>I have always formulated this for myself as follows: Any sufficiently strategic self-interest is indistinguishable from altruism.
This "sufficiently strategic self-interest" is the same kind of non-existing unicorn as the "sufficiently smart compiler".
>Empathy is just evolution's way of encoding millions of years of this observation into our emotional response system.
Evolution (if we abstract it as a thing with intentions) is satisfied with the survival of the species. If the individual perishes, it's fine as long as they either protected their offspring or helped the others in their species survive, there will be more of them (because this actions help the species survive more and make more copies of itself, so species with members who will sacrifices themselves for the species get an advantage). Individual ants and bees for example will sacrifice themselves for the collective.
So, empathy that drives altruistic acts is not the same as "strategic self-interest". If we are to see it in a reductionary way, let's do it properly: usually it's the interest of the species (or the offspring) driving it.
> So, empathy that drives altruistic acts is not the same as "strategic self-interest". If we are to see it in a reductionary way, let's do it properly: usually it's the interest of the species (or the offspring) driving it.
I'm sorry for that bug in the system, sir; we were short of time while designing this whole shebang. The happiness of the individual and a bunch of other things were not really a goal but, as you have cleverly noted, a biochemical feedback to get them to play. But now you have outgrown natural evolution--our sloppy design strategy--and you can fix this bug on your own. Off the top of my head, you could add a magic mushroom that makes people immortal and infertile. But surely you can come up with something better. Now back to enjoying my retirement. God.
This "sufficiently strategic self-interest" is the same kind of non-existing unicorn as the "sufficiently smart compiler".
>Empathy is just evolution's way of encoding millions of years of this observation into our emotional response system.
Evolution (if we abstract it as a thing with intentions) is satisfied with the survival of the species. If the individual perishes, it's fine as long as they either protected their offspring or helped the others in their species survive, there will be more of them (because this actions help the species survive more and make more copies of itself, so species with members who will sacrifices themselves for the species get an advantage). Individual ants and bees for example will sacrifice themselves for the collective.
So, empathy that drives altruistic acts is not the same as "strategic self-interest". If we are to see it in a reductionary way, let's do it properly: usually it's the interest of the species (or the offspring) driving it.