Scapegoats

For so long I myself have said that the idea of god and religion is just a way for people to come to terms with things they do not understand. That people believe in that, not because they selflessly subdue themselves to a greater power, but because there's something in it for them. What's in it for them? The answer is the same to Dawkins' question in page 193: "What is it about the idea of god that gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment?" The answer to both my question and his are answered on that same page: "It provides a superficially plausible answer to sep and troubling questions about existence." It made me very happy to read that, and see that I haven't been wrong all along.

Another argument I've had for a long time about god and religion, and the reason I choose not to see god as other people do, or express my spirituality differently than other people, is that people like having god to blame him. Generally, when something bad happens, people tend to blame something, and most of the time they're right: "I couldn't make it because of the weather" "I couldn't make it cause my dad never picked me up" "We broke up cause she messed up" "I failed the class cause I didn't sleep well." But the focus isn't that people sometimes do point the finger at the right thing, the focus is that they like doing it, especially when something bad happens to them. How many times have you heard people around you say "Oh God, why?" or "Oh God, why me?" That's people trying to point the finger to god and requesting an explanation to why something bad happened to them. It does feel good, being able to not blame yourself for something you screwed up at. For example if you had an amazing business opportunity, and you lost it, it's easier to go and say "Oh God, why? Why did you take it from me?" rather than accepting that you messed up somewhere in the way and THAT'S why you lost you business opportunity. But that's just escaping. And to me, that's what many people have god for, an escape.

Personal Satisfaction

Is there really any level of altruism in this world? Is any person or animal capable of helping another individual without his/her benefit in mind? Can anyone be truly selfless while helping others? Or is there always something in it for them when they help others?  These questions haven't stopped popping up into my mind as I have been reading The Selfish Gene. I had never really dedicated time to answering those questions, they have never really been present in my life, because honestly they have never been much of a concern to me. Of course hey puzzle me, but it's not a matter of life or death.

Can anything in this world just help for helping, or is there a true benefit in it for helping?

Dawkins attempts to answer all these questions I have during Chapter 10. He presents the reader with real-life scenarios where animals form some sort of alliance, or help each other in some way. He gives the example of the alarm call between beards, where he discusses two possible scenarios: one he calls the cave (Kay-vee) theory, where a bird in a flock sees a predator before any other and even before the predator sees them and is faced with the dilemma of should he fly away avoiding the predator, although he would be in danger by removing himself from the flock, or alerting the whole flock to stay quite so the predator doesn't see any of them. What would be the best choice? This situation is a bit similar to the game prisoner's dilemma. If both the bird and the flock cooperate, most likely is that all the birds will be safe, as if in prisoner's dilemma both would choose to cooperate. The analogy is broken right there though, because if the bird leaves without saying anything, he is not really deflecting and the flock isn't really cooperating. Although the bird could be more benefited by this choice. Why? Because he gets to hide while the flock is still in potential danger. But the potential danger the bird will experience if he leaves is greater, because most likely he will be noticed by the predator and he will be by himself. So ultimately, helping the flock has a greater benefit for him: "From a purely selfish point of view the best policy for the individual who spots the hawk first is to hiss a quick warning to his companions, and so shut them up and reduce the chance that they will be inadvertently summon the hawk into his own vicinity." Right there my questions are starting to be answered, the bird didn't help the flock because he wanted their benefit. He helped them because his benefit would be greater than if he didn't.  

The other theory that Dawkins presents is what he calls "never break ranks." What's this theory? In fact it is very very similar to the cave theory, but instead of alerting the flock to stay quite and wait for the predator to pass, the predator is already incoming and he is presented with the dilemma of should he fly away for protection or alert the whole flock to fly away. Again, if he leaves by himself he increases his potential danger by being alone, but if he stays and says nothing, expecting to be protected by being in a flock, he is still in danger. So again, his best option is to help the whole flock by alerting them so they all fly away. When they all fly away, he is still escaping, but no longer alone, so he isn't in more danger than if he left alone. And yet again, my questions are answered with a no, no we don't help each other just for helping each other, there must be a benefit.

Does the altruist helo the sick person JUST to make him
feel better, or because the altruist himself feels better by
helping the sick person feel better? 

This "do help each other for helping each other" idea takes me back to the prisoner's dilemma game we played in class for experimental points. When I played, the person I wasp playing with (Mateo) and I chose to cooperate in every round. Just like the bird that saw the hawk first would benefit the most by cooperating and alerting the whole flock, Mateo and I benefited the most by always cooperating. Of course, any of us could've decided to deflect in any moment and win 5 points rather than the 3 points for cooperating. The similarity with the birds scenario is striking: if Mateo or I deflected, we were in danger of losing points if the other one also deflected, but also had a greater advantage if the other one cooperated. But instead of risking loosing points, we decided to play it "safe" and we both ended with a relatively high amount of points. We didn't help each other selflessly, we didn't help just because we wanted to help. We cooperated because we saw our "survival" opportunities were higher if we both cooperated than of we betrayed each other.

With Dawkins' examples, and my experience with Mateo, I can actually answer the questions I had in the beginning of the blog with tranquility. We don't help selflessly, there's always some kind of benefit in it: whether it's getting the most money in a business partnership, or the most points in a game, or surviving a hawk attack, or simply personal satisfaction. Or maybe, all of the above options lead to personal satisfaction, and that's why we choose to help other individuals.