Altruism

Altruism

Altruism is a concept which it is very important to be able to understand in our current situation.  You may have heard of ‘Pathological Altruism’ as it is proposed by Professor Kevin MacDonald, but if you don’t understand basic Altruism to start with, then the ‘weaponised’ pathological variety will be harder to grasp.

I remember a tutorial I had with my own tutor in Psychology, Dr (now Professor) John Blundell on this subject about forty years ago now, when I was an undergraduate.

Is Altruism an attitude and behaviour that has evolved as part of our biological adaptation and ingrained in our genetic heritage, or is it merely a modern social invention arising from religions, or social construction in recent times?

To investigate this question we need to look at what exactly ‘altruistic’ behaviour is and how it works.

The simple version of altruism is when someone does something for another without hope or expectation of immediate reward.  I remember like it was yesterday the discussion in our tutorial in which some argued that a ‘delayed gratification’ model of altruism in which the actor anticipated some payback at a later date was merely disguised selfishness and that therefore ‘altruism’ had no real existence, or at least not in the sense that we first understood it ~ ‘Unselfish Behaviour’.

One should not be too hard on a bunch of twenty year old undergrads.  The Cultural Marxist indoctrination was less severe back in the mid seventies than it is today, but nonetheless a fairly good job had already been done over centuries, and even millennia, in persuading people to believe that humans are fundamentally selfish and grasping creatures who would sell their mothers for a pittance.

A small percentage of our population, commonly known as psychopaths, or the better camouflaged sociopaths, do indeed have such characteristics, but their numbers are small, in the region of 3-5% of the general population.

There may well be good reason in evolutionary survival adaptation terms for such a group to exist, but if the other 95% or so all behaved like that as well, over hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary time, then it would be seriously counter-survival adaptive, at least in some environmental situations.

Social animals such as humans need to develop group psychologies which enhance their survival prospects, and so giving a gift of free energy of some sort to another is part of the group cohesion and reinforcement strategy.  Our ancestors lived in tribal or extended family groups in which everyone was kin. 

We must see ourselves as group organisms.  Individuation is an important developmental process, but should be seen as the maturation of cells within an organism.  The survival of the group is the principle purpose.  Things that individuals might do which benefit the tribe or other individuals within it increase the strength and wellbeing of the tribe and so are both reinforced in social behaviour, and selected for in reproduction.  Thus genetically inherited dispositions to group support is reinforced. 

It is important to remember that different circumstances may lead to different adapted characteristics.  The altruistic group behaviour described is likely to be more successful in northern environmental conditions because of the co-operative imperative to prepare for winter, whereas hot desert cultures might use dominance strategies to control limited resources such as water and have different approaches to social cohesion.

Regardless, the strategy which has evolved for whatever group is designed for that group in their historic environment and not for another in a different ecological relationship to that environment.

Thus it is essential to understand that altruism is an evolutionary strategy which is based on in group preference.  That is simply to say that it prefers itself, and does so because that way it reinforces and thus perpetuates itself.

This is the evolutionary basis of altruism, and when versions of altruism are instituted which are based on abstract principle rather than evolutionary function, we find ourselves coming unstuck.

One can imagine a culture strong enough to have energy to spare for a lost stranger, or shipwrecked sailors such as those of the Armada became on the west coast of Ireland.  But here lies the rub.  One stranger is no threat, and evokes sympathy, shipwrecked sailors the same.  But those same shipwrecked sailors were a short time before aggressors poised to invade.  The lost stranger may seem different if he opens the door in the night and lets in his band of robbers to loot and murder those who have taken him in.

And this is where altruism meets its limits.  Since it is, in its essence, a group survival strategy, a psychology of group self perception that is biologically encoded, then the moment this is extended to more than the most limited amount of outsiders it endangers itself.

This is the ‘Pathological Altruism’ which Professor MacDonald has proposed and which is only an expression of logical evolutionary imperatives.

What is of concern is those of universalist religions who claim that there should be no in-group preferences, or that only certain groups should be allowed them.

Allow me a digression for the purpose of illustration.  In my garden I have many different plants and beds and pathways.  I can never keep it all under control, but there are certain parts which I prioritise so that I never let them become completely overgrown, like some other parts which I rarely cut back.  I have to keep certain vigorous plants from ever getting into my more tidily kept beds because they would overrun the less aggressive plants which are all coexisting together.  If I was ‘altruistic’ to these plants then I would disadvantage and endanger the others.  One might also point out that if I were to plant some of my shyer and more tender plants in the rough where the aggressive rampant weeds are, they would not survive long, because they are not adapted to that kind of competition.

I am seeing quite a lot of criticism of the position of the current Pope who is exposing the weakest and most vulnerable aspect of Christianity at present.  He openly has stated that he seeks to emulate St Francis, and appears to be trying to force us all to do the same.  But while it is one thing for an individual or his followers to explore such a spiritual path voluntarily in service to the world, to seek to impose it on us all is a tyranny. 

There seems to be something of a co-ordinated attempt to enforce this universalist view on the world at present.  It is a thought virus reminiscent of the 1968 Cultural Revolution in China, which seeks to overturn every single example or reminder of what conventional culture has been since time immemorial.

The only consolation is the knowledge that this cannot last forever, since it stands against natural law.  Boundaries do exist in nature, there are cell walls and different streams of energy, going different ways.  Organisms compete.  We are not All One, we are the myriad parts within One System.  If those parts were all the same then the system would cease to have any meaning.

Altruism exists to promote the groups within which it has evolved.  A successful and generous culture which has this characteristic is able to help others, and this is not a bad thing.  However, what is presently being pressed on us very strongly is not only an excess of generosity to outgroups but a dearth of generosity to our own.  To sacrifice one’s own people and culture for those people who see you as no more than an opportunity to be exploited is not altruism, it is suicide.

The Christians who follow Pope Francis’s urgings are doing two things here.  They are forcing us all to suffer the consequences of their moral obsession, whilst simultaneously ‘virtue signalling’ to the rest of us how righteous they are.  In my own personal experience the most vocal on this subject, and those most critical of us who question the practicality of unbounded altruism, are those who are least likely to be found anywhere near a migrant, and certainly are not inviting them into their own homes, but are rather advocating that others do so, and that others pay for it.

This is to me no more than Pharisaic hypocrisy, and a delusion which we must not allow ourselves to be influenced by.  We must return to the evolutionary survival imperatives which served us in the past, not abandon them to some speculative theory of the universalists.  To suggest that we should not put our own kin first is an abomination which goes against nature.

Altruism should not be seen as an abstract ideal, but as a practical ethical behaviour to your own tribe.  It can be summed up in but four words of an ancient proverb ~ Charity begins at home.  Charity in the sense that the Christians use it, karitas ‘affection’ or ‘love of one’s fellow’.  If one chooses to ignore the needs of kin, and put strangers first then there is something seriously awry.  We don’t even need to touch on the predatory nature of many of these strangers.

‘Altruism’ towards them is a false and corrupted version of the real thing incentivised with the opportunity to virtue signal one’s superiority for doing so, but is in fact betrayal of one’s own. 

I recall at least one occasion in Star Trek when Captain Picard risked the life of his crew and stood down weapons claiming something like ‘a truly civilised people would not be aggressive’ or some such nonsense.  We cannot make such judgements. Our loyalty should not be to abstract ideas first, but to our biological heritage and our kin, they are our physical life force and without them we do not even exist.

Be altruistic and promote the well being of your own people, that is the command of Natural Law.