Posts Tagged ‘gene egoísta’

Tema Para Fim de Semana: Está o Gene Egoísta ou o Sociável Dominando Você e os Outros?

sábado, janeiro 28th, 2012

xxx

S. E. Gould, a biochemist writing for Lab Rat

Dois recentes artigos são a base deste tema:

Scientific Americam – Blogs

On selfish genes and human behaviour Sôbre Genes Egoístas e Comportamento Humano
By S.E. Gould – January 28, 2012

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/2012/01/28/on-selfish-genes-and-human-behaviour/

E o artigo:

Lies We Tell Ourselves

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lies-we-tell-ourselves

By Michael Shermer –

Bem, para ler êste temos que subscrever e não tenho tempo para isso agora, mas acho que o primeiro é suficiente, vamos traduzi-lo e comenta-lo:

I’m safely back from my honeymoon, and I was catching up on the Scientific American articles when …

Raios! Para que uma cientista num artigo cientifico tem que começar propagando sua vida particular sexual?!

The article is by Michael Shermer, and you can read it here. It’s about human deception and deception-deception (the process by which we deceive ourselves into believing our deceptions). Called “the lies we tell ourselves” I’ll do a quick summary here:

O artigo é de Michael Shermer, e voc6e pode ler êle no artigo endereçado abaixo. É sôbre falsidade humana e falsidade-mentira ( o processo pelo qual nós passamos a acreditar em nossas próprias mentiras). Intitulado “as mentiras que contamos a nós mesmos”, farei aqui um breve resumo:

It starts off the main argument with the quote: “A selfish gene model of evolution dictates that we should maximise our reproductive success through cunning and deceit”. It then points out that due to game theory we are aware that everyone else is also using cunning and deceit, which means the best way to go is to “feign transparency and honesty and lure them into complacency before you defect and grab the spoils”. He finishes off with the idea that this is where morality comes from: “It is not enough to fake being a good person … you actually have to be a good person by believing it yourself and acting accordingly.”

Começa pelo principal argumento com a seguinte cota: ” O modelo evolucionista do gene egoísta indica que nós devemos maximizar nosso sucesso reprodutivo através da astucia e engano”. Aponta que devido à teoria dos jogos nós estamos conscientes que todos os outros estão aplicando falsidade e astucia, o que significa que o melhor jeito de seguir é “fingir transparência e honestidade conduzindo os outros à complacência, a aceitar-nos com simpatia, antes de cair-mos encima e nos apossar de seus despojos”. Termina com a idéia que é disso que a moralidade vem: “Não é suficiente falsear sendo uma boa pessoa … você realmente tem que ser uma boa pessoa por acreditar nisto voc6e mesmo, e atuar de acordo.”

Bem… tenho que parar agora, então jogo o artigo inteiro aqui para voltar a traduzir e começar nossa pesquisa e critica. Mas antes deixa-me escrever na pressa a primeira opinião da Matrix/DNA Theory

The Matrix/DNA Theory:

A Matrix/DNA Theory sugere uma diferente explicação nêste assunto. A biosfera é o estado caótico da Natureza, não o estado de equilibrio e ordem. Os humanos são produtos selvagens dêsse caos, o qual determina que competição e egoísmo sejam requisitos necessarios para sobrevivência, segurança e prazer. Mas de onde veio o estado caótico? O que produziu a biosfera n6esse estado? Decaimento de um ancestral existindo em estado de ordem auto-esgotada para a evolução da complexidade. Quem é o ancestral? O planeta Terra e seu sistema astronomico, o qual produziu a biosfera e dentro do qual ela surgiu. Um macro-sistema decaído pela entropia se colapsa, se fragmenta em seus bits-informação (fotons-genes), se espalham internamente ao sistema, e ao se encontrarem no mesmo ponto do espaço-tempo num local que reune condições suficientes, reproduz o sistema ancestral com novo material e portanto, miniaturizado e mutado.

O sistema astronomico é fechado em si mesmo, inclusive se replica reciclando-se por si mesmo. É a extrema expressão do egoísmo, em relação ao mundo externo. Esta caracteristica de personalidade passou por todos os ancestrais vivos dos seres humanos e continua nos extratos humanos mais subdesenvolvidos intelectualmentem determinando inclusive quem é selecionado naturalmente como mais poderoso na sociedade. Acontece que em dado momento a humanidade passou por nova mutação da qual emergiu a formação de um novo sistema natural, denominado “auto-consciência”. Hoje, dentro de cada humano ocorre uma competição, uma espécie de conflito cerebral: ou domina o cérebro com sua personalidade dominada pelo egoísmo oriundo do caos, ou domina o novo sistema abstracto hierarquicamente superior da auto-consciência.

Assim como S.E. Gould e Bora Zivkovic ficam incomodados e indignados com certas verdades nêste tema, eu tambem, o que denota que intimamente desejamos a predominancia da moral auto-consciente sôbre a moral emergente da nossa Natureza. Se o desejamos temos que atuar, competir com os propagandistas adversários e elaborar estratégias. Nêste plano nosso debate deve prosseguir.

Tradução para Inglês:

The Matrix / DNA Theory suggest a different explanation in this matter. The biosphere is the chaotic state of Nature, not the state of balance and order. Humans are products of this chaos wild, which requires competition and selfishness as necessary requirements for survival, security and pleasure. But where the chaotic state comes from? What produced the biosphere in this state? Decay of an ancestral state of order existing in self-exhausted to the evolution of complexity. Who is the ancestor? The planet Earth and its astronomical system, which produced and within who the biosphere arose. A macro-system declined by entropy collapses itself, breaks into their information-bits (photons-genes), which are spread within the system, and when they met at the same point of space-time in a place that gathers sufficient conditions, the system plays ancestor with new material and therefore, miniaturized and mutated.

The astronomical system is closed in itself, including replicates by recycling itself. It is the extreme expression of selfishness, in relation to the outside world. This feature of personality became the living ancestors of human beings and dominates the humans that remain in the underdeveloped intellectual extract determining who is selected as the most naturally powerful in society. It turns out that humanity at one point went through a new mutation which emerged the formation of a new natural system, called “self-consciousness.” Today, within each human being is occurring a competition, a sort of internal conflict in the brain: or is dominant the personality dominated by selfishness coming from chaos, or dominates the new superior abstract system of self-consciousness.

As Bora Zivkovic and S. E. Gould become annoyed and outraged reading some truth in issue, I also, which denotes that inwardly we desire the emerging moral from self-conscious over our inherited kind of natural moral. If we want to act, to compete with opponents and propagandists at the other side, who occupies the powerful economic and political positions of this society, we need strategize. In this way our debate here must continue.

xxx

Continuando a tradução ( se alguem puder fazer isso, agradeceremos. Lembre-se: traduzir por conta própria um tema é uma ótima maneira de assimilar tudo e refletir sôbre o tema):

So that is how human behaviour works. If you’re a cunning, sneaky, nasty person it’s because that’s how your genes tell you to be. If you’re a good, honest and truthful person it’s because you’ve successfully managed to buy your own con.

Is this way of thinking justified?

No.

Starting at the beginning then with that wonderful “selfish-gene model of evolution”. The “selfish gene” was a metaphor used by Dawkins to explain gene-based evolution. Genes are not literally selfish any more than rocks are. And selfish was just one word, “opportunistic” might have been a better one, because genes don’t work alone. Many of them need other genes, or entire gene clusters in order to function. They need proteins, and the study of protein evolution and epigenetics is an exciting subject in its own right. There’s been some interesting work as well into lipid evolution and how the composition of the cell membrane when cells divide can determine their fate. No gene is an island.

And even if ‘selfish’ is a useful metaphor to explain genetic behavour, why on earth is it a sensible idea to abstract that up to human behaviour? Sure our genes help to determine our behavour, but so do our proteins, our neurons, our cells, our social surroundings and a whole host of other factors. Individual cells in the human body are not selfish, they are in fact highly cooperative and communist. Each cell must obey orders exactly, and if it doesn’t it must commit suicide instantly. There are some cells that break away into an individualist life of freedom but these are cancer cells.

Why must the selfish-gene model predict human behavour, why not the communist-cell one?

In fact, why not go further down? Why not look at the way atoms, or quarks behave, and then say that humans must behave like that!

Two glances around in any human society will tell you that humans are manifestly not selfish individuals all waiting for a change to “defect and grab the spoils”. Human society doesn’t work like that. If you break down society, people don’t just scatter to the selfish winds, they form new little societies to survive within. Look at the internet – a great anarchic gathering of people from all societies, with no rules thrust upon them, and what are the most popular sites (disregarding pornography)? Social networks, social forums and online communities. People like being social, they like being with others. Sure they exhibit selfish behaviour within those societies, but they also show behaviour which is loving, altruistic, angry, excited, and a whole range of emotions that the “selfish-gene” model does not abstract too. There is no reason to arbitrarily decide that any conventionally ”Good” emotion is a deception-deception.

Human societies evolve by human cooperation. By the sharing of knowledge and resources, by the protecting of those more vulnerable, and the slow and shaky development of general morals. These morals are decisions made by the society (or occasionally by the one tyrant in charge of the society, but nothing is perfect) about what behaviours are acceptable. Looking at society this way isn’t it just as justifiable that cooperation and sharing are the “natural” human behaviours? That people who cheat are somehow deceiving themselves into believing that they don’t need society, and have deceived themselves so well that they believe it?

These aren’t identical to the way our genes behave because people are not genes. Behaviours are emergent properties of humanity, not dictated attributes of our component parts. People are largely made up of water, yet no-one suggests that lying down and sort of sloshing around is natural human behaviour.

If you want to study human morality, you really need to start asking philosophers. That’s what they’re there for. Historians, anthropologists, even literature students and theologians are equipped with the understanding and the tools used to discuss human society, emotions and behaviour. This is an area that scientists can find interesting, and even contribute too, but in studies of behaviour and morality science is simply not the major player.

I’m sure there are great ways to build a secular civil society. But basing your foundations on the unjustified abstraction of a dodgy metaphor is not a good way to go about it.