, the definitions may vary, but that choice doesn't. Whatever we are discussing, we certainly aren't discussing morality if the prime objective of an act is survival.

Because this is so, I doubt that biology/evolution can lead to altruism. The only way genes can communicate between generations is for those genes to procreate. Adaptations that risk survival more often lead to fewer chances to procreate and fewer genes in the following generations. That is the definition of an evolutionary dead end.

More dirt on Fast and Furious, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/27/atf-agent-sends-shockwaves-across-internet-with-explosive-allegations-about-fast-and-furious-and-brian-terrys-death/, considering the involvement of the CIA in the drug trade to finance operations they don't share with congress. Is it any wonder people think our Government is out of control!

Poker

thinkstoomuch wrote:Here is a link to another Baen Author's views on some of this, from the bar for those who don't read it.

Another 10,000 words or so. Not sure I agree with all of it but it makes good reading.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/ ... n-control/

Enjoy,
T2M

I think I concur with Larry.
I'll add that the turningpoint battle of the Revolution was the Battle of Saratoga, where 300 Civilian Americans were better armed than the standing infantry of the great superpower of the day. 300 'frontiersmen' from Virginia were in the battle with their own rifles good for 300 yards.

On a twenty-first century note Justice Scalia has said in speaking tours anything one man can own and operate. What was that B-movie James Garner did where he had his own restored and operable Sherman? The one where his line to the Depity-Dawg Sheriff - "I do believe I've got ya covered"

I've actually got more pictures that illustrate better than any words.

Picture a beach with a bunch of really attractive Bikini clad women.

Picture the full military combat rifle they've got slung.

IDF Soldiers off duty, trained and instructed to use armed force if a.........situation....develops.

Caliber Limit? oh, maybe 5inch guns.

On the subject of guns, numbers don't lie.

hulagu wrote:I've actually got more pictures that illustrate better than any words.

Picture a beach with a bunch of really attractive Bikini clad women.

Picture the full military combat rifle they've got slung.

IDF Soldiers off duty, trained and instructed to use armed force if a.........situation....develops.

Caliber Limit? oh, maybe 5inch guns.

I've seen that photo. While it's true that IDF personnel take their weapons when on leave in case they ecnounter a terrorist attack, they're not expected to do so when out of uniform; the women in those photos are likely either on a unit "field trip" or else didn't have an appropriate place to store their weapon at home.* On the other hand, while you're more likely to encounter government-issued weapons in a civilian setting in Israel than elsewhere, private gun ownership is quite restricted.

*IDF regs require that if you leave your weapon at home when no-one's there it has to be in a locked container, cabinet, etc. (plus the door has to be locked). When my brother and I were in the army, we didn't have an lockable space in our home; we managed to shock a couple of American guests when they saw us slinging assault rifles when we left for dinner at our aunt's.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Here is a link to another Baen Author's views on some of this, from the bar for those who don't read it.

Another 10,000 words or so. Not sure I agree with all of it but it makes good reading.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/ ... n-control/

Enjoy,
T2M

There are a number of points he makes there that I agree with, but I find it amusing how occasionally supports his argument with things which, if you think about them, actually contradict it

After reading the first page I skipped the next 34 so I might be repeating something. First off in Canada we have the same movies same videogames and while we have a varying level of gun control it has been improved and shifted lately back towards hunters and out of the control of helicopter soccer moms.

Some rules no cartridge rifles of .50 caliber or higher. Except shot guns. Rifles typically are limited to five round magazines. Except .22 rimfire, no limit on magazine size. No fully automatic weapons nor trigger modifications or cranks or the like. For bird hunting shotguns are limited to 3 rounds. Unless hunting bigger game, bear or big cats. Not sure about deer elk or moose?

Licenses. It used to be a license to buy but not own. Then they, the left wingers and centrist Liberals brought in the registry. Which was a giant waste of billions of dollars. The / our Conservatives (I live in conservative country), dismantled for the most part the registry but we tightened up on the licenses. Now one needs a owners license. And a purchasing license and a separate license for handguns, and others for carrying etc... Courses and tests are now carried out for all licenses. Mandatory minimums for gun crimes are also getting established. 1-5 years if you use a gun to commit a crime. Plus whatever else you get for the crime. Storage rules, locked cabinets and safes, ammunition stored away from guns, trigger locks...

No more driving your pickup with a gun rack on the back window. Which was common in the 70's and less in the 80's.

No guns in national nor provincial parks. No carrying a gun while camping, unless in hunting season. You can carry bear spray. Although brown bears or grizzlies are not really a problem. Black bears and mountain lions are, as they will attack you. Joggers and cyclists get killed by mountain lions all the time.

Crossbows are for target practice as are all pistols, no hunting allowed but bows can be used for hunting.

Service weapons have some additional rules but very few people are allowed to carry service weapons. Usually only security police or military. RCMP are considered mostly police although they are also paramilitary.

Anyhow the current government has finally shifted the gun laws away from hunters and lawful persons and towards the criminals however we have a very different gun culture than the USA. A gun is hard to get hard to keep and not something you carry around. It needs to be in a locked container when transporting and is only taken out when you are about to use it or clean it.

Shooting an intruder is slowly shifting away from being a crime, to becoming a self defense issue. Wasn't always so. Carrying a gun around town is forbidden. Guns get seized or you can go to jail. A gun is a privilege not a right, sort of.

On the other hand for the most part people can walk around without ever getting shot or shot at or seeing anyone get shot. More likely to get tasered by police than shot. Although they do get taser happy up here.

Occasionally gangs shoot people but it is rare. Usually only in bad parts of big cities. We still do have our share of nutbars.

Lord Skimper, it appears that Canada is virtually identical to Australia from your description. As I have mentioned earlier in this topic I was initially annoyed about having to surrender some of my guns (well compensated financially), but now accept that an inadequate 18 year old loser will find it harder to get a gun to kill me and mine, so ok. I regret that my descendants won't be able to have teenage years like mine riding a horse while hunting with a rifle and pistol, but they have other interests now anyway. My pickup had a gun rack and was left unlocked when I went into the nearest town.
In the event of a home invasion your guns are now useless, as by the time you unlock your cupboard then the ammo box they are in control. One of my many hobbies is making display swords that are hung off hooks in each bedroom. I don't like fakes so they are hi carbon steel and well ground. I believe that I could be excused for grabbing what was handy to defend myself, particularly as they would be found with my cheapest kitchen knife in their hand.