I'm not saying there's no altruism. I'm just contemplating the possibility that it, as a trait, maybe on its way out from the gene pool. — TheMadFool

Altruism, in the sense of cooperating with and helping others in your tribe would certainly materially benefit the tribe, and thus be a good survival strategy. But today, in our overpopulated world, protecting and sustaining those who cannot contribute or even help themselves is no longer a good survival strategy. The question is whether we should be concerned predominantly about serving the survival imperative, or about appeasing human ethical principles and feelings.

:up:

N/A. The theory of evolution has an overarching principle all life has to conform to - it' a law which basically states that survival is the name of the game. Given this, everything that living organisms do must, one way or another, go towards ensuring survival. Now explain altruism which, in certain respects, is giving the advntage to one's competitor. — TheMadFool

This is an apologist-style justification for self-serving, ignorant and divisive behaviour. If evolution was based on ensuring survival as a priority, then we would not have evolved to lose all our defense structures. That’s not how Darwin’s theory works. ‘Natural selection’ is not a law that cannot be broken or subverted, or that is flawlessly enforced. It’s not a teleology to which we cannot help but conform. It’s a non-conscious process that eliminates ineffective or unsustainable structures and systems, a trial-and-error process aimed (from a particular origin) in a general direction that has nothing at all to do with maximising survival, dominance or proliferation of a species.

The compromises made to our evolutionary defense structures and the steady increase in capacities such as altruism and diversity over millennia suggests that we’re not evolving for survival. We’re evolving to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. And in fact, one can arguably trace this general direction all the way back past the origin of life, into the chemical and physical origins of the universe.

I would just make the observation that perhaps your, and my, perspective may be skewed by that fact that, as I consciously mentioned in the OP, all of us here seem to be mostly highly nerdy, highly educated, and highly intelligent. Thus, we are in the minority.

I think the majority of people achieve social cohesion through being in a "gang" of guys or girls doing guyish and girlish things. As you say this can lead to excluding people who do not win the genetic lottery of having a traditionally "masculine" or "feminine" body.

My own experiences have been quite Darwinian and being masculine, although also a pleasant novelty, has also been an excellent survival strategy (I can hear you rolling your eyes, and yes - us men do love to come back to Darwinian theories - perhaps too much). — BigThoughtDropper

I recognise that my perception of our general capacity as humans seems to be wishful thinking. I’m certainly not expecting to convince everyone to come around to this perspective all at once. But the universe is not the way it is now from a reliance on probability, so I’m quite comfortable striving for a more effective, efficient, sustainable and adaptable minority.

I’ve already argued briefly against survival, dominance and proliferation as the supposed ‘laws’ of evolution above. Note that a focus on physical capacity and quantitative value (size, etc) can be misleading.

Altruism, in the sense of cooperating with and helping others in your tribe would certainly materially benefit the tribe, and thus be a good survival strategy. But today, in our overpopulated world, protecting and sustaining those who cannot contribute or even help themselves is no longer a good survival strategy. The question is whether we should be concerned predominantly about serving the survival imperative, or about appeasing human ethical principles and feelings. — Janus

Yes.
Humanist morality is becoming something that fewer and fewer can afford.

The compromises made to our evolutionary defense structures and the steady increase in capacities such as altruism and diversity over millennia suggests that we’re not evolving for survival. We’re evolving to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

Increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration -- to what end? For their own sake?

Increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration -- to what end? For their own sake? — baker

For the sake of unity - but it’s a case of Achilles and the Tortoise.

Yes, I do.

Manhood is not necessarily a male thing, but whence an example is set regarding men, it ought be in the light of manhood.

We may as well not have the coward play the general, soldier and sacrifice, because then new recruits will get the wrong idea. It's wise to be cowardly sometimes but who's to distinguish that without a good idea of manhood?

What I'm saying is manhood should be taught as is but recognised as is not to womanhood. Masculinity/feminity, basically I have a Taoist view of community command. There need not be a 'man' guide us but definitely masculinity should be understood.

What good serves unity -- if not survival?

.

What good is the losing game of survival? It’s a delusion - you’ll never get out alive, you know. No matter how hard you try, you always die a failure... and don’t think you’re passing on your genes - at best they’ll get half the information.

Unity for the sake of survival is small-time, temporary thinking. You might as well be a rock - at least you’ll exist longer. But unity against overwhelming odds inspires timeless legend. In the collective compassion of a doomed collaboration, survival strategy fades quickly out of focus, and even the so-called ‘enemy’ becomes a partner in the dance. A ‘brotherhood’ that unites in the face of certain death transcends mortality and continues to increase awareness, connection and collaboration long after they’re gone. That’s no coincidence. That recognising this underlying tendency towards unity is so often concealed within the masculine culture of war or sporting competition is endlessly fascinating.

But unity against overwhelming odds inspires timeless legend. — Possibility

Oh. So one should set one's hopes on becoming a legend?

I don't think the teachings of the Buddhy nor Christ are specifically about survival. They are about a lot of things and they were important for us to evolve to where we are now in history. Yet it seems to me all religious teachings could use 21st century update.

Using Sigmund Freud's model of Id-Ego-Superego;
The Id is our survival part
The Superego is our moral part
The Ego is the mediator between the two

Can you say that you are solely on this internet forum for moral reasons?

it seems to me all religious teachings could use 21st century update.

Using Sigmund Freud's model of Id-Ego-Superego;
The Id is our survival part
The Superego is our moral part
The Ego is the mediator between the two — TaySan

Interesting. Do religious teachings need updating-or do you mean a re-imagining-or perhaps they could be circumvented and a more appropriate substitute found? Why choose early 20th century atheist Freud as the vehicle for a spiritual tradition's transition? A Freudian secular, re-imagining of Buddhism? I know... that's not what you said.

No - these are examples of masculine cultural value attributed to what I have argued is an underlying tendency of the universe. Just trying to bring it back around to the topic at hand...but anyway...

If ‘survival’ is the name of the game, what makes anyone think they can win? And why? We make so many compromises in the survival game, so what is it that does survive, and to what extent can we really call it ‘survival’? And even if the aim was just to ‘beat natural selection’, to what end? To have someone say that we were here? That they notice when we’re gone? To die believing that some part of us still exists? How is that any different from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration?

I don't think the teachings of the Buddhy nor Christ are specifically about survival. They are about a lot of things and they were important for us to evolve to where we are now in history. Yet it seems to me all religious teachings could use 21st century update.

Using Sigmund Freud's model of Id-Ego-Superego;
The Id is our survival part
The Superego is our moral part
The Ego is the mediator between the two

Can you say that you are solely on this internet forum for moral reasons? — TaySan

If you’re using Freud, then I’d say you’re a century behind on your updates. As far as I’m aware, the triune brain is an outdated concept, so I can’t say that I subscribe to Freud’s model.

I wouldn’t say that I’m on this forum for moral reasons, no. Nor would I say that I’m here to ‘survive’, either. I’m here to develop a reliable model of truth in which to interact with the world.

I think most people’s current understanding of the teachings of the Buddha and Christ have been badly distorted and misinterpreted for so long that they’re almost unrecognisable. They’re not about survival, and they’re not about morality, either.

I think the 20th century theories are still quite accurate. What is your 21st century update for psycho-analysis then? By the way, I didn't say that the psyche is located in the brain.

Well, a reliable model of truth sounds fair. Or at least a filter for all the lies. That will do.

I'm mostly familiar with the Christ. His teachings seem to contradict an institution like the church. But being a renegade christian is too hard. If you cannot celebrate the rituals together, what is the point? Then you better disidentify.

I find that triune models help me to make sense of reality. Nihilism, unism (dividing by one), dualism are all good but they need something more. Dividing everything by 3 adds some extra value. At least for me.

It's not what I said and I also don't know. I have to think about it. :up:

Until 1958 we educated for independent thinking. That gets you the John Wayne role model. — Athena

In the 1950s we became fascinated with the Victorian-era migrant workers called cowboys, and turned them into heroes of the large and small screens. I know Marion played quite a few of those roles, but it's never seemed to me to be much to aspire to, and I've always been a bit bewildered by the role played by the cowboy in our culture. Bewildered by Marion's role as well, for that matter.

I've wondered why the 1950s are looked upon as a kind of golden era, and think that very few who lived in that time were independent thinkers. It seems to me that people did as much as possible what others were doing, and that any independence in thought, personal appearance and culture was frowned upon. Perhaps that's why many find the ideal of the 1950s so attractive, especially now, when people who get attention are less and less like those we heard of, emulated and saw on TV back then. People who were admired as men and for their manliness were who, then, in realty and not in fantasy? Family men, bread winners, company men, golfers, Charles Atlas, Superman, Gary Cooper in High Noon?

I've always been a bit bewildered by the role played by the cowboy in our culture. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, it's the perfect stylised cartoon of mid-century male identity - a rugged individualist who keeps his mouth shut most of the time, can handle himself in a fight and who opened up his nation with just a dream, his bare hands and a Colt.

I know Marion played quite a few of those roles, but it's never seemed to me to be much to aspire to, and I've always been a bit bewildered by the role played by the cowboy in our culture. — Ciceronianus the White

I think those films were exercises in stylization and were never meant to be taken at face value. The height of that stylization were then the Spaghetti Westerns.

Well, it's the perfect stylised cartoon of mid-century male identity - a rugged individualist who keeps his mouth shut most of the time, can handle himself in a fight and who opened up his nation with just a dream, his bare hands and a Colt. — Tom Storm

Cowboys were drovers, taking cattle from point A to point B. They traveled in groups. They probably weren't paid well, and their lives were likely dreary and monotonous, unless there was a stampede. With the exception of Rawhide, I don't know if any of the old westerns dealt with actual cowboys.
They instead focused on lawmen, gunfighters, bounty hunters, gamblers and such.

As I said, a stylized cartoon... a myth.

The height of that stylization were then the Spaghetti Westerns. — baker

Well said. The Italians, to my eye perfected the Western and at least these 'cowboys' were caked in dirt.

'mercan cowboys were also mostly black or Mexican.

Myth making at work again.

Probably also the case that western movies aren't really about cowboys in general. They are mythic settler stories.

I think those films were exercises in stylization and were never meant to be taken at face value. The height of that stylization were then the Spaghetti Westerns. — baker

Westerns are an excellent example how a genre simply creates it's own separate reality from the actual history. TV and film in Westerns have always just put historical costumes on contemporary people. You can easily notice the differences in Westerns done in the various decades.

Westerns are an integral part of American culture, or at least were once.

the universe is not the way it is now from a reliance on probability, so I’m quite comfortable striving for a more effective, efficient, sustainable and adaptable minority. — Possibility

:up:

Westerns are an integral part of American culture, or at least were once. — ssu

Hollywood (when it existed) shredded history with almost everything it touched - war stories; gangster films, detective stories. In the mid 20th century, most films were artful propaganda pieces demonstrating that crime doesn't pay and that the decent American man will stand up against the bad guy and win. Is it any wonder the latter half of the 20th century was such a disappointment?

mercan cowboys were also mostly black or Mexican.

Myth making at work again. — Banno

Yes. The vaqueros taught the whites how to do it.

In the mid 20th century, most films were artful propaganda pieces — Tom Storm

Did that actually stop?

I think Hollywood still exists. I think this era will pass as did the other times too. From the mass of mediocrity (and hypocrisy) there still will come those pearls people will enjoy even later. Even if they are abhorred by the professional critics in Rotten tomatoes etc. today.