Ammonite I don't think I misunderstand natural selection and 'fitness' at all!

So are you seriously going to look me in the face and argue that a lion that feels empathy for its prey and is therefore reluctant to kill it is equally fit as a lion that feels no empathy and kills without mercy or hestiation?

Some how I don't think such a notion would withstand scientific scrutiny.

Put humans in a situation where there are to many mouths and not enough food and the exact same principle will hold.

In some circumstances cooperation and sharing will simply result in everyone taking longer to starve to death.

Let's look at lions from a perspective other than predator/prey relationships.

What about within a pride and between prides?

Within a pride there may be much cooperation in order to ensure mutual survival.

But relationships between prides is rarely much different to the predator/prey relationship.

If 2-3 seperate prides of lions decide to show each other compassion and share a kill between all of them, then none of them will ever get sufficient to eat and none will survive long term.

Mr Windy

I agree completely. Part of a pride or pack, animals cooperate, this can be extended to animals with whom we share our lives, having been protected by my German Shepherd from a couple of yobbos a number of years ago.

Greg

I disagree with you completely and fundamentally. Self interest only works in the short term. To our possible demise.

@GregaryB: I don't think I misunderstand natural selection and 'fitness' at all!

There was an book written about your particular miss understanding, written because it was very common at one time. Its called The Selfish Gene, by none other than Richard Dawkins. Yabby mentioned it above. I was going to suggest you try and find a copy, but it turns out I can make it easier than that:

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/selfishgene-dowkins.pdf

@GregaryB: So are you seriously going to look me in the face and argue that a lion that feels empathy for its prey and is therefore reluctant to kill it is equally fit as a lion that feels no empathy and kills without mercy or hestiation?

It is possible. The world is never as simple as you might think.

Imagine a Lioness with a super strong maternal instinct. That would serve her well normally, but lets say her pride collapses, leaving her with no opportunity to breed. Out of desperation to fulfil an urge that has no outlet she might adopt the young of one of her normal prey as a surrogate cub. The thing is, there are documented instances of lionesses doing just this.

I don't really know the real reason she did it of course, but this sort of thing is not uncommon. Instincts and behaviours that enhance fitness in one environment can often be maladaptive in another. It is no different to a a moth being drawn to a flame. Notice how the size of the brain makes no difference to the outcome. Instincts always win, even when they aren't appropriate.

Humans that breeding themselves into an inescapable corner is an example of the same thing, and isn't uncommon. Our recent history is replete with examples resource exhaustion, ecosystem collapse, starvation, and going back to our very close cousins - extinction. Why anybody imagines we will behave any different from our forefathers of 50 or 100 generations ago is a mystery to me.

Dear rstuart,

Population growth represents one of the most critical social problems in the modern world with potential consequences in terms of sheer human misery that are almost unimaginable. How many million die every year from the effects of starvation, and at least many more are undernourished and malnourished and much of the human population lives in conditions of poverty or hardship - and yet billions more births will occur before the end of the century and these will take place in the world's poorest countries. Even for the richer nations, population growth presents problems. No natural environment can withstand an infinite increase in the animal or plant population that it supports. It is questionable whether the planet can continue to provide the food and other raw materials that huge increases in the human population will require, or whether it can tolerate the pollution caused by ever expanding industrial production.

As Tor Hundloe tell us in his book, "From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability,":

"Humans have the intelligence, the tools, and the natural resources to provide for a good, sustainable life as long as there are not so many humans that we exceed the globe's carrying capacity. All the evidence suggests that we must turn around population growth and aim for a much smaller population than we have today (9 billion and growing)."

Mr Windy / Gregaryb / boylesy are one and the same person......so I am not clear how you can agree with Mr Windy but disagree with Greg.

We are talking about the behavior of Lebs, skips and Somalians here in the context of a break down of law and order and food shortages.

It would be equivalent to the merciless behavioral relationship between different prides of lions.

Only works in the short term.......well individual lions only ever motivated by short term gains as are a great many humans. Evolution and natural selection is only ever achieves the short term survival of any adequately fit individual long enough to inseminate a female. Beyond that the individual is irrelevant.