Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

On Climate, Business as Usual

The Divide

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Arts and Culture

A ‘Lack of Completely Selfish Societies’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 25, 2012
Princeton University Press

One of the fundamental questions in modern economics is whether humans act out of self-interest or they’re motivated by something else. Two professionals in the field—Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis—suggest that a cooperative drive arising from natural selection has more to do with human behavior than Milton Friedman would have us believe. UC Davis professor Peter Richerson reviews their new book, “A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution,” in Nature magazine.

Surprisingly, the role empathy plays in getting groups to solve problems does not figure into Richerson’s brief discussion of Bowles and Gintis’ ideas. This is significant because, as many psychologists would likely agree, empathy must be a driver of human cooperation. —ARK

Peter Richerson in Nature:

Humans are capable of remarkable feats of cooperation. Warfare is an extreme example: when under attack, hundreds or even millions of people might join forces to provide a mutual defence. In A Cooperative Species, economists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis update their ideas on the evolutionary origins of altruism. Containing new data and analysis, their book is a sustained and detailed argument for how genes and culture have together shaped our ability to cooperate.

Modern hunting and gathering societies offer clues as to how human cooperation evolved. They are typically organized into tribes of a few hundred to a few thousand people. Each tribe is composed of smaller bands of around 75 individuals united by bonds of kinship and friendship. Formalized leadership is often weak, but cooperation is buttressed by social norms and institutions, such as marriage, kinship and property rights. The tribal scale of social organization probably evolved by the late Pleistocene (126,000–11,700 years ago), or perhaps much earlier.

Read more

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By balkas, February 28, 2012 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

shen, dear,
i think you have not understood anything i said—probably deliberately. you’re just
putting your thoughts/explanations in my mouth.
i am not saying anything you are saying i am saying. so, as far as i am concerned,
we’ll just part forever if you persist in personal attacks, warping everything i say
avoid quoting what i say, etc. and, of course, yuo are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in doing
that because you have been educated to behave that way.
in other words, that’s all you know!
there is no ruse, trick, prestidigation that escapes my notice. no one, can fool me!

Report this

By balkas, February 28, 2012 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

shen, dear,
i have never said nor ever intentionally implied that it is god who is killing or murdering people by
whatever weapons and under whatever circumstances and for whatever causes or reasons.
such behaviors only prove existence of biblical, torahic, mohammedan, buddhist, and hindi gods. and
they exists only inside heads of the followers of the mohammedan, christian, buddhist, hindu, and
mosheic ideologies or sciences.
and i often stress that nature or nature/god made us. 
nevertheless, both existing only in my head. [btw, all labels exist only in our collective heads] and i
consider both labels undefinable and thus avoid to define god and nature.
let each person grapple best s/he can with the meanings of both terms. i am an ultra egalitarian; thus,
each human being has an inalienable right to define god or any other phenomenon as s/he sees fit.
i suggest that a person stop identifying their meanings of a label with another person’s meanings of
that label. the meanings of any label are never identical in all aspects for any two people who use that
eg, let’s take the label “god”? first of all the meanings of god is in people’s head. and if any two people
wld discuss or define/explain their gods long enough, at one point of time they will diverge, disagree
or even wind up hating one another because their definitions had not matched exactly in all respects.
and yet, never ever caught on that they were both right. and could have parted as friends if they knew
the truth that each person is right—according what s/he knows or thinks s/he knows—in
defining/explaining any idea whatever.
even palin, gingrich, obama, bachmann, ron paul, ahmadinejad
are always right according what they know. thanks

Report this

By balkas, February 28, 2012 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

shen, dear,
“consider the possibility that we are devolving” is not “believing” it. why note
accurately/adequately quote what people say?
you also ignored my assertion that we are ok and that god/nature did best it could for us and
that there is no more to be had.

talk about butchery of or night of the knives for s’mone who writes from an egalitarian point of
view and in favor of the serfs or when an egalitarian/humanist posits nonsupremacistic ideas and

so, are you trying to tell us we are not ok? not educated enough, not rich enough, not wearing
the right clothes, not talented/noble/cultured/fit to govern, enough, etc.
and that nature or god/nature makes junk and creme de la creme? i do not expect you’d dare say
that explicitly.
but you do imply it possibly all you posts. thanks, bozhidar balkas, planet earth

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 28, 2012 at 5:41 am Link to this comment

Bacteria could do the job a lot more quickly and efficiently.  They’re probably thinking about it, too, in their way.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 27, 2012 at 9:42 pm Link to this comment

If you want to believe, balkas dear heart, that humans are devolving
then you certainly may, though it is merely a personal opinion not
based on any scientific fact.  For believers, it might just be that the
deity (God), you know, the all powerful, omniscient, omnipotent,
omni this omni that, is riding those bombs that are killing women
and children.  I mean the world has to eliminate humanity some
way, right?  And you cannot doubt that the God of the OT would
not hesitate to ride bombs.  What is more efficient than bombs? 
Well, chemical or biological means, yeah, maybe more efficient,
but seemingly not as dramatic as bombs and blowing up flesh. 
I think you’d better pray that God (which ever one is in charge
at the time, that is) guides the scientists then the world can be
finished with us, no?  Sooner than later!  And by the way, how
do you know what God intended humans’ nature to be like? 
You are just making up a lot of stuff.

Golly, balkas, you are a silly nihilist and dehumanize humans right when
they were just getting started being human!  Where is your propriety? 
Things take time, dear heart.  Seems rather than tearing humans down,
you might find ways to ennoble them.  Instead of complaining or
protesting in a childish fashion, pray that God hurries it all up and we
are devolved to no longer even being here.  Won’t that make you happy,
and right!?  Whatever is God’s plan, we have to go with it, don’t we?  Do
we really have a choice?

Report this

By balkas, February 27, 2012 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

l’ve just learned on the real news network on you
tube that 49% of people between ages of 18-29
do not consider socialism evil.
if that is true, then, me saying that 90% consider
socialism godless, is in error.
i really guided myself by the fact that in ‘08 98% of
americans voted fro asocialists. thanks

Report this

By balkas, February 27, 2012 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

i meant to say “in much of the world”. even tho i reread the post more than once, i still did not note the word “word”. i am also,
due my age, etc., very forgetful!
bit more about research? for one thing, let’s note, that it is an overgeneralized label; thus, it represent all kinds of research.
it may even include experimenting with lipsticks to see which ones women would like the most.
i don’t think i need to give readers more examples in order that they get the message.
so, i do not say that All research one percent approves of and finances/controls is vitiating, or wrong in some ways.
regarding the specific research how the human nervous system functions in a specific situation, say, in rewarding people with
more money than others, i welcome such a study or research; however, only if approved/controlled/financed by ALL or MOST
taxpayers. however, i still, affirm, that such studies or research would amount to a failure.

you have to go down to subatomic level to see what’s going on in any brain. and then what if you see it? alter the structure of all
brains or nervous structure?? i say not ever possible nor even necessary.
nature or god did best it could for us. there is no more to be had; thus, we were ok at point of time.
let’s study how we became what we became. and what we became and what we do we can see with naked eye. no , i affirm. no,
structure should not be altered. leave it be for along time or forever.

when it comes to research or scientific work on making ever ‘better’ weaponry, such as drones, voters via referendum should
decide whether to continue on that path and be enlightened about why make them and use them.
it seems to me that well-educated people would most likely say, Well, if no country is making drones, perhaps we shouldn’t
either. they even may demand to start reducing weapons we already have.

but most of us know that the 1% and their helpers: most researchers, ‘scientist’s, generals, congresspeople, MSM editors/owners,
teachers, et al would scoff at the ‘rabble’ having any say in this.

i could have skipped all of the above and just noted that clergy, teachers, politicians are wrong when they forever tell us that we
are not ok and thus need their tender and loving care/guidance or else we’d eat one another!
we got to tell these people: enough of that! we will not take it any longer! WE ARE OK! THANKS

Report this

By sanda1sculptorNYC, February 27, 2012 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment

Long ago, I learned that the Hopi society was very cooperative.  Long long ago, when I was young. Here comes another long awaited birthday: 18th birthday @72.
I’m celebrating.

Report this

By Caro, February 27, 2012 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

Yes, we are cooperative beings. I’d write a book about
it, if i could ever find a publisher.

Carolyn Kay

Report this

By gerard, February 27, 2012 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

Balkas:  Quoting you, “my concern is that what passes for science/scientists and their research in much of the word and US, may be financed by the ONE
  1. What does “much of the word” mean. I can’t catch your meaning. ... research is much of the word and US ...” ??
  2. As to “financed by the ONE PERCENT..”  you are right about that, but disapproving of the financers is not in itself enough to discount the value, though it certainly may have some bearing on results. Pharmaceutical companies are an outlandish example of the truth of what you say; they pay for results they want to establish. Unfortunately research costs money, and the 1% has all the money, which is part of our ptoblem, for sure! Yet thinking of many things like Salk and polio, (or many other medical descoveries) I can’t oppose the research purely on grounds of who paid for it. A good deal of it is for the public good.  And in the last analysis, facts are facts, evidence points to certain conclusions, no matter who does the study—at least until some new research and better research proves it wrong. 
  At the same time I have to admit that I (and probably everybody else) run on a huge tank of “intuition”—a kind of explosive gas that nobody has ever proven actually exists.  (Like the idea of God, perhaps.)  After all, we are ignorant fools, all of us, but it is extremely hard for some of us to admit it!

Report this

By berneredfeather, February 27, 2012 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The selfishness issue?

Its is self preservation in the first instance for a human to protect themselves
and in the second it is hard wired into the genes for the the mother bear to
protect her cubs. Pure selfishness when an adult kills a child.

I have read of psychology case where an only child became psychotic because
he felt that his parents did notlove him. In fact, they did, but because they were
very much into their loving relationship the child did not feel loved and felt
excluded. It is a matter in ths case of how one feels in relation to those around

In another case at Stanford University. The psychology department decided to
try an experiment. They chose volunteers from among students in the
department. One set of students were to be prisoners and another were to be
guards, in semi lock up situation. Those who were guards became very
demeaning and cruel towards the prisoners. The prisoners became very
submissive and fearful, some even suicidal. The experiment had to be shut
down after only a week. In this case it is a matter of the sense of hopelessness
or lack of control in life in the one group and the sense of abnormal power in
the other group.

There is much that is understood about psychology and the effect on people,
but there is a lot more to learn. Mostly we must learn how to understand
manipulation with intent. Democracy is some what about manipulation of the
greatest good for the greatest number. However, even in democracy, there are
groups of individuals who find themselves in position of either guard or
prisoner. I believe what has occured in N.America has caused a sense of
hopelessness in the 99% and a great number of people within the 1% have
become psychopathic.

My point is that the selfishness at the individual level mutates into a power
grab in the presence of like members and becomes an us against them
situation. It is hard to be objective about others when one side is trying to win a
positon in any bargaining situation. This winner take all attitude results in a lot
of collateral damage.

How do we as a society with the numbers of people involved create an
atmosphere where the greatest number has a sense of wellbeing and feels they
are apart of the we?

Report this

By balkas, February 27, 2012 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

i am not against [scientific] research that is not financed by individual donors, US govt, or corporations.
any research in any field is ok by me, if the people who conduct research are not only with us but also of us.
my concern is that what passes for science/scientists and their research in much of the word and US, may be financed by the ONE
and most of these researchers appear to be of THEM and with THEM and not us.

you need to read more slowly what i put down on paper. if you did that, you’d quote my statements instead of putting yours in my
and if you’d draw inference from my inferences, conclusions [generalizations] or facts, you’d posit them as yours and not mine.
the fact is, it is impossible to write stuff and in toto avoid all concluding, conjecturing and what have you.
so, it is ok to generalize now and then. however, one should own them and stress that they are yours and necessarily anybody else’s.
politicians, clergy, MSM columnists are particularly bad in such behavior. and i suggest they are aware of it but the public is not! thanks

Report this

By balkas, February 27, 2012 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

“godless communists and/or socialists and communism/socialism” i once again put under double quotes.
that’s not the conclusion [yes, all conclusions i evaluate as overgeneralizations or generalizations] i use.
if use a label that depicts a fiction, wishful thinking, condemnation, etc., such as “godless people”, i hope i never forget to put it under
i did read your question about when we ceased being fully humans, but in replying to you, i forgot about it.
here’s my answer: we started becoming less human anywhere between 12 k and 6k yrs ago; probably first of all in egypt, sumer, indus
valley, maybe even china.
and the process of dehumanizing humans to a ‘satisfying’ degree may have taken centuries or even millennia. it was thus difficult to

this process of dehumanizing humans to the degree that they would unquestioningly obey sacerdotal class first of all and later joined by
‘nobles’ in the enslavement of peasants/hunters had not happened to germanics and slavs until possibly just 1300-1700 yrs ago; when
they first came in contact with rome or perhaps even earlier than that when they learned of greek ‘civilization’ and for american
indigenes not until just barely 2 centuries.
both rome and greece, to me, were highly uncivilized in some behaviors.

but whatever the actualities, factors/actors in rendering humans less humans, the enserfment or pavlovization of people cannot be
denied. it is a fact!
so i could have skipped all of the above and just said s’mone/s’mwhen made us less human than god/nature intended.

Report this

By balkas, February 26, 2012 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

shen dear,
that is very interesting post. do admit, tho. me being a very slow thinker, analizer, evaluator i would need
days to understand all you or others are saying in your post.
however it may be—and whatever that post is trying to say—it does not explain how a human being can
atom bomb civilians and sleep well after doing that.
alas, that’s the study, they are not doing, right?
btw, are they looking for the cure for such behavior?

or how’s their science gonna help stop killing women and children?
please let me know when these researchers find the cure for that.  are they getting corporate money for the
consider also possibility that we are devolving and not evolving. the nature or god may have no finished with
us yet.
this theory [ok, guess, conjecture] ‘explains’ things better than any other. re: what scientists discover today
[and whether we’re [de]volving may not be what we’d be tomorrow or in decades, centuries, millennia.
however, if we stay the same…....

Report this

By gerard, February 26, 2012 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment

balkas:  Sorry to have offended you. “Statements like: “It is much simpler than all these modern theories and conjectures ... etc.” are examples of both over-generalization and disdain for research.
Frankly, our problems are complex and only vaguely understood. That means theory, and then research to test theory, has never been more needed.
  I appreciate your desire to simplify complex situations, but my experience leads me to understand that it can’t be done.  Cliches like “godless communism and socialism” (also oversimplified generalities) set my hair on fire!  Too bad.
  Another article in this string today gives advice on how to help people accept new facts coming in from research on global warming that threaten their self-image. The recipe is to try to show them how they will benefit from accepting the new facts.
  It is self-evident from research by this time that burning fossil fuels is causing dangerous changes that bring about gradual global warming and if not immediately reversed will extinguish life on earth, in the foreseeable future. There is no way that this knowledge can be dished out in a way that doesn’t
“threaten the self-image” of every living being on earth.
  Scorn research at your peril!  It is true, of course, that not all research is equal—but that’s another problem depending on who, what, where, why and when the research was done, who funded it, for what purpose, and how does it compare with other research on the same subject.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 26, 2012 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

Only ten times, dear heart balkas?  M’thinks you prevaricate out of envy
and spite.  It’s all right, I haven’t notice that you affect anyone on the
forums anyway.  Like how long exactly, balkas, has it been since we
ceased being fully human?  You may never come to understand the
human nervous system and how it works or determines actions but there
are scientists who do have amazing insights and are on the brink of
understanding precisely how it works.  Do some browsing of the science
magazines and journals, you might become more optimistic and

This article is about how human cooperation evolved. But the researchers
and the reviewer of the article only go back to the point where humans
already had formed their upright bipedal anatomy into tribes and clans. 

If anyone wants to call cooperation or altruism natural or learned traits
due to a selfish nature, one has to go farther back in organic
development to understand the motive for cooperation and altruism. 
Darwin proposed that animal primeval social behavior also was the result
of natural selection.  But that also is after populations evolved for the
natural selection to be able to take place.  The implication is that the
impulse for cooperation begins at the cellular level and is a natural trait.

To understand the evolution of organisms, ecology and evolutionary
biologists, Michod and Roze, published the results of their study of the
evolution of multicellular organisms, (Cooperation and Conflict in the
Evolution of Individuality) and noted that evolutionary change is based
on changes in the genetic makeup of “populations” over time. 
Populations, not individual organisms, evolve.  Therefore the natural
formation of life shows up as groups not as individuals, and the
conclusion is that there naturally must be cooperation even at the
cellular level else the species die off.  If a model of group formation at
the cellular level exists, then a similar model at the macro-fully formed
human anatomical level exists as well.

Richard Dawkins theorized that we should try to teach generosity and
altruism, because we are born selfish. (The Selfish Gene).  However,
Martin Nowak, a mathematical biologist, declared recently, in a
Science magazine article “Five Rules for the Evolution of
Cooperation, “Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of evolution is its
ability to generate cooperation in a competitive world. Thus, we might
add ‘natural cooperation’ as a third fundamental principle of evolution
beside mutation and natural selection.”  Evolutionary biologists and
psychologists have even found neural and, possibly, genetic evidence of
a human predisposition to cooperate. (The Unselfish Gene)  So the
debate rages on and on and on. 

As long as there are increasing populations, the evolution of cooperative
societies does not look too promising.

Report this

By balkas, February 26, 2012 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment

i don’t think, i know you did not understand my
post. and personal attacks prove it.

Report this

By balkas, February 26, 2012 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

shen, dear,
“cause and effect” as in when s’mbody lies to you [being a cause] causing you to
see the stars [effect]
and which causes another cause such as killing a person. and that cause causes
another cause: you wind up in prison. yes, yes, yes shen, dear. is that the tenth
time you’ve ben right this year?
you’re, then, doing better than me.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 26, 2012 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

It is sometimes useful to look at things wholly, from all sides, rather than propagandistically.

That might help us understand why so many people denounce capitalism, while so few do anything (other than talk) to move beyond it.

Report this

By balkas, February 26, 2012 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment

correction: only the structure of our nervous system, which we may not ever
understand or know how it works, determines our actions.

and i may add, we better be aware of that fact and leave the subject alone or at
least be aware of perils of arriving at any definite conclusions about it.
the writers should have stressed this important fact and the gone on theorising,
conjecturing, etc.

Report this

By balkas, February 26, 2012 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

let’s please evaluate just one of the statements in this piece. it is the opening one:
“one of the fundamental questions in modern economics is whether humans act out of self-interest or they’re motivated by something else.”

you’d note that “acting in self-interest” is put in either-or structure of language: either one acts in self-interest or not. this structure seldom fits
reality or actualities and never in most important ones.
and everybody can prove it.
a mother will risk her life to save a child’s even if a grizzly bear attacked it. so, where is that self-interest only and not also self-, societal-, specie-,
and child’s-interest.
but examples abound where people, help people and animals, and end up dead or succeed in the mission.
only the structure of the nervous system—which we may not ever wholly understand how it works.
it will react correctly, i aver, in all instances only if that nervous system had not been impaired by acquisition of false knowledge or if humans would
not be dehumanized to the degree that we ALL ARE.

THE POINT IS, WE’VE CEASED BEING FULLY HUMAN long time ago; thanks to out ‘teachers’: clergy and nobles.
thus, all evaluating, including why we murder, abuse, exploit, lie, deceive, etc., must start from this fact.

the two writers begin their evaluation from a premise that we are mentally ok. that leads to more confusion not less. it perforce, cannot be
otherwise, but to lead to more ignorance.

it beats me that people can throw two atom bombs on civilians and still shout god bless america! or murder women and children all over the globe
and cry for more of it.
are they acting in self-interest or not or are motivated by s’mthing else or not? who in half-sane mind cares for an explanation of that in lofty
note please that this “motivated by something else” [or not something else] could mean almost everything under the sun. so, go look for it if you
want. i am not going to!
[and above else this piece appears in a right wing site—much supportive of the 1%e]
i am often astounded that it had not deleted even one of my posts thus far.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 26, 2012 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

Uniquely, humans contemplate causes and effects.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 26, 2012 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

Uniquely, human contemplate causes and effects.

Report this

By felicity, February 26, 2012 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

Adam Smith, the ‘father’ of laissez-faire capitalism,
realized that capitalism, a system thriving on
competition (not cooperation), if left to its own
devices would result in huge cartels, trusts,
corporations which would not only destroy competition
but would also create a society of a few haves and
multitudes of have-nots.

HOWEVER, he also (incorrectly, he realized much
later) believed that people were naturally
empathetic, sympathetic, maybe even altruistic and
thus would ‘correct’ the system when it became
obvious that the vast majority of its citizens were
destitute. He found it unimaginable that a human
being would walk by a fellow human being who was
starving to death and do nothing about it.  Boy, was
he wrong (which, again, he eventually realized.)

It seems to me that ‘competition/capitalism’
naturally discourages cooperation. Any arguments
refuting that?

Report this

By gerard, February 26, 2012 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

balkas:  Disdain for researchers and specialists is a very destructive attitude—especially these days when so much needs to be explored and discovered and taught to so many people so quickly. That ideal village in your head requires backward-looking romanticism and with present population densities would be impossible to achieve. Also, if you stop to to think about it, it might take as long as one hour for the village of 100 to establish its own 1% either by choice or by force.
  Something more profound than an exercise in long division is required here.

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, February 26, 2012 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

“Capitalism is largely a system of voluntary cooperation, at least in capitalist (liberal) theory.”

Anarcissie: your words above and below.

“Mafias tend to be mostly feudal—systems of almost unlimited personal obligation and personal allegiance to a leader and to the clan.”

You present the public relations face of Capitalism; the contorted attempt to present a system that feeds upon the darker human impulses as something “civilized”.

American human slavery is a prime example of “unchecked” capitalism; the ultimate “right to work” States

Report this

By balkas, February 26, 2012 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

to me, it is much simpler than all these modern theories and conjectures would lead us to evaluate as true
or false.
living interdependently to a degree is all we need to try do. eg, say, in a village of 100 people, all of them
[once such an interdependence would be obtained would say: we need no more equality on military-
politico-econo-educational level and more interdependence than what we already have obtained.
such a village would still need a teacher, doctor, lawyer, dentist, mayor, roofer, sower, planter, reaper, fisher
or two—or share them with a similarly-minded village or even a town.

however, do you think the one percent would ever allow such an experiment?? no, not ever!
and these researchers should know that US was such an experiment in living interdependently and 99% of
them had avowed that they obtained enough of it!
and they do not want more of it than what they have obtained. any other changes, to the 99%, would be just
dreaded and godless communism or socialism.
so, are these researchers onto this, pulling our leg, or playing us as idiots?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 26, 2012 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

Cats and dogs have empathic and sympathetic capacities.  Indeed, they are often more sensitive to feelings in others than humans.  What humans and some of the other great apes have in this area that cats and dogs appear to lack is the ability to project themselves into the consciousness, the cognitions and perceptions, of another.

Report this
kerryrose's avatar

By kerryrose, February 26, 2012 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

There is a book by Jeremy Rifkin called ‘The Empathic Civilization’ that makes the case the evolution of humanity is linked with the evolution of our empathic capabilities.

Here is a great overview link to the book:

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 26, 2012 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

Capitalism is largely a system of voluntary cooperation, at least in capitalist (liberal) theory.

Mafias tend to be mostly feudal—systems of almost unlimited personal obligation and personal allegiance to a leader and to the clan. 

Empathy, knowing what another feels, is an important survival characteristic and appears almost as soon as nervous systems large enough to support it evolve.  While it might facilitate cooperation, it is not required for it and does not necessarily lead to it.

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, February 26, 2012 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

“cooperative drive arising from natural selection has more to do with human behavior than Milton Friedman would have us believe.”

Good stuff:

If the Mafia were given free reign and allowed to develop their ideal economic system Capitalism would be it. A system that admittedly carters to the greedy and the narrow minded (short sighted goals). This hypothetical Mafia born system would be “brutally” enforced and being run by thugs any other economic systems that might offer a way out for the “cheap labor” would be “taken for a ride” (that is Mafia talk for snuffed out).

We killed 3.5 million people in Vietnam because the Democratically (UN monitored vote) chose Communism-Socialism. “kill a Commie for mommie!”

The rules are pretty simple; either you join the “Global Market” or you die! Countries who dare to put their natural resources (oil, minerals…) beyond the reach of NAFTA and the WTO by Nationalizing them usually pay with their lives; “send in SEAL team 6”! The history of South and Central America and the Middle East and Africa overflow with examples. Even the people themselves are considered commodities; the value of their surplus labor being taken by the few is nothing more than slavery, repackaged to look humane. The owner of Foxconn is one of the riches men in the world.

Report this

By gerard, February 25, 2012 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment

Just what we need to hear about these days! Thanks.

Report this

sign up to get updates

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.